Never Again? A 2015 Reflection on Marcos, Martial Law, and Historical Memory

Originally published October 31, 2015

Archive note: This article was originally written in 2015, during the period when Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. was seeking the vice presidency. It is preserved here as part of my early blogging history. Some of my views, arguments, and understanding of Philippine history have developed since this was first published.

This is a response to the Inquirer.net article “‘Never Again’ Is Not Just About Marcos.”

I do not claim to be an expert on Philippine history or politics. I write simply as a Filipino citizen who believes that political issues should be examined critically rather than accepted according to one political narrative alone.

Should Filipinos Forget Martial Law?

The article argued that Bongbong Marcos wanted Filipinos to forget—or even deny—the abuses committed during his father's rule.

I disagreed with presenting his position that simply.

Remembering history is important. A country that forgets its past risks repeating its mistakes. But remembering should also involve reading, questioning, comparing sources, and understanding the larger context rather than merely repeating slogans from either political camp.

“Moving on” should never mean erasing history.

At the same time, remembering the past should not prevent people from independently evaluating present-day political candidates.

The challenge is to do both: remember history and judge today's leaders according to evidence.

A Son Is Not Automatically His Father

One point in the Inquirer article with which I agreed was that children should not automatically be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.

Bongbong Marcos was not Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

That distinction mattered to me in 2015, and it remains a reasonable principle when evaluating any political family. A candidate should be examined according to his own actions, statements, record, policies, and character.

That does not mean family history becomes irrelevant.

If a candidate publicly defends, minimizes, or misrepresents actions associated with his family's political history, those statements can legitimately become part of the public's evaluation of him.

But criticism should still focus on evidence rather than guilt merely by association.

“Never Again” Should Be Bigger Than One Family

The strongest point of the phrase “Never Again” is not that a particular surname should forever be prohibited from holding public office.

Its deeper lesson should be that Filipinos must remain vigilant against the concentration and abuse of political power.

That principle should apply regardless of surname, political party, region, ideology, or family.

If we condemn authoritarianism only when it comes from politicians we dislike but tolerate abuses committed by politicians we support, then we have misunderstood the lesson.

“Never Again” should mean never again to dictatorship.

Never again to abuse of power.

Never again to violations of people's rights.

Never again to political institutions becoming tools of one person or one family.

And never again to citizens surrendering their responsibility to question those who govern them.

Social Media and the New Political Generation

Another issue I raised in 2015 was the growing role of social media.

Many younger Filipinos were already receiving political information through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other online platforms rather than traditional history books and newspapers.

That created both an opportunity and a danger.

Digital platforms can make history more accessible. They can introduce younger people to political debates they might otherwise ignore.

But they can also spread misleading information much faster.

This means that political participation online should involve more than sharing memes, slogans, edited videos, or partisan posts.

Read beyond the headline.

Check the source.

Compare opposing claims.

Study history beyond Facebook.

And question politicians—even the ones you support.

History Is More Complicated Than Political Loyalty

When I originally wrote this article, I strongly resisted what I perceived as the assumption that anyone willing to support Bongbong Marcos must be ignorant of history.

I still believe political disagreement should not automatically become an accusation of stupidity or ignorance.

Filipinos can study the same period and reach different political conclusions.

But disagreement also does not make every historical claim equally valid.

There are facts that can be investigated through documents, court decisions, government records, testimonies, scholarly research, and other evidence.

Critical thinking therefore requires something more difficult than simply choosing between “pro-Marcos” and “anti-Marcos.”

It requires being willing to challenge information even when it supports our own political preference.

What Should “Never Again” Mean?

The phrase should not belong exclusively to one political group.

It should serve as a warning to every generation.

Never again should Filipinos blindly surrender power to political leaders.

Never again should loyalty to a politician become more important than loyalty to truth.

Never again should history be reduced to propaganda—from either side.

And never again should political disagreement prevent Filipinos from examining evidence for themselves.

We cannot change what happened in the past.

But we can decide how carefully we study it, what lessons we learn from it, and how those lessons influence the leaders we choose in the future.

Remember the past. Question the present. Think for yourself.

— JP Abecilla, October 2015

The Graffiti of Moral Degeneration: Faith, Reason, and the Meaning of Freedom

The day when the people celebrates on the U.S. Supreme Court's rule on same-sex marriage. 

Photo from The Atlantic.

Originally published July 11, 2015

A society can become more technologically advanced while becoming less certain about the moral principles that should guide it.

We live in a culture increasingly shaped by entertainment, personal fulfillment, emotion, and individual freedom. None of these things is necessarily wrong. The problem begins when pleasure becomes the measure of what is good, personal desire becomes the measure of what is right, and moral truth is reduced to whatever society is willing to accept at a particular moment.

For Christians, this raises an important question:

Should Christian faith be set aside whenever society discusses morality, equality, freedom, law, and culture?

I do not believe so.

Is Faith Still Relevant to Moral Reasoning?

Christianity should not be treated as though faith automatically means the absence of reason.

Christian belief has historically made claims about truth, human nature, morality, justice, dignity, responsibility, and the purpose of life. Christians therefore have every right to bring those convictions into public discussion, just as people with secular, philosophical, political, or cultural worldviews bring their own assumptions into the same discussion.

That does not mean the Bible should simply be imposed upon everyone in a pluralistic society.

It does mean that Christians should not be expected to abandon their convictions merely because those convictions are religious.

A society committed to genuine intellectual freedom should be capable of hearing religious arguments, secular arguments, and philosophical arguments—and examining each according to its reasoning and evidence.

Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies

A graffito along Escario Road going to Ayala Cebu 

- Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.

Photo by J.P. Abecilla

I believe faith and reason belong together.

Christian faith should never become an excuse for ignorance, intellectual laziness, or hostility toward questions. At the same time, reason should not be defined so narrowly that anything involving God, Scripture, or religious belief is automatically dismissed as irrational.

The Christian Scriptures themselves encourage believers to think carefully about what they believe.

First Peter 3:15 says:

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

Notice that Christians are instructed not merely to believe, but to be prepared to give a reason for that belief.

Just as importantly, the verse requires that this be done with meekness and respect.

That matters.

A Christian argument becomes weaker when conviction turns into contempt. There are religious people who behave arrogantly and secular people who behave arrogantly. Neither group should be judged entirely by its worst representatives.

The failures of some preachers do not invalidate Christianity, just as the failures of some secular thinkers do not invalidate every secular argument.

The Authorized King James Version. 

Mr. Abecilla's personal Bible.

Photo by J.P. Abecilla

What Do We Mean by Freedom?

One of the central questions of modern society concerns freedom.

Freedom is valuable. But freedom itself does not automatically tell us what is good.

A person may be free to make a decision while the decision itself can still be wise or foolish, moral or immoral, beneficial or destructive.

Christianity therefore understands freedom as something more than the ability to do whatever one desires.

From a Christian perspective, genuine freedom is connected to truth and moral responsibility.

Jesus said:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32

That is very different from saying that whatever makes us happy must therefore be right.

Desire alone cannot establish morality.

Emotion alone cannot establish truth.

Popularity alone cannot establish goodness.

And neither religious nor secular people should assume that an idea becomes correct simply because society has become comfortable with it.

Truth Is Not Determined by Popularity

Perhaps the deeper disagreement between traditional Christianity and much of modern secular culture concerns the nature of truth itself.

Is moral truth something we discover, or something we create?

Christianity teaches that truth ultimately exists independently of individual preference. Human beings may understand it imperfectly, disagree about it, or even reject it, but we do not make something true merely by approving it.

That conviction inevitably places Christianity in tension with some modern ideas.

But disagreement should not automatically be described as hatred, ignorance, or intolerance.

Christians should be willing to examine their beliefs carefully, defend them reasonably, admit when they have argued badly, and treat people who disagree with them with dignity.

Likewise, a genuinely liberal society should be willing to tolerate Christian convictions even when those convictions challenge contemporary cultural assumptions.

Holding Conviction Without Losing Humanity

I remain committed to the major teachings of the traditional Christian faith.

That commitment does not require hostility toward people who think differently from me. Nor does respect for others require me to pretend that every moral position is equally true.

There should be room for both conviction and civility.

Faith without thoughtful examination can become shallow.

Reason without humility can become arrogant.

And freedom without any moral framework can eventually become little more than the pursuit of personal desire.

The challenge for Christians is therefore not merely to condemn what they believe is wrong.

It is to demonstrate, through reason, Scripture, character, and compassion, why they believe something is true—and to do so without forgetting the humanity of the person standing on the other side of the argument.

Truth does not require cruelty to defend it.

And respect does not require the abandonment of conviction.

— J.P. Abecilla

The Rise of Modern Sodom? Biblical Morality, Sexual Ethics, and the Question of Judgment

Originally written in the aftermath of the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Archive note: This essay reflects my traditional Christian understanding of marriage, sexuality, Scripture, and moral authority. Some of the arguments and language in the original version have been revised for greater biblical accuracy, fairness, and clarity.

In 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples possess a constitutional right to marry.

For many supporters, the decision represented equality, dignity, and freedom.

For many traditional Christians, however, it raised another question:

Can civil law redefine something that Christians believe God has already defined?

That question remains worth discussing.

But before Christians invoke Sodom, judgment, or biblical morality, we should be careful that we are representing Scripture accurately rather than merely using biblical language to strengthen something we already want to say.

The One Lawgiver

James 4:12 says:

“There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

This establishes an important distinction.

Human courts possess legitimate authority over civil law. Governments determine legal rights, contracts, benefits, and public policy within their jurisdictions.

But a court ruling does not determine Christian theology.

Likewise, a church does not determine constitutional law merely by quoting Scripture.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision answered a constitutional question under American law. It did not claim authority to determine what Christians must believe about marriage before God.

Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion expressly acknowledged that many people oppose same-sex marriage because of “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.”

Christians therefore do not have to pretend that a civil ruling settles a theological question.

At the same time, disagreement with that ruling does not give Christians permission to despise the people whose marriages the law recognizes.

There is a difference between moral conviction and personal contempt.

What Was the Sin of Sodom?

This is where my original article was too absolute.

I wrote that the sin for which God destroyed Sodom was homosexuality.

The biblical record is more complicated.

Genesis 13:13 already describes the people of Sodom as “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” In Genesis 18, God speaks of the city's grievous sin before the events involving Lot's visitors even occur.

Then Genesis 19 describes a mob surrounding Lot's house and demanding access to his male guests.

The demand is clearly sexual. Lot's response confirms that something profoundly wicked is intended.

But it is also an attempted act of collective sexual violence.

That matters.

The story is not describing two consenting adults seeking a lifelong relationship. It portrays a violent mob attempting to sexually abuse strangers.

Other biblical passages broaden the indictment even further.

Ezekiel 16:49–50 condemns Sodom for pride, abundance, idleness, failure to help the poor and needy, and committing abominations before God.

Jude 7 emphasizes sexual immorality and the pursuit of “strange flesh.”

Second Peter 2 presents Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of ungodliness and lawlessness.

Taken together, Scripture portrays Sodom not as a city guilty of only one particular sin, but as a society characterized by deep corruption—sexual violence, injustice, pride, moral lawlessness, neglect of others, and rebellion against God.

That actually makes the biblical warning stronger.

Sodom should not become merely a weapon Christians use whenever homosexuality is discussed.

Its warning reaches much further.

Does That Mean the Bible Has Nothing to Say About Same-Sex Sexual Relationships?

No.

Rejecting an oversimplified interpretation of Sodom does not require abandoning traditional Christian sexual ethics.

The Christian argument concerning marriage does not depend upon Genesis 19 alone.

Genesis 2:24 presents marriage through the union of man and woman:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Jesus Himself returns to this creation account in Matthew 19:4–6 when discussing marriage.

Traditional Christian teaching has therefore understood marriage as a covenantal sexual union between a man and a woman.

Romans 1:26–27 is also among the passages traditionally understood as rejecting same-sex sexual relations.

Christians disagree today about the interpretation and application of these passages. Some churches have adopted affirming interpretations of same-sex relationships, while Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and many other Christian traditions continue to maintain the historic male-female understanding of marriage.

I remain within the latter position.

But that conviction needs to be stated accurately:

I am making a theological claim about sexual conduct and marriage—not declaring that LGBT people possess less human dignity than anyone else.

Those are entirely different statements.

“Judge Not”

One of the most common responses to Christian moral teaching is Jesus' statement:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Christians themselves sometimes misuse the verse in the opposite direction.

Jesus was not teaching that human beings must abandon every distinction between right and wrong. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are repeatedly called to discern good from evil.

But Jesus strongly condemns hypocritical judgment.

That should restrain Christians considerably.

A Christian may believe an action is sinful without claiming God's authority to determine another person's eternal destiny.

We are not the final Judge.

That is precisely why James says there is one Lawgiver.

And Romans 3:23 reminds Christians:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Biblical morality therefore gives Christians no basis for self-righteousness.

If homosexuality is discussed endlessly while adultery, fornication, pornography, lust, exploitation, greed, dishonesty, pride, cruelty, and corruption are tolerated among Christians, then something has gone seriously wrong with our moral witness.

The Gospel does not divide humanity into respectable heterosexual sinners and uniquely condemned homosexual sinners.

It places all humanity in need of grace.

Freedom Is Not the Same as Moral Approval

Modern discussions of sexuality frequently revolve around freedom, equality, happiness, and personal autonomy.

Those are serious human concerns.

Christianity, however, asks an additional question:

Is everything we freely desire therefore morally good?

The biblical answer is no.

That principle applies far beyond sexuality.

A married man may sincerely desire another woman. Desire does not make adultery right.

A person may desire wealth intensely. Desire does not justify dishonesty.

Someone may find revenge emotionally satisfying. Satisfaction does not turn vengeance into virtue.

Christian morality therefore refuses to make personal desire the final authority.

From a Christian perspective, freedom does not mean merely possessing the ability to choose. Freedom also involves becoming rightly ordered toward truth and goodness.

That is why Jesus says:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

What About “Modern Sodom”?

I would use that phrase much more carefully today.

Calling modern society “Sodom” merely because same-sex marriage exists reduces a much larger biblical indictment to one issue.

If we seriously want to ask whether our generation resembles Sodom, we must also ask:

What about societies overflowing with wealth while people remain desperately poor?

What about corruption?

What about sexual exploitation?

What about violence?

What about pornography and adultery?

What about human trafficking?

What about indifference toward people in need?

What about pride, injustice, abuse of power, and the normalization of cruelty?

Ezekiel's description of Sodom should make any society uncomfortable—not merely LGBT people.

The warning points toward human rebellion as a whole.

A Sign of Coming Judgment?

Jesus Himself referred to Sodom when speaking about judgment:

“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded… Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”
— Luke 17:28–30

Notice what Jesus emphasizes.

People were carrying on with ordinary life—eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building—without recognizing the seriousness of the moment.

The warning is therefore much bigger than sexual morality.

It concerns humanity living as though God will never call anyone to account.

That is the biblical issue Christians should emphasize.

Judgment is not something we should gleefully pronounce upon groups we dislike.

It is a warning that should first produce humility and repentance in ourselves.

In Defense of Biblical Morality

I continue to believe in objective moral truth.

I continue to believe that Scripture has authority over Christian faith and conduct.

And I continue to hold the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

But defending those convictions does not require exaggerating Scripture, insulting unbelievers, ridiculing LGBT people, or reducing an entire group of human beings to a political or theological issue.

First Peter 3:15 instructs Christians to defend their hope with meekness.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors.

And the Gospel reminds us that the Christian standing before God is himself a recipient of grace.

So yes, Christians should be willing to disagree with their culture.

We should question moral assumptions rather than accept them merely because they have become popular, legal, or socially celebrated.

But we should also question ourselves.

Are we interpreting Scripture carefully?

Are we applying morality consistently?

Are we speaking truthfully?

Are we defending conviction without hatred?

And does our conduct give anyone a reason to believe the Gospel we claim to defend?

Biblical morality needs neither cruelty nor distortion to survive.

Truth should be defended truthfully. Conviction should be expressed with humility. And judgment ultimately belongs to God.

— J.P. Abecilla

Believe and Be Saved: What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus Christ?

Originally published January 21, 2015

Archive note: This article reflects my evangelical Christian understanding of salvation and the authority of Scripture. The original version has been edited for clarity, theological precision, and a more respectful treatment of Christians who interpret some passages differently.

“…what must I do to be saved?”
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
— Acts 16:30–31

Few questions are more important to Christianity than this:

What must a person do to be saved?

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas that question, their answer was remarkably direct:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:9 likewise says:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

For me, these passages point to the heart of the Gospel: salvation is found in Jesus Christ and received through faith in Him.

But What Does It Mean to “Believe”?

The word believe should not be reduced to simply acknowledging that Jesus existed.

James 2:19 reminds us that even the devils “believe” that there is one God.

Saving faith is therefore more than agreeing with a religious fact.

To believe in Christ is to trust Him; to place our confidence in who He is and what He has done rather than in our own righteousness.

The Gospel proclaimed by the apostles centered on the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul summarized it in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again.

Christian faith rests upon that Gospel.

Salvation Is of the Lord

Long before the New Testament, Jonah declared:

“Salvation is of the LORD.”
— Jonah 2:9

That truth remains fundamental.

A church cannot take the place of the Savior.

A pastor cannot take the place of the Savior.

A priest, minister, denomination, religious tradition, or Christian organization cannot take the place of the Savior.

The church has an important place in Christian life. Christians are called to worship, fellowship, learn, serve, and grow together.

But the church does not become Christ.

Peter declared:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
— Acts 4:12

And Jesus said:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
— John 14:6

The Christian claim is therefore ultimately personal: salvation is in Christ.

Saved by Grace, Not Earned by Merit

This is also why salvation cannot be treated as something we accumulate through enough good deeds.

Ephesians 2:8–9 says:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Grace means that salvation begins with God, not with our ability to make ourselves worthy of Him.

Titus 3:5 expresses the same principle:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…”

This does not mean good works are unimportant.

The very next verse after Ephesians 2:8–9 says that believers are created in Christ Jesus “unto good works.”

That distinction is crucial:

Good works are not the price we pay to purchase salvation; they should become part of the life produced by genuine faith.

James similarly warns that faith without works is dead.

So the biblical message is not:

Live however you want because you once said you believed.

Nor is it:

Become good enough and perhaps God will save you.

It is:

Trust Christ, receive God's grace, and let that faith begin transforming the way you live.

Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Baptism

Christians have long debated the precise relationship between faith, repentance, confession, baptism, the sacraments, and perseverance.

Those differences should be acknowledged rather than pretending they do not exist.

But Scripture repeatedly places faith in Christ at the center of salvation.

When Romans 10 speaks of believing in the heart and confessing Christ, it describes faith that is openly identified with Jesus.

When the apostles call people to repentance, they are calling them to turn toward God.

When believers are baptized in the New Testament, baptism publicly identifies them with Christ and His people.

From my evangelical understanding, none of these should be treated as human achievements that force God to grant salvation.

They belong to a person's response to the Gospel.

Examine What You Believe

My original article spoke harshly about Christians who relied on church traditions rather than reading Scripture for themselves.

I would put the challenge differently today.

Tradition is not automatically wrong simply because it is tradition. Every Christian community, including evangelical and Baptist churches, develops traditions of its own.

The better question is:

Can what we believe withstand examination in the light of Scripture?

Christians should read the Bible.

We should study its context.

We should examine what our pastors, priests, teachers, churches, and denominations teach.

And we should be willing to examine our own assumptions as carefully as we examine everyone else's.

Faith should not fear serious study.

Why Jesus?

Matthew 1:21 says of Jesus:

“Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Jesus is not merely presented in Christianity as a moral teacher.

He is presented as Savior.

John 3:16 declares:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

And Isaiah 45:22 says:

“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.”

This is ultimately why the message “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” matters.

Christian salvation is not confidence in ourselves.

It is not confidence in our religious achievements.

It is confidence in Christ.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ

Christians should therefore continue preaching the Gospel of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

But we should do it with humility.

We cannot force anyone to believe.

We cannot insult someone into faith.

We cannot substitute religious arrogance for the Gospel.

We can proclaim Christ, explain why we believe, answer questions as faithfully as we can, and invite others to consider Him.

And after all the theological debates, denominational disagreements, traditions, arguments, and interpretations, I continue to return to that remarkably simple exchange in Acts:

“What must I do to be saved?”

And the answer:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

Salvation is of the Lord.

Grace comes from Him.

And faith ultimately points away from ourselves and toward Jesus Christ, the Savior.

— J.P. Abecilla

Freedom to Live, Freedom to Believe, and Freedom to Express

Originally published January 17, 2015

“And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.”
— Acts 22:28

Freedom is one of the most valued ideas in human society.

We want the freedom to live, to think, to believe, to speak, and to express ourselves without unnecessary interference from others or from the state.

But freedom has never meant that every action is without consequence.

A society that values freedom must therefore wrestle with an equally important question:

Where should one person's freedom end when it begins to harm the freedom, dignity, safety, or rights of another?

Freedom Is Not Absolute

In 2015, debates about freedom of expression and religious belief became particularly intense.

After the deadly attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the world was forced to confront difficult questions about religious offense, violence, satire, and freedom of speech. Twelve people were killed in the January 7 attack on the magazine's Paris office, prompting an international debate that continued long after the tragedy.

Pope Francis made an important distinction at the time: violence committed in the name of God cannot be justified, but freedom of expression also carries responsibilities.

That distinction is worth considering.

No person should be murdered, threatened, or physically harmed because of something he writes, draws, says, or believes.

At the same time, possessing the legal freedom to say something does not automatically make what we say wise, truthful, respectful, or morally good.

A right protects our ability to speak. It does not guarantee that everything we say is right.

Freedom to Believe

Religious freedom is particularly important because belief reaches into a person's conscience.

A Christian should be free to believe in Jesus Christ.

A Muslim should be free to practice Islam.

A person should likewise be free to reject religion altogether.

The Philippine understanding of religious liberty makes a useful distinction: the freedom to believe is protected within the realm of conscience, while actions arising from those beliefs may still be regulated when they affect public welfare or the rights of others. The Philippine Supreme Court has described religious liberty in essentially these terms.

This distinction protects everyone.

Christians should not want a government powerful enough to dictate another person's faith, because the same government could someday dictate ours.

Faith imposed through coercion is not genuine faith.

Freedom to Express

Freedom of expression is equally necessary in a healthy society.

People must be able to criticize governments, religious institutions, politicians, cultural traditions, and even ideas considered sacred by others.

Without that freedom, societies become intellectually stagnant and political power becomes much harder to challenge.

But freedom of expression also requires maturity.

We should be able to distinguish between:

criticism and defamation,

disagreement and hatred,

satire and deliberate cruelty,

evangelism and coercion,

and conviction and contempt.

Religious people should not demand protection from every criticism or offense.

Likewise, secular society should not treat religious convictions as automatically irrational, hateful, or unworthy of public discussion.

True freedom requires space for disagreement.

Freedom to Live

Freedom is perhaps most visible in the way we live.

We choose our careers, relationships, beliefs, lifestyles, political opinions, and personal priorities.

But every choice exists within a network of consequences.

My freedom cannot legitimately require another person's imprisonment merely for disagreeing with me.

My religious freedom cannot justify violence against someone who rejects my religion.

My freedom of expression cannot exempt me from criticism.

And my personal freedom does not mean that society must declare every decision I make wise or morally good.

Freedom and responsibility must therefore coexist.

Without freedom, responsibility becomes coercion.

Without responsibility, freedom can become recklessness.

Faith and Freedom

As a Christian, my understanding of freedom goes beyond political liberty.

The New Testament presents another kind of freedom—the freedom that comes from truth.

Jesus said:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32

This does not mean Christians possess political authority to force everyone else to accept our understanding of truth.

Christianity itself teaches that faith involves a personal response.

People may accept Christ.

People may reject Him.

Christians may preach, persuade, teach, write, and defend what we believe.

But genuine belief cannot be produced by force.

That should make Christians among the strongest defenders of freedom of conscience.

Truth Does Not Need Coercion

There is also an important lesson for religious people.

Defending truth does not require silencing everyone who disagrees with us.

If Christianity is true, Christians should be willing to expose our beliefs to serious questions.

We should be capable of explaining our faith rather than merely demanding that others respect it.

First Peter 3:15 instructs Christians to be prepared to give a reason for their hope—and to do so with meekness.

This means Christian expression should combine conviction with humility.

We can disagree.

We can challenge ideas.

We can defend Scripture.

But we should not confuse insulting people with defending the faith.

Let Freedom Ring

Freedom to live.

Freedom to believe.

Freedom to speak.

Freedom to question.

Freedom to disagree.

These freedoms should not belong only to people who think like us.

A genuinely free society protects them even when people arrive at completely different conclusions.

But freedom also asks something of us.

It asks us to think before we speak.

To consider the consequences of our actions.

To respect the humanity of those with whom we disagree.

And, from my Christian perspective, to remember that freedom reaches its highest purpose not merely when we can do whatever we want, but when we are free to pursue what is true and good.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

— J.P. Abecilla, January 2015

Is God Really Good and All-Powerful?

Originally published November 10, 2013

Archive note: I originally wrote this article in the immediate aftermath of the 2013 Bohol earthquake and Super Typhoon Yolanda. It has been revised to preserve my Christian conviction while expressing the problem of suffering with greater theological care and humility.

One of the oldest and most difficult questions raised against belief in God is this:

If God is good and all-powerful, why does He allow suffering and evil to exist?

The question becomes especially difficult when suffering is not theoretical.

On October 15, 2013, a magnitude-7.2 earthquake struck Bohol and shook much of Central Visayas. Less than a month later, Super Typhoon Yolanda devastated communities across the central Philippines.

Homes were destroyed.

Families lost loved ones.

Communities were changed in a matter of hours.

In circumstances like these, saying simply that “God is good all the time” can sound painfully inadequate.

Yet I still believe God is good.

The harder question is why.

The Problem Cannot Be Solved by Counting Survivors

When I originally wrote this article, I pointed to circumstances that seemed merciful to me: the Bohol earthquake occurred in the morning rather than while most people were asleep; it happened on a holiday; Yolanda struck during daylight; and my own family survived the storm.

I remain grateful for those things.

But gratitude is not the same as proof.

If my survival proves that God is good, what should I tell the family whose loved one died?

If protection is always evidence of God's favor, does tragedy mean that the victims had less faith?

I do not believe that conclusion is biblical.

Jesus Himself challenged simplistic explanations of tragedy.

In Luke 13, people told Him about Galileans who had been killed. Jesus asked whether they were worse sinners than other Galileans because they suffered.

His answer was:

“I tell you, Nay.”

He then referred to eighteen people who died when the tower of Siloam fell and again rejected the assumption that their deaths meant they were more guilty than everyone else.

That should make Christians cautious about declaring why a particular disaster happened.

Does Disaster Mean God Is Punishing Someone?

My original article listed several possibilities, including the idea that disasters might be God's punishment for sin.

Scripture certainly contains occasions when God explicitly judges people or nations.

But that does not give Christians authority to identify every earthquake, storm, disease, or tragedy as God's punishment upon particular people.

The book of Job should make us especially careful.

Job's friends repeatedly tried to explain his suffering by connecting it with wrongdoing. Their explanations sounded religious and logical—but God ultimately rebuked them.

Likewise, in John 9, Jesus' disciples saw a man who had been blind from birth and asked whether the man's condition resulted from his own sin or his parents' sin.

Jesus rejected the premise.

So when disaster strikes, Christians should resist the temptation to speak where Scripture has not spoken.

We may believe that we live in a fallen world.

We may believe that God is sovereign.

But we should not presume that we know God's specific reason for every tragedy.

Natural Causes Are Still Real Causes

There is also no conflict between acknowledging natural causes and believing in God.

The Bohol earthquake was a tectonic earthquake. PHIVOLCS identified its magnitude as 7.2 and its origin as tectonic.

Typhoons are physical weather systems governed by atmospheric and oceanic processes. PAGASA describes tropical cyclones in terms of pressure, heat, moisture, wind, and the release of energy within the atmosphere.

Understanding those mechanisms does not automatically answer the theological question of why God permits such a world to exist.

But neither should Christians treat scientific explanations as threats to faith.

Saying how an earthquake occurs is not necessarily the same as answering why God permits suffering.

Those are different questions.

Then Is God Really All-Powerful?

Jeremiah 32:17 says:

“Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee.”

Christian belief affirms that God is sovereign and powerful.

But God's omnipotence does not mean Christians should pretend to understand every act of providence.

When Yolanda struck, I prayed.

I remember hearing our neighbors shouting after part of a roof was blown through the air and nearly hit someone. I continued praying, and by the end of that day, no one around us had been seriously hurt.

I remain thankful.

As a believer, I can interpret that experience through faith and thank God for protection.

But I cannot use my experience to explain why another Christian prayed just as sincerely and still lost a home, a child, a parent, or a spouse.

Prayer is not a formula by which we control God.

Faith is not a guarantee that Christians will escape every disaster.

The Bible itself is filled with faithful people who suffered.

Christianity Does Not Promise a World Without Suffering

Christianity actually begins with the assumption that something is profoundly wrong with the world.

Romans 8 describes creation itself as groaning and suffering.

Human beings experience disease, decay, conflict, injustice, disasters, and death.

Christians understand this within the larger biblical story of a creation that is no longer as it should be.

That does not make suffering emotionally easier.

But it means Christianity does not teach that believing in God guarantees a trouble-free life.

Jesus never promised that.

Instead He repeatedly prepared His followers for suffering.

The Christian hope is ultimately not that nothing painful will ever happen, but that suffering and death will not have the final word.

The Cross Changes the Question

For Christians, the strongest response to suffering is not a clever philosophical argument.

It is Jesus Christ.

Christianity teaches that God did not remain distant from human suffering.

Christ was rejected.

He experienced grief.

He was beaten.

He suffered injustice.

And He died.

The cross therefore prevents Christians from describing God as someone who simply watches human suffering from a safe distance.

The Christian claim is much more radical:

God entered it.

And the resurrection is Christianity's answer to the apparent finality of death.

That does not explain every earthquake.

It does not tell us why one child lives while another dies.

It does not remove grief.

But it gives Christians a reason to believe that suffering is not ultimate.

Where Was God During Yolanda?

That question can be asked in several ways.

Where was God when homes collapsed?

Where was God when the storm surge came?

Where was God when families cried for help?

I do not pretend to have a complete answer.

Some Christian answers to suffering become cruel because they try to explain too much.

Perhaps Christians sometimes need to learn to say:

I don't know why this happened.

The Bible itself contains people crying out to God in confusion.

The Psalms ask, “Why?”

Job asks why.

The prophets lament.

Even faith can grieve.

Belief does not require pretending that suffering is easy to understand.

What Should We Do After Disaster?

This may be the more immediate question.

Instead of using tragedy to speculate about who God is punishing, Christians should ask:

Who needs help?

Who needs food?

Who needs shelter?

Who needs medicine?

Who needs comfort?

Who needs someone to mourn with them?

In the aftermath of the Bohol earthquake and Yolanda, Filipinos responded through rescue operations, donations, volunteer work, prayer, relief drives, and acts of extraordinary generosity.

That human response does not erase the devastation.

But compassion in the middle of suffering is itself something worth recognizing.

For Christians, faith should move us toward suffering people—not merely toward explanations of their suffering.

Is God Still Good?

I continue to say yes.

But I would express that conviction differently today.

I do not believe God is good because an earthquake happened at a convenient hour.

I do not believe God is powerful merely because I survived a typhoon.

And I would not tell grieving people that their tragedy proves God was angry with them.

I believe God is good because goodness belongs to His character as revealed in the Christian Scriptures and, above all, in Jesus Christ.

I believe He is powerful even when I do not understand why He sometimes permits suffering that He could prevent.

That leaves a mystery.

Christian faith does not answer every “why.”

But neither does the existence of suffering automatically settle the question against God.

For me, faith means trusting God even when I cannot explain Him.

It means being thankful when I am spared while refusing to judge those who were not.

It means grieving with those who grieve.

It means helping people rebuild.

And it means holding to the hope that suffering, destruction, and death are not the final chapters of the human story.

God is good—not because life is always good, but because suffering does not change who I believe God is.

— J.P. Abecilla, November 2013

History and Historians in Question: How Do We Know What Really Happened?

Originally published October 29, 2013

I once posted this question on Facebook:

“If history contains truth, error, missing information, and religious or political manipulation, whom are we supposed to believe?”

It is a difficult question.

How much confidence should we place in documentaries, encyclopedias, historians, religious texts, newspapers, government records, or institutions?

How do we distinguish truth from interpretation?

And how can we know what really happened when we were not there to witness the past ourselves?

History Is More Than a Collection of Facts

History may look simple when presented in a textbook.

A date.

A person.

A war.

A revolution.

A document.

But historical knowledge is built from evidence that has survived from the past.

Letters, government records, photographs, artifacts, newspapers, diaries, eyewitness accounts, archaeological discoveries, religious texts, and many other sources help historians reconstruct what happened.

The difficulty is that evidence is rarely complete.

Some records disappear.

Some were never written.

Some witnesses remember events differently.

Some documents were produced for political, religious, or personal purposes.

And historians themselves must decide which evidence deserves greater weight.

This does not mean that history is merely opinion.

It means that serious historical study requires evidence, comparison, context, and critical judgment.

Can Historians Be Biased?

Of course.

Historians are human beings.

They live within particular societies, possess particular assumptions, and sometimes disagree sharply about the meaning of the same event.

But recognizing bias should not lead us to conclude that all historical accounts are equally unreliable.

A good historian does not simply ask:

Who wrote this?

The better questions include:

Why was it written?

When was it written?

Was the writer an eyewitness?

What evidence supports the claim?

Do independent sources confirm it?

What information might the source omit?

Does new evidence challenge an older interpretation?

This is why historical scholarship develops over time.

New documents become available.

Archaeological discoveries appear.

Old interpretations are challenged.

And historians debate which explanation best accounts for the evidence.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Do We Learn From History?

I originally paraphrased the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel as saying that the only thing we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.

His actual point was more nuanced.

Hegel wrote that peoples and governments often fail to learn from history because each historical period has circumstances of its own.

That does not make history useless.

It warns us against assuming that the past gives us perfectly reusable formulas for the present.

History can show us patterns.

It can reveal consequences.

It can expose failures.

It can help us understand why institutions, nations, religions, and cultures developed as they did.

But studying history does not automatically make a person wise.

We still have to interpret what we learn.

What About the Bible?

For me, the question becomes even more important when history intersects with faith.

As a Christian, I believe the Bible deserves serious study rather than either blind acceptance or casual dismissal.

But biblical history also involves questions about manuscripts, languages, translation, textual transmission, archaeology, and interpretation.

My original article mentioned the Textus Receptus, Masoretic Text, and Codex Sinaiticus together as though they were directly competing versions of the same thing.

That needs clarification.

The Masoretic Text concerns the textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.

The Textus Receptus refers to a printed Greek New Testament tradition that later influenced translations such as the King James Version.

Codex Sinaiticus, meanwhile, is an ancient biblical manuscript containing substantial portions of both the Old and New Testaments.

These sources belong to different parts of the complicated history of biblical transmission.

For Christians who believe Scripture is inspired, studying that transmission should not be something to fear.

Faith should be capable of serious historical inquiry.

The King James Bible and Historical Evidence

I remain deeply familiar with and appreciative of the King James Bible.

But saying that one English translation has “stood throughout time” is not, by itself, a historical argument for every textual decision behind it.

A responsible study of Scripture involves examining the original languages, manuscript traditions, translation history, historical context, and the reasons scholars reach different conclusions.

That does not necessarily weaken faith.

For me, it can deepen it.

The same principle applies to secular history.

We should not believe something merely because it appeared in a prestigious documentary, encyclopedia, book, sermon, or website.

Authority matters.

But evidence matters too.

What About the Vatican Archives?

My younger self also wondered about supposedly “hidden” records inside the Vatican.

That language needs correcting.

The Vatican Apostolic Archive contains an enormous collection of historical documents spanning centuries, but it is not simply a secret warehouse completely closed to humanity.

The archive has been open to qualified scholars since the late nineteenth century. Today, qualified researchers may apply for access, and documents are generally available through the end of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

Access is restricted and regulated, as many major archives are.

That does not mean every document is publicly available online or that every historical question has been answered.

But “restricted archive” and “hidden conspiracy” are not the same thing.

That distinction matters when we talk about history.

How Should We Decide What to Believe?

Perhaps the better question is not:

Whom should I believe?

Instead, ask:

What evidence supports this claim?

That approach changes everything.

When reading history, we should:

compare multiple independent sources;

distinguish primary evidence from later interpretation;

check whether quotations are accurate;

consider the author's purpose and context;

look for corroborating evidence;

separate established facts from disputed interpretations;

and remain willing to revise our conclusions when stronger evidence appears.

That requires humility.

Sometimes we discover that something we confidently believed was incomplete.

Sometimes an argument we rejected turns out to have stronger evidence than we expected.

And sometimes the most responsible answer is simply:

We do not know enough yet.

Faith and Historical Inquiry

As a Christian, I still believe truth ultimately matters because truth is not something we are free to invent.

But belief in objective truth should make Christians more careful, not less careful, about evidence.

If something is true, serious investigation should not threaten it.

We should therefore avoid two extremes:

believing everything merely because it supports our worldview;

and rejecting everything merely because it comes from people who disagree with us.

Whether we are studying Christianity, politics, science, national history, or ancient civilizations, intellectual honesty requires us to follow the evidence as carefully as we can.

History Will Always Leave Questions

There will probably never be a time when every historical question is settled.

New evidence will appear.

Interpretations will change.

People will continue arguing about what the past means.

That is not necessarily a weakness of history.

It is part of the responsibility of studying a past that we cannot revisit directly.

We inherit fragments.

We examine them.

We compare them.

We argue about them.

And from those fragments, we try to understand what really happened.

For me, faith still has a place in that search.

But faith should never become an excuse for careless history.

And skepticism should never become an excuse for believing that nothing can be known.

Question the source. Examine the evidence. Compare the claims. And remain humble enough to keep learning.

— J.P. Abecilla, October 2013