Thursday, May 11, 2006

Doctrine of the Trinity in Church History

The Doctrine of Trinity in Church History

In One God: Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, who provides order, purpose, meaning and fulfillment to all creation. That in Jesus Christ, who was born of Mary, God became human and is Sovereign Lord of life and history. That in the Holy Spirit God is present in the world, empowering and guiding believers to understand and live out their faith in Jesus Christ.” (UCCP Statement of Faith)

I. Introduction

The topic for this reflection is at the same time very obvious and yet very obscure! Obvious, because a statement of faith, particularly that of a church belonging to the Reformed Tradition, is nothing but theological and doctrinal. And yet, when we deal with specifics, say the doctrine of the Trinity, which is explicit in the above-quoted paragraph of the UCCP Statement of Faith, the obvious suddenly becomes obscure. For both ordinary church leaders and extra-ordinary church members, the doctrine of the Trinity is “an abstract concept with little or no vital significance either for piety or intellectual reflection.”[1]

It is the thesis of this article that the Trinitarian foundation of the UCCP Statement of Faith must lead to a sound understanding of the nature of the Church and its ministry. Or, to put it in accordance to the previous thematic thrust of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (1986-1990 Quadrennial), this article deals with the UCCP’s Christological foundation, its eccle-siological implications, and its missiological imperatives.

II. The Core of All Creeds

The Trinitarian formula in the first paragraph of the UCCP Statement of Faith affirms in no uncertain terms what is and should be at the heart of all ecumenical creeds throughout all periods of church history. The doctrine of the Trinity came out of a real and deep religious experience, an experience that could not be denied by those who call themselves Christians. During the earliest centuries of the church, God was very real for the faith community in four distinctive and definite ways.

First, God was known as Creator or Source of the Universe. God was also known and experienced as the One who made covenant with God’s people and subsequently with the “new people of God” (the Christian Church). Second, Jesus of Nazareth was confessed as the Christ or the Messiah of God. Also, Jesus the Christ was worshipped as Redeemer of humanity and the Lord of all history. Third, the Holy Spirit of God was experienced as the Giver of faith and courage to all believers as the one who bound persons into a new and vital community. Also, the Holy Spirit was experienced as the Giver of gifts to individuals for the up-building of community life. Fourthly and finally, believers knew and experienced these Three as eternally One. Thus, they confessed that fullness of God was to be found in the correspondence of the Three Persons bound together in mutual love. An American feminist theologian, Letty M. Russell profoundly describes the doctrine of the Trinity as: “One plus One equals One.”[2] For the early church, Russell continues, the doctrine of the Trinity is a vision of a living faith, a distinctive experience of the living God.

In short, for the early Christians as well as for us today, fundamental in our faith is the vision that the One God is a Threefold God: that the One God is the interrelatedness of the Creator (Father), the Redeemer (Son), and the Sustainer (Holy Spirit).

Among the more reliable guides in the exposition of the Trinitarian vision of God is Lesslie Newbigin. His book, The Household of God, is a classic example of an exposition about the Church (its structure and ministry) as seen in the light of the Trinitarian vision of God. More recently, in his book The Open Secret,[3] he makes a perceptive discussion on the Church’s participation in the mission of the Triune God. These are 1) Proclaiming the Kingdom of the Father: Mission as Faith in Action; 2) Sharing the Life of the Son: Mission as Love in Action; and 3) Bearing the Witness of the Holy Spirit: Mission as Hope in Action.

Following Newbigin’s Trinitarian formulation as applied to ecclesiology, we can develop and explicate three concepts on the Church, namely: 1) The Church as the People the People of God; 2) The Church as the Body of Christ; and 3) The Church as the Community of the Holy Spirit. Let me discuss them one by one.

III. The Church as the People of God

In the New Testament, the notion of the People of God suggests that the members of the Christian Church are people of the new covenant and that they exist in continuity with or on the foundation of the People of God which is Israel. The continuity exists because the God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same God who liberated Israel from Egyptian captivity. Thus, the notion of believers as the people of God clearly rests on a conviction that speaks clearly about the nature of God. For instance, in the first place, God is one who makes promises and who is faithful to keep them. In the second place, God calls individuals and makes them a family, a community of nations, Thirdly, God gives to that community a structure for their well-being in the form of laws based on God’s own integrity and sense of justice.

The notion of the people of God has two important characteristics that we need to emphasize. First, there is a strong sense of history of the people of God. In fact, we cannot understand the people of God apart from God’s dealing with God’s people in history. The stories of mothers and fathers of the faith, which had been handed down from one generation to another, necessarily shape the identity and destiny of the Church as people of God. Secondly, the people of God are determined by a powerful vision of the future. God called the people of Israel into a life they would not clearly see or comprehend. For example, Abraham was assured by God to have descendants as many as the sands in the sea and the stars in the sky. And yet, at that point in time, he could not produce even just one son! Later on, those who were brought into captivity in a strange land were told to live in hope because they would be released and allowed to return to their homeland and rebuild it with justice, peace and righteousness.

Therefore, continuity of the Church as the people of God with that of Israel has provided the Church with a powerful vision of the future. Thus, members of the Church must look forward into the kingdom which God promises to establish. The gracious actions and promises of God constitute the Church, as the people of God. It is a community called to love in faithfulness to the God who is faithful to God’s people. Like Israel, the Church as the people of God must be aware that the arena in which God operates is the entire scope of human history. And throughout human history, God’s word comes usually as a word of judgment because God is the norm of justice, integrity and compassion. The God of Israel is known for his solidarity with the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized in society. Therefore, the Church as the people of God can never separate the gospel imperatives from the demands for social justice and the protection of political and economic spheres of life. Therefore, there is no separation between the “church” and the world” because the One God who is Creator is Sovereign Lord over both. The mission of the Church as the people of God, therefore, is to live in faithfulness to the God who has called it to be God’s people. This has three implications.

First, the Church must recount faithfully the history of the people and of God’s liberating acts. Second, it must develop a community lifestyle that embodies justice and integrity to which it is called. Third, its mission is to move within the broader society so as to promote greater justice for those who are in the periphery, those whom God provides particular care. The Church as the people of God is called and set apart as a community to be a living witness to the presence and power of God in human history and to the call of God to all people to live in justice and peace.

IV. The Church as the Body of Christ

The Church does not only recognize that God is Creator and Covenant-maker, it must confess that Jesus is Lord of human history. This means that through Jesus of Nazareth, we see the intention and purpose of God for human life. This is the earliest theological struggle of the Church: that Jesus of Nazareth was not simply a messenger from God but that through him the fullness of the divine reality is made flesh and blood. The confession that Jesus is Lord provides full significance to the notion that the Church is the Body of Christ. This confession brings about the doctrine of the incarnation which is considered as scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

The doctrine of incarnation has three distinctive meanings. First, it means God’s complete solidarity with our human situation. Through Jesus of Nazareth, God has shown his real and complete empathy with all human life. Second, the core of Jesus’ incarnation was manifested in his suffering and death. Jesus was God among us as one who suffered and his solidarity with the human condition means his solidarity with all who bear the pain in the world. Thirdly, Jesus was distinctly among us as one who serves. Jesus presented us a model of service freely chosen.

The metaphor of the body when applied to the Church has three implications. First, when we affirm that the Church is one body we refer to our unity in the midst of diversity. Despite the many diverse parts of the body there is an intimate relationship among each part with the other parts. Thus, what affects one eventually affects all. The joy, or the pain of anyone member, is felt by all. This suggests that there is a fundamental solidarity and communion among the members themselves; there is a real and irrevocable relatedness of all that bears the name of Jesus Christ. The Church then is one which seeks to live out communal solidarity among its members, sharing joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, dreams and aspirations.

The second implication is that the Church as one body has only one Head, that is, Jesus Christ. The head is the governing and ruling function within the body. The head also functions as one that unifies and gives direction to the body. Therefore, the Church as the body of Christ is to be conformed to the intention and personality of the one who is the Head. If Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church expressed his solidarity with humanity through suffering and service, then the life of the Church in the world must take on very definite shape. To be the body of Christ is to be formed by Christ’s way of being in the world; that is, to empty oneself and take on the cause of those who are oppressed, those who are burdened and in pain; to stand by them and into give witness to the one in whom oppression and pain and death have been overcome.

The life of this Church requires keeping alive the memory and presence of the Christ on whom the Church depends. This is done in many ways and let me cite three familiar ones. For instance, 1) study and reflection on the Word as it illumines our day to day experience; 2) celebrating those sacramental actions in which the presence of Christ is seen most vividly because they are tied to Christ’s sacramental self-giving; 3) participating in activities which demonstrate solidarity with the suffering people.

The third implication of the notion that the Church is the body of Christ is the cruciality of leadership. Leadership in the Church exists and is very necessary to enable the body to be the body of Christ in the world. Leadership, on the other hand, must be supportive to the solidarity of all members so that they not only are hearers and doers and bearers of the Word. Leadership in the Church, on the other hand, must provide a style that exemplifies participation in the mission of the triune God, namely: proclaiming the kingdom of the Father, sharing the life of the Son, and bearing witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit.

V. The Church as the Community
of the Holy Spirit

The earliest Christians acknowledge that they have the courage to confess their faith only in the power of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, women and men came to know and affirm that Jesus is Lord and to draw together into the community that came to be known as the Church. This model of the Church as community of the Holy Spirit has always been the most difficult to define and, sometimes for the whole Church, the most difficult to live with.

Why is this so?

First, the Hebrew word for spirit is ruach which means “breath” and “wind”. Together, these imply that the spirit of God is the giver of life and simultaneously both elusive and beyond human comprehension. These two ideas (life-giving yet elusive) form the base of the New Testament view of the Holy Spirit. In the first place, the Holy Spirit is always associated with newness or new life. Those who are born again or born anew in the Spirit are new creatures; they are no longer bound by the old conditions of life; they have begun a new life again.

Secondly, the Spirit is the spirit of freedom which means that the new life is a life liberated from the bondages which plague human existence; the bondages of sin and death; the bondages of social sin and oppression. Through the Spirit, the law that condemns and divides life is overcome. Thirdly, the Spirit creates community, a new community where division that characterizes normal human society is overcome, a new community where persons are transformed. In this community of the Spirit, social standards of who is acceptable, who is important, who is powerful, do not apply anymore. Those belonging to this community have all been made one; all can communicate with one another because the age-long barriers of race, clan, gender, social position and wealth are removed.

It is important that we accept the fact that the Holy Spirit works profoundly in the individual persons as well as in communal ways. The Spirit brings transformation of individual lives and gives to particular individual unique gifts. The Spirit enables life of prayer of the believer and unites the human spirit with the Spirit of Christ. These transformed and gifted individuals or “charismatic persons" are gifted precisely for the up-building of the community itself. The private experience of a spirit-filled person is always confirmed by and directed towards the wholeness in the community.
In keeping with the metaphor of Spirit as wind blowing where it wills, there is always something spontaneous and difficult to predict about the contemporary manifestations of the Spirit and thus about the shale and nature of this community. The Spirit has a history of “breaking out” of the life of the Church, often to the consternation of those who are responsible for the on-going institutional forms of church life. Often, the Spirit has brought to the Church individuals gifted as prophets calling the Church itself to repentance, reform and transformation. Sometimes, the Spirit has brought persons together in communities within a larger Church. For example, monastic communities, prayer groups, women church communities, and the basic ecclesial communities, etc.

In Latin America as well as in the Philippines, the basic ecclesial communities provide a way for believers to experience new solidarity and power of the gospel. This experience of unity in power and power in unity gives the community the courage to face political problems. It goes to show that the presence and inspiration of God’s Spirit is created with a new vision of faithfulness and true community. This emerging model of the Church provides that the ministry becomes the work of all members whose motive-strength is drawn from the Holy Spirit.

Leadership, therefore, becomes participative and collective involving a wide variety of persons. Although there is one who emerges as the “gifted” or “charismatic” leader who has discerned and have kept the fire of the original vision. He or she continually shares that vision with others, enabling them to experience the vision of freedom and new life in the community. Thus, the Church life in the community of the Holy Spirit is free to change, to grow; to be transformed by the new operation of the Holy Spirit within the community itself.

VI. Concluding Statement

Thus far, we have discussed the fundamental doctrinal themes in the UCCP Statement of Faith as focus in the real and deep religious experience of the triune God. The reality of the triune God, we stressed, is the inter-relatedness of the Creator (Father), the Redeemer (Son), and the Sustainer (Holy Spirit). These personas are eternally One. They are bound together in mutual self-giving love.

Subsequently, we tried to expound the meaning and implications of the Trinitarian faith to our understanding of the Church and its ministry in the world. Following the Trinitarian scheme, we discussed three notions of the Church as the people of God, as the body of Christ, and as the community of the Holy Spirit.

This threefold foundational understanding of the Church provides us with a direction to understand the mission of the Church in the world. The Church, as the people of God, must at all times be faithful to the God who called the community into being. The Church as the body of Christ must at all times takes seriously the meaning of Christ’s incarnation in total solidarity with humankind in suffering and service which is freely chosen. The Church as the community of the Holy Spirit must, at all times, takes seriously the newness of life that is made available to the Church from the Holy Spirit. Only when the Church submits to the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit that it attains the wholeness, freedom and newness that sustain and build up the community.


1. The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental belief of all mainstream Christian churches in all period of church history. Explain the emergence of this basic belief and what are its important elements.

2. Using the Trinitarian framework, enumerate and discuss the three understanding of the Church: as people of God; as body of Christ; and as community of the Holy Spirit.

3. On the Church as people of God, explain why and how is this related to the people of Israel in the Old Testament and how Christian unity is preserved through it.

4. On the concept of the Church as body of Christ, explain why is this founded on the doctrine of incarnation. Enumerate the three implications of this metaphor in the realization of Christian unity.

5. On the concept of the Church as community of the Holy Spirit, what are the three reasons why it is very difficult to comprehend this concept? Explain also how this concept is very important in the attainment of Christian unity.


Presented by Dr. Melanio L. Aoanan in a recent theological forum. An ordained pastor of the UCCP, Rev. Aoanan has occupied different leadership positions in UCCP-related colleges and universities. He was the first Dean of the College of Theology at Southern Christian College in Midsayap, Cotabato (1982-88), then as Vice President for Non-Formal Education, Community Extension and Research (1988-1995). Earlier, he was Associate Professor and Chair of the Philosophy and Religion Department of Silliman University, Dumaguete City (1975-1982). He was Professor of Biblical Studies, Ecumenical Theology and Research at Union Theological Seminary, Dasmarinas, Cavite. He was also the Administrative Pastor of the Church Among the Palms, UPLB Campus, Los Banos, Laguna. He is also Professorial Lecturer IV on Ecumenical Theology at the Religious Education Department (Doctoral Level) at De La Salle University in Manila, at the same time teaches Church History and Doctrine (part-time) at Union Theological Seminary.

[1] C. M. Campbell, “Models for Ministry: A New Look at an Old Idea,” Reformed World, 39/6 (June 1987), p. 694.
[2] Letty M. Russell, The Future of Partnership.
[3] Lesslie Newbigin, Open Secret: Sketches for a Missionary Theology. London: SPCK, 1978.

Revlevance of Bernard Lonergan

The Relevance of Bernard Lonergan
To Third World Theology

Dr. Melanio LaGuardia Aoanan**


The existence of a human being has to be celebrated, especially if that life is spent in the service of God and the Church. This year we celebrate the centenary of a man of God, Bernard Joseph Francis Lonergan (1904-1984), who served as one of the greatest teachers of the Roman Catholic Church in the twentieth century. He was born in Buckingham, Canada, on December 17, 1904. He studied philosophy and theology in Canada, Great Britain, and Rome. He was ordained as a Jesuit priest on 25 July 1936. His life was devoted to academic pursuit having been a theological professor both in Canada (Regis College) and Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University.

This paper aims to appropriate Lonergan’s thought and framework of doing theology and seeks to relate them to the ongoing task of transformation of persons and institutions of the Church particularly the academe. The paper presupposes the urgent need for a continuing pastoral-spiritual formation as part of our responsibility in the “knowledge industry” of which our colleges and universities are, more than ever, referred to. Lonergan’s framework of thought can be used as a model for pastoral-spiritual formation in our institutions toward a creative and collaborative (interdisciplinary) task of building authentic human communities in our country. Therefore, the greater bulk of this paper is devoted to explicating Lonergan’s lifework and lasting legacy.

In a festschrift for Lonergan’s 60th birthday, Frederick E. Crowe writes stimulating description of Lonergan’s five stage intellectual development, tracing the twist and the turns of his thinking, which resulted into a mountain scholarly works.[1] I was introduced to Lonergan’s formidable scholarly productions during my stint at Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City. To me, that experience was similar to a mountain climbing expedition. Scaling the heights of his thought is wrought with difficulties but thanks to competent guides who have blazed the trails and sketched the maps, one can now enjoy the exhilarating view of the horizon beyond.[2]

Lonergan’s Contribution to the Academe

With his voluminous scholarly works, Lonergan is admittedly one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. His contributions to theology is perhaps comparable to none among contemporary Catholic theologians. He may not yet be as widely known as the German Karl Rahner or the Swiss Hans Kung because his major works have not been made easily accessible except among a few academicians. But this will not be for long. His works, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (1958) and Method in Theology (1972), are classic examples of lucid yet profound articulation and comprehensiveness.

There is now a growing number of students and scholars in almost all fields of learning, collaborating worldwide in studying and applying Lonergan’s seminal ideas and making them more accessible to an increasing number of educated Christians. In the Philippines, Lonergan’s works, particularly their relevance to Third World issues, have been gaining enthusiastic students and committed scholars both in the academe as well as in the field of socio-economic and political actions for transformation.[3]

In 1986, the Lonergan Center for Inculturation and Interdisciplinary Studies published a book, The Third World and Bernard Lonergan: A Tribute to a Concerned Thinker. The first article in the book endeavors to make a connection between Lonergan’s thought and the liberation theologians. Frederick E. Crowe, the author of the article, argues forcefully that Lonergan’s life-long interest anticipated the very questions that became the central concern of liberation theologians almost forty years later. Crowe takes all of Lonergan’s writings, from the earliest to the latest works up to his death in 1984, and makes a remarkable discovery that “the concerns of the liberation theologians are the very concerns of the young Lonergan at the beginning of his career.”[4]

From his earlier writings in the 1940s, Lonergan dealt with important economic issues and pointed to the failures of economic systems such as capitalism and socialism. The same themes reappeared in Insight (1958) with further elaboration on such complex issues as “technology, capital formation, economic and political systems, the emergence of classes and their conflicts, the demand for a creative human role in the making of history.”[5]

From his book, Method in Theology, Lonergan provides us with an elaborate and realistic notion of society, its common meaning and values which constitute the historical factors in the building of such a society. Likewise, in his more recent writings, e.g., on “circulation analysis,” Lonergan deals with issues that are of signal interest to liberation theologians in the Third World. Crowe says that Lonergan deals with the chief target of liberation theologians: the multinational corporations and related issues, such as colonial economy, unemployment, armaments, inflation, etc., that are contributory to economic underdevelopment of many Third World countries.[6] This paper, however, focuses on Lonergan’s significant contribution towards a framework for authentic community building.

From Method to Praxis
In the book, The Lonergan Enterprise, Frederick Crowe calls Lonergan’s significant contribution as an “organon for our time” after that of Aristotle and Francis Bacon.[7] An organon is “not an external tool to be picked up and used to hammer out theological products from raw materials, but an organic relation of theologian and theology, an organon stresses how inseparable theological knowing is from the theologian.”[8]

If doing theology is like a mountain climbing expedition wherein there are no definite trail sketches, then it is certainly risky. But the expedition must proceed; and there are bound to be mistakes. Yet Lonergan says that in the mind of every theologian there is always a built-in, dynamic, self-correcting process of learning that will uncover and correct those mistakes and bring about new discoveries and allow us to scale the mountain heights. In this risky expedition, Lonergan’s organon (or “praxis-method”) will help keep ourselves going and ever moving in the right direction. It tells us about a “theology that is done in prayer, in community, and in an ecumenical context.” These three constitute the framework of doing theology, a framework grounded on a firm foundation. That foundation or criterion of doing theology is “the authenticity of the theologian who does it.”[9]

It is precisely the explication of the fundamental criterion, i.e., the authenticity of the theologian that concerns us here. In order that the theologian attains authenticity, it is presupposed that he/she has experienced the threefold conversion: intellectual, moral, and religious. One’s progress toward personal authenticity is a sustained struggle against human biases, mistaken beliefs and moral impotence. As such, one needs a genuine conversion experience (metanoia), an about-face or pagbabalik-loob. Lonergan defines intellectual conversion as a “radical clarification and consequently the elimination of an exceedingly stubborn and misleading myth concerning reality, objectivity, and human knowledge.”[10] It was after spending many years of “reaching up to the mind of Aquinas” that Lonergan experienced a genuine and radical conversion on the intellectual level. This experience did not come in just “one blinding moment of insight; rather it was an instance of a gradual process of seeing old things in a completely new way.”[11]

If doing theology is about “faith seeking understanding,” then to Lonergan the unrestricted desire for knowledge is the central key to his cognitional structure. Behind Lonergan’s massive and magisterial book, Insight, is his demonstration of “our own dynamic power of enquiry.” He further writes: “Though I cannot recall to each reader his personal experiences, he can do for himself and thereby pluck my general phases from the dim world of thought to set them in the pulsing flow of life.”[12] What Lonergan refers to by the phrase “the pulsating flow of life” is our almost unrestricted desire for knowledge. This desire for knowledge comes to our consciousness in four distinctive ways: 1) in the scope of our experiencing; 2) in the insight of our understand-ing; 3) in the truth of our judging; and 4) in the goodness and beauty chosen or created in our deciding.”[13]
Obviously, these four distinctive ways correspond to Lonergan’s levels of consciousness and intentionality, namely: experiencing, understanding, judging, and deciding. There are two significant features in Lonergan’s formulation. The first is that the levels are stages, each builds on the preceding one: without experience there is no understanding, without understanding no judgment, without judgment no decision. The second feature is that the levels are conscious: we are aware in our experiencing, aware in our understanding, aware in our judging, and aware of deciding.”[14]

This, then, is Lonergan’s understanding of our cognitional structure. This understanding has five characteristics. First, Lonergan takes the fact of knowledge for granted and simply proceeds to demonstrate the capacity of the mind. Second, Lonergan recognizes that what is already known is very extensive, but his interest is in the structure of human knowing. Third, Lonergan says that “the congnitional structure of human knowing is the structure of one’s experiencing, understanding, and judging.” To him, this can be attained by “self-affirmation” which means “rational self-consciousness.” Each person has to do this self-affirmation oneself. Therefore, Lonergan invites each one to a “personal self-affirmation to discover, to identify, to become familiar with the activities of one’s own intelligence.” Fourth, the cognitional structure is arrived at not in a “single leap” but “by doing it thoroughly, slowly, and methodically.” It starts from below upwards not from above downwards. It is a “moving viewpoint” which means that “each context is set up only to reveal the need for a higher viewpoint.” The movement of the cognitional structure leads to a “structured and, at its final stage, self-affirmed recognition to the unrestricted desire to know.” Fifth, the structure of knowing starts with “people as they are—people who have the natural gift of intelligent inquiry and critical reflection; people who are lost and confused due to the plurality of counter positions and, therefore, feel the need to unify knowledge.”[15]
This is Lonergan’s ongoing invitation which should be taken seriously by any one who is engaged in “faith seeking understanding” as a challenge. This is the existential side of his academic theological work. As theological educators in the Philippines, we must then respond to Lonergan’s challenge and take up responsibly the task that he has set for us. But what is Lonergan’s specific challenge to the theological task that we have to respond to? In answer to this challenge, it is wise to heed Crowe when he says that no matter how penetrating Lonergan’s analysis and how impressive his ideas are, “his thought is ultimately oriented to the practical and is programmatic for the future. He has provided us with an instrument that is to be used, not just contemplated, and the real Lonergan of history is not so much the Lonergan studied and analyzed, discussed and debated, located and evaluated, but the Lonergan whose achievement is still to be applied to the urgent tasks of the new age that we are facing.”[16]

Lonergan’s Lasting Legacy
The need of our time, as Lonergan has seen very clearly, is not so much for a new set of answers as for a whole new beginning. He speaks of a new movement of theological aggiornamento “towards a total transformation of dogmatic theology,” and calls for “a complete restructuring of Catholic theology.”[17] In short, Lonergan’s lasting legacy to the intellectual enterprise, i.e., doing theology, is the creation of a fundamental method. This is the “organon for our time,”[18] an instrument for the incarnate subject—in the very acts of experiencing, questioning, deliberating, deciding, falling in love (or sometimes falling out of love).

Having identified Lonergan’s lasting legacy to the task of doing theology—an instrument for the incarnate subject—let me explain what this instrument is all about and how to make us of it. Initially, Lonergan calls the instrument “transcendental method.” And he defines it as “a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations yielding cumulative and progressive results.”[19] Lonergan offers three observations on his definition. First, he says, “method is often conceived as a set of rules that yield results.” “Results are progressive only if there is a succession of discoveries; they are cumulative only if there is effected a synthesis of each new insight with all previous, valid insights.” Secondly, his notion of method is “not a set of rules but as a prior, normative pattern of operations from which rules may be derived.” Thirdly, he notes “that modern science derives its distinctive character from this grasping together of logical and non-logical operations.”[20]

The basic operation in any intellectual enterprise (e.g., the writing of this paper or book), according to Lonergan, consists of “seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, inquiring, imagining, understanding, conceiving, formulating, reflecting, marshalling, and weighing the evidence, judging, deliberating, evaluating, deciding, speaking, writing.”[21]

To make a further clarification on the above intellectual or cognitional operations, Lonergan makes seven descriptive comments. First, all the operations are transitive both in the grammatical and psychological senses. Second, the operations “are operations of an operator” who is the subject (both in the grammatical and psychological senses). Third, the operations involve the “process of objectifying the contents of consciousness not by looking inwardly but by recognizing in our expressions the objectification of our subjective experience.” Fourth, from the operations, we can arrive at four levels of consciousness and intentionality, namely, empirical, intellectual, rational, and responsible. Fifth, the operations “yield qualitatively different modes of conscious subjects [and] different modes of intending.” Sixth, “distinction [in the operation] between elementary and compound knowing [so that] the many elementary objects are constructed into a single compound object, and in turn the many compound objects will be ordered in a single universe.” And seventh, Lonergan distinguished many conscious and intentional operations and arranged them in a succession of different levels of consciousness.” These different levels of consciousness are so intimately linked so that we need some measure of detachment in order to engage ourselves to a “moral pursuit of goodness, a philosophical pursuit of truth, a scientific pursuit of understanding, an artistic pursuit of beauty.”[22]

In a recent reformulation Lonergan calls his method “generalized empirical method.” This means a method that “operates principally on the data of consciousness to work out a cognitional theory, an epistemology, and a metaphysics.”[23] Lonergan emphasizes that the method can be employed repeatedly so that cumulative results will be attained: out of the cumulative results, a standard is set. The operations continue to be repeated in order to meet the set standard, and once met, the pattern of related operations become normative. Finally, therefore, the normative pattern of operations becomes the right way to do a particular task.[24]

Lonergan’s “Be-attitudes”

In this summary presentation, one cannot but notice the double dynamism of the process. It is dynamic both materially and formally. This double dynamic “is not blind but open-eyed; it is attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible; it is a conscious intending, ever going beyond what happens to the given or known, ever striving for a fuller and richer apprehension of the yet unknown or incompletely known totality, the whole universe.[25] Like the Master-Teacher of Nazareth who formulated what we now know as “The Beatitudes,” Lonergan has also succeeded in formulating a “Be-attitudes” which we can follow as we struggle for an authentic selfhood: “Be Attentive; Be Intelligent; Be Reasonable; Be Responsible; and Be Loving and Committed.”

At this juncture, it is important to note two of Lonergan’s warnings on his method. First, he says, “I am writing not theology but method in theology. I am concerned not with the objects that theologians expound but with the operations that theologians perform.”[26] Second, Lonergan also modestly states that his method is “only part of a theological method.” What he means by this, I think, is that his method simply provides the “basic anthropological component” of doing theology. Three basic questions which are part of our conscious and intentional operations are: “What am I doing when I am knowing? Why is doing that knowing? What do I do when I do it? The first question has something to do with congnitional theory. The second question deals with epistemology. And the third question deals with metaphysics.[27]

Also, it must be pointed out that Lonergan’s theological method consists of eight functional specialties, the exposition of which is beyond the scope of this paper.[28] Suffice it to say that how Lonergan arrived at these eight specialties may be explained by two principles. The first principle is that doing theology is divided into two phases: a) the mediating phase of theology (in oratione obliqua), i.e., what the tradition tells us about God and the salvation of humanity; b) the mediated phase of theology (in oratione recta), i.e., what theologians, enlightened by tradition of the past, speak to confront the challenges of the present and the future. The second principle is based on Lonergan’s four levels of consciousness, namely: experience, understanding, judgment, and decision. From these four levels of consciousness, Lonergan provides the four transcendental precepts, namely: Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible.

Concluding Statement

To recapitulate, Lonergan’s praxis-method of doing theology demands not only the threefold conversion experience (intellectual, moral, and religious), but also a creative and collaborative task in building authentic communities. This paper is a humble plea to make use to Lonergan’s lasting legacy and framework for doing theology. I believe with Matthew Lamb, another distinguished Lonergan scholar, that responsible theologizing today must take seriously the imperative of “solidarity with the victims.”[29] He insists that such solidarity is with “communities of victims and with the victims in common reflection and action.” Also, such solidarity must always be “open to dialogue and collaboration with others.”

As such, we who are involved in the academe and in our respective parishes must continue to intensify the possibility of creative and collaborative ways in which theologizing is done so that we can contribute to the liberating activity of God in the lives of our people and communities. I believe that Lonergan’s “praxis-method” of doing theology is relevant in overcoming the long range problems and basic alienation which are at the root of the sufferings and victimization to which various political and liberation theologies seek to respond. I am convinced [along with Matthew Lamb] that Lonergan’s “praxis-method” of theologizing can promote a creative and critical collaboration in the task of transforming ourselves and our society into a more attentive, intelligent, reasonable, responsible, loving and committed Christians. And as Christians, “we are called to incarnate our struggles for humanization and personalization in the transformative values of doing the truth in love revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[30] Indeed, this programmatic framework for a creative and collaborative effort is a concrete manifestation of the redemptive and transformative role of the Christian Church in human history.


Melanio LaGuardia Aoanan is Professorial Lecturer III (masteral/doctoral levels) at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at De La Salle University in Manila. He was former Administrative Pastor at the Church Among the Palms, UPLB Campus, Los Banos, Laguna. Earlier, he was professor of Ecumenics, Emerging Asian Theology, and Research at Union Theological Seminary, Dasmarinas, Cavite. His doctorate is from the Southeast Asia Graduate School of Theology and Ateneo de Manila University consortium.

[1]See “The Exigent Mind: Bernard Lonergan’s Intellectualism,” in Spirit as Inquiry: Studies in Honor of Bernard Lonergan. Edited by Frederick E. Crowe, S.J. St. Paul, MN: North Central Publishing Co., 1964. Crowe’s article concentrates on Lonergan’s intellectual development particularly his doctoral dissertation on “Operative Grace in the Thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas,” and his major work on cognitional theory, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (1958). In Crowe’s chronological listing of Lonergan’s works up to 1964, the doctoral dissertation is number 10, “The Concept of Verbum in Saint Thomas” is number 27, and Insight is number 64. The last entry, “Existenz and Aggiornamento,” is number 99. Lonergan’s first published article was on G. K. Chesterton in 1931. See Spirit as Inquiry, pp. 244-249. From 1931 to 1964, Lonergan has a total of 99 works, which means an average of three works per year. One wonders how many more works this prolific man turned out from 1964 to 1984 (the year of his death). It is worth noting that the University of Toronto Press has published a 20-volume edition of The Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan under the editorship of Frederick E. Crowe. See also The Desires of the Human Heart: An Introduction of the Theology of Bernard Lonergan. Edited by Vernon Gregson. New York: Paulist Press, 1988, pp. xi-xii.
[2]I took a course on Bernard Lonergan with Fr. Walter L. Ysaac, S.J., who is a professor of Systematic Theology at the Loyola School of Theology.
[3]The task of introducing Lonergan’s thought in the Philippines is the concern of the Lonergan Center for Inculturation and Interdisciplinary Studies located at the Ateneo de Manila University campus in Quezon City. The Director is Fr. Walter L. Ysaac, S.J.
[4]The Third World and Bernard Lonergan, p. 3.
[5]Ibid., p. 3.
[6]Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[7]F. E. Crowe, S.J., The Lonergan Enterprise. Cowley Publications, 1980. This is published as part of the celebration of Lonergan’s 75th birthday. Fr. Crowe is one of the earliest students of Lonergan (1947). Crowe made an enlightening comparison of Lonergan’s “Method” with that of Aristotle’s “Logic”(which is the original organon) and Francis Bacon’s “experimental science” (the novum organum) in a discussion of a history of an idea. Cf. pp. ix, 29ff.
[8]The Lonergan Enterprise, p. xiv.
[9]Ibid., p. xvi.
[10]W. La Centra, The Authentic Self. New York: Peter Lang, 1987, p. 9.
[12]Insight, p. xix.
[13]See Vernon Gregson (ed.), The Desires of the Human Heart. New York: Paulist Press, 1988, p. 16.
[14]See The Desires of the Human Heart, pp. 18-19.
[15]See N. Falcao, ‘Konwing’ According to Bernard Lonergan. Rome: Urbaniana University Press, 1987, pp. 27-26.
[16]The Lonergan Enterprise, p. 2.
[17]See Bernard Lonergan, “Theology in A New Context,” in Theology of Renewal. Vol. 1. Edited by L. K. Shook. Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1968, pp. 45-46. See also A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan. Edited by William F. J. Ryan & B. J. Tyrell. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974, p. 65.
[18]The making of Lonergan’s fundamental method is traced by Frederick Crowe from the time of his doctoral dissertation up to the publication of Method in Theology in 1972. See The Lonergan Enterprise, pp. 29ff.
[19]See Method in Theology, pp. 5-6. Later, Lonergan refers to his method as “generalized empirical method.” See “Lectures on Religious Studies and Theology,” in A Third Collection. Papers by Bernard Lonergan. Edited by F. E. Crowe. New York: Paulist Press, 1985, pp. 113-165.
[20]Method in Theology, pp. 7-13.
[21]Method in Theology, p. 6.
[22]Ibid., pp. 7-13. Lonergan discussed the pattern of operation in full and made a “compendious presentation” in his article “Cognitive Structure,” in Collection. Papers by Bernard Lonergan. Edited by F. E. Crowe. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967.
[23]Bernard Lonergan, “Aquinas Today: Tradition and Innovation,” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55; No. 2 (1975), p. 174.
[24]A Third Collection, p. 140.
[25]See Method in Theology, p. 13.
[26]See the Preface, Method in Theology, p. xii.
[27]See Method in Theology, p. 25. Fr. Walter L. Ysaac has reformulated these three questions in the context of theologizing in the Philippines: “What do I do when I do theology in the Philippine context? Why is doing that doing theology? What do I affirm and come to understand when I do that?” See his “Doing Theology in the Philippine Context.” Lecture delivered at Harvard Divinity School on 10 November 1987 (Mimeographed).
[28]See Method in Theology, chapters 5-14. Cf. The Lonergan Enterprise, chapters 2 and 3 for a concise description of each of the eight functional specialties and suggestions for practical application.
[29]See Matthew Lamb, Solidarity With Victims. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982, p. ix.
[30] Solidarity With Victims, p. 143.

Kasaysayan at Kontribusyon ng Protestantismo

Kasaysayan At Kontribusyon Ng
Protestantismo Sa Pilipinas*

I. Isang Talinghaga Ng Pakikibaka.

Simulan natin ang talakayan sa pamamagitan ng isang talinghaga.

Sa paanan ng isang bundok, may kawan ng mga baka na nakalukong sa loob ng malawak na koral. Malimit ang mga baka ay naghahangad na makalabas sa bakod. Ang paghahangad na makalaya ay tumindi lalo na’t dumarami ang bilang ng mga baka at kinukulang sila ng pagkain sa loob ng koral. Sa kanilang pagtutunggali at pag-uunahan sa pagkain, ang mga bakang may katandaan at masakitin ay langing naiiwanan ng mga malalakas. Kung minsa’y nagkakaroon ng pag-aaway na humahantong sa kapansanan o dili kaya’y kamatayan sa ilan. Kaya, pinagsabihan ng may-ari ng kawan ang kanyang katiwala na lagyan ng tapon ang sungay ng mga baka. Sa ganitong paraan, walang masasaktan kahit sila’y mag-away.

Samantala, may mga taong nagmungkahi sa katiwala. “Ba’t di mo nalang pakawalan ang mga baka upang makakain sila ng sapat sas labas?”

Sagot ng katiwala: “Eh, kung pakawalan ko sila, mahihirapan kong gatasan ang mga baka!”

Kaya, patuloy ang mga baka sa loob ng koral.

Ngunit may mga sekto ng kawan na naniniwalang kung sila’y magkaisa, puwede silang pumiglas na lumabas sa kulungan. At ito nga ang kanilang ginawa. Kaya, isang araw sila’y nakalaya. Gayon na lamang ang takot ng katiwala, at siya’y nagtago sa malayong dako.

Subalit may bagong itinalagang katiwala ang may-ari ng kawan. Isa-isang pinabalik ang mga baka sa loob ng koral. Lalong mas mahigpit ang bagong katiwala sa pagpapatupad ng kagustuhan ng may-ari. Tulad ng inaasahan, ang mga malalakas na baka ay nagsimulang apihin ang mga mahihina. Datapuwa’t ang mga bakang nakatikim na ng malayang buhay sa labas ng koral ay naghangad muling makalaya hanggang ngayon!

II. Ang Inang Bayan:
Konteksto ng Pakikibaka.

Ang kasayasayan ng ating Inang Bayan ay mayaman sa mga karanasan sa pakikibaka, pagkabayani at kagitingan upang makamtan ang kalayaan. Katunayan, noong ika-30 ng Deciembre 1996, ating nasaksihan ang pagdiriwang ng Sentenaryo ng kabayanihan ni Jose Rizal. Sa mahabang panahon, maraming paghihimagsik ang itinaguyod ng mga Filipino sa iba’t-ibang dako ng ating kapuluan. Ang katapangan at kagitingan ng Filipino ay napatunayan sa labin-limang paghihimagsik tulad ng mga sumusunod: 1) Lakan Dula, 1574; 2) Magalat, 1596; 3) Tamblot, 1621; 4) Bankaw, 1622; 5) Samuroy, 1649; 6) Maniago, 1660; 7) Malong, 1661; 8) Dagohoy, 1744; 9) Palaris at Silang, 1762; 10) Hermano Pule, 1840; 11) GOMBURZA, 1872; 12) Papa Isio, 1896; 13) Bonifacio at mga Katipunero, 1896; 14) Laban sa mga Amerikano, 1898-1903; 15) Laban sa mga Hapon, 1941-1945; at 16) Laban sa Diktador, 1983-1986.[1]

Kaya, ang matamis na tagumpay na nakamtan noong 1898 at noong 1986 ay parang kambal na tugatog ng malawak na bundok ng kabayanihan ng mga Filipino.

Ang talinghaga ng pakikibaka ay naglalarawan sa kontekstong sosyo-ekonomiko, istorikal, pulitikal at kultural ng ating Inang Bayan. Ang mahigit na 86 na milyong Pilipino sa ngayon ay kabahagi sa kamalayang kolonyal na minana natin mula pa noong ika-16 na dantaon. Ang karanasan natin sa ilalim ng mga Kastila ay parang isang masamang panaginip na tila walang katapusan. Sa kabila ng mapanggayumang epekto ng Katolisismo natuto ang mga Pilipino na magkaisa at samasamang puksain ang paniniil ng mga Kastila noong 1898.

Subalit dumating ang mga Amerikano at inagaw nila ang tamis ng tagumpay na nakamit natin laban sa mga Kastila. Kaya, tuloy ang pakikipag-laban ng mga Filipino at sa loob ng tatlong taon nagwagi ang mga kalaban. Itinatag ng mga Amerikano ang kolonyal na pamamahala at nagmistulang parang ibon na nakakulong sa haula ang diwa ng pakikibaka ng mga Filipino. Datapuwa’t ang diwang makabayan at pagka-uhaw sa kalayaan ay namalagi sa kabila ng patakarang benevolent assimilation ng mga Amerikano. Ito’y ipinahiwatig ng awiting kinatha ni Jose Corazon de Jesus noong 1928:

Ang bayan kong Pilipinas, Lupain ng ginto’t bulaklak
Pag-ibig ang sa kanyang palad, nag-alay ng ganda’t dilag
At sa kanyang yumi at ganda, dayuhan ay nahalina;
Bayan ko binihag ka, nasadlak sa dusa.

Ibon man may layang lumipad, Kulungin mo at pumupiglas,
Bayan pa kayang sakdal dilag Ang di magnasang maka-alpas.
Pilipinas kong minumutya, pugad ng luha ko’t dalita.
Aking adhika, makita kang sakdal laya.[2]

Ang mga titik ng awiting ito’y naghahayag ng alab sa pakikibaka kung kaya’t ito’y naging mahalagang sangkap sa mga kilos-protesta sa panahon ng diktaduryang rehimeng Marcos. Ang alab ng pakikihamok kailanma’y hindi apapawi lalo na sa mga tagasunod ng Protestanteng Repormasyon. Ayon kay Dr. Fely V. Cariño:
“Protestantism in the Philippines is associated more with religious and theological views that have emerged from the religious life of the American frontier than with the tradition that has been engendered by the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The result is a watered-down... Protestant Christianity that simply does not have the religious and theological depth of the Reformation or the social, economic and cultural expressions that the Reformers initiated. This is not only sad; it is also a matter of great impoverishment... for those who consider themselves to be Protestants.”[3]

Ang pasimula at paglaganap ng Protestantismo sa ating bansa ay dahil sa masigasig na pagtataguyod ng mga misyonerong Amerikano. Mahalagang kilalanin ito lalo na sa konteksto ng namamalaging inpluwensiya ng Katolisismo. Kaakibat sa paglaganap ng Protestantismo ay ang mga isyu ng nationalismo, pagkakaisa at kooperasyon ng mga iba’t-ibang simbahan tungo sa kaunlaran at pagbabagong kultural.

Ang talakayan tungkol sa isyu ng nationalismo ay may ugnayan sa mga kaganapan noong 1898 kung saan matagumpay nating naitatag ang kasarinlan ngunit ito’y inagaw ng mga imperialistang sumakop sa atin. Ang mapait ay ang paraan ng panloloko o panlilinlang ng mga Amerikano sa paggamit ng ideyang “manifest destiny” buhat sa Dakilang Maykapal. Pinatunayan ito ni J. E. Smylie, isang American church historian, na nagkaroon “sense of manifest destiny among the missionaries.” Ayon sa kanya “the theological basis for this feeling of destiny was the common doctrine of providence [which assumes] that the United States was to be the primary agent of God’s meaningful activity in history.”[4]

Ayon pa sa isang manunulat na Amerikano, ang kahulugan ng manifest destiny ay “expansion, prearranged by Heaven, over an area ... for extending the blessings of American freedom, to neighboring peoples who wanted to achieve self-realization; it involved the reduction of distant peoples to a state of colonialism.”[5] Isang kasapi ng U.S. Senate na nanguna sa pagsakop sa Pilipinas ay nagsabi:
“And of all our race, God has marked the American people as His chosen Nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world’s progress, guardian of its righteous peace.”[6]

Ang laganap na paniniwala tungkol sa “manifest destiny” ang siyang nagtulak kay President William McKinley na angkinin ang Pilipinas bilang “a sacred trust, as a mission of ‘benevolent assimilation.’” Ipinagtapat ni McKinley sa grupo ng mga lider simbahan na hindi niya alam ang gagawin sa Pilipinas, kung kaya’t nanikluhod sa pagdadasal upang maliwanagan ang kanyang kaisipan. Ito ang kanyang pahayag:

“The truth is that I didn’t want the Philippines.... I did not know what to do with them.... I walked the floor of the White House ...until midnight; and I ... went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance.... And ... it came to me this way: 1) that we could not give them back to Spain--that would be cowardly and dishonorable; 2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany... that would be bad business and discreditable; 3) that we could not leave them to themselves--they were unfit for self-government-- and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ died.”[7]

Si Reinhold Niebuhr, isang tanyag na teologo sa America, ang pumuna sa mapag-kunyaring pahayag ni McKinley: ito’y isang uri ng self-deception, hypocrisy, dishonesty, ang heavenly vision ni McKinley.[8] May hanay ng mga prominenteng tinig na anti-imperialist sa America na kinabibilangan ng dalawang dating pangulo [Harrison at Cleveland], mga manunulat gaya nina Mark Twain, Henry James, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Jane Addams, tanyag na philosophers tulad nina William James, George Santayana, at mga pangulo ng Universidad tulad nila Charles W. Eliot ng Harvard, Henry W. Rogers ng Northwestern, at David S. Jordan ng Stanford. Gayon din ang mga kilalang lider ng mga simbahan tulad nila Rev. Henry van Dyke, Rev. Edward E. Hale, and Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, etc. Ang bisa ng kanilang samasamang tinig-protesta ay ang pagkakaroon ng patas na boto tungkol sa pagkilala ng independencia ng Pilipinas. The tie vote was broken by the Senate presiding officer. Gayon din, noong pagpasyahan ng Treaty of Paris kung saan pinagbili ng España ang Pilipinas sa Estados Unidos sa halagang $20 million, ito’y nagtagumpay sa pamamagitan ng isang boto lamang.[9]

Isang halimbawa ng matalas ng panunuligsa laban sa mga maka-imperialista ay ang tula ni Mark Twain, “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”
“Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger’s wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on!

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless sons of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious, Greed was born in yonder ditch;
With a longing in his bosom -- and for others’ goods an itch --
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich --
Our god is marching on!”[10]

Matapos ang limang dekadang mapanlinlang na pananakop ng mga Amerikano, karamihan sa ating mga Protestante ay tila hindi nakarinig sa mga panunuligsa ng mga anti-imperialistang tinig sa Amerika. Hindi ito katakataka dahil halos lahat ng mga misyonerong pinadala dito ay sang-ayon sa imperialist expansion ng Amerika. Kaya, kahit na ipinagkaloob sa atin ang independencia noong 1946, ang mga Filipino’y nanganganib pa rin na maabot ng mga kuko ng American eagle. Hindi rin dapat ipagtaka kung bait lahat ng mga naging pangulo ng ating bansa mula 1946 hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay sumunod sa giya ng Estados Unidos.

Kaya, ito ang konteksto ng ating patuloy na pakikibaka tungo sa tunay na demokrasya. Mahalagang sangkap ng ating pakikibaka ay ang pagiging anti-imperialist. Marami ng mga buhay ang nalagas upang maisulong ang pakikibaka sa panahon ng Filipino-American war [1898-1902], sa panahon ng diktaduriang Marcos [1972-1986] at maging ang “total war policy” ng Aquino government. Sa ilalim ng Martial Law, halimbawa, ang pamiliang Marcos at kanilang mga crony [negosyante at lider militar] ang nagsamatala at nagpasasa sa kayamanan ng Inang Bayan. Ang mga tagapamala ng batas militar mismo ang sistimatikong nangurakot at dinam-bong ang kayamanan ng ating bansa kung kaya’t lumubo ang ating utang sa labas.

Ito and dahilan kung bakit nagdarahop ang marami sa ating kababayan at ang iba’y napilitang makipagsapalaran sa ibang bansa, ipagbili ang angking dangal, at kung minsan ay umuuwing malamig na bangkay sa loob ng kahon. Ang matinding karukhaan ay nagbubunga ng iba’t-ibang mga sakit na sanhi rin ng maagang kamatayan. Sa kabila ng karangyaan ng ilan nating kababayan, ang ganitong sitwasyon ay sadyang naka-panghihilakbot. Kaya, samasama at kapit-bisig ang mga Filipino upang tutulan ang mapagsamantalang rehimen sa pamamagitan ng people power revolt sa EDSA noong 1986. Tulad ng kawan ng mga baka, ang mga Filipino ay nagkaisa at nagpumiglas upang makalabas sa koral ng rehimeng Marcos. At si Marcos ay lumayas at nagtago sa ibang bansa. Samantala, may bagong katiwala na itinalaga, ang pamahalaang Aquino. Ngunit ito ma’y sunod-sunoran sa patakaran ng World Bank at IMF.

Ganito ang konteksto kung saan ang mga Protestante ay magsagawa ng maka-propetang patotoo sa ating lipunan. Mahalagang bahagi sa patotoong ito ay ang pag-exorcise sa multo ng “pro-imperialist” na kamalayan. Kung kaya’y ang mga Protestanteng tulad natin ay dapat magdevelop ng “healthy nationalist philosophy” na siyang magpa-hiwatig ng isang “anti-imperialist ideology.” Ito lamang ang paraan, ayon kay Claro M. Recto at Renato Constantino, upang makamit ang pam-bansang pagkakaisa na siyang simula ng ating kaligtasan. Ito ang pahayag ni Recto: “The one fact that we Filipinos must never forget is that others will want division among ourselves that they may rule [us]. We must be united in order that we may rule ourselves.”[11]

Nagmungkahi si Constantino na pasimulan natin ang “initial stage to establish an anti-imperialist nationalism. This unity will serve as the arena for discussing and classifying the emerging class relations.”[12] Ang ganitong pananaw ay kamuntik ng maisakatuparan noong EDSA 1986 Revolution dahil nakamit na ang mga kailangang sangkap, gaya ng: the good will of the affluent and middle sectors of society and the need for national solidarity based on the denial of short-term economic self-interest. Datapuwat ang pinakamahalagang sangkap ay wala: ang anti-imperialist ideology sapagkat ang mga nagsiganap sa drama ng EDSA 1986 ay sumunod sa “script” ng State Depart-ment in Washington, D.C.[13] Tama ang analisis ni Constantino na ang “dialectic of the class struggle is inappropriate in the Philippine context until mass nationalism had defeated the forces of imperialism.”

May magagawa ba ang mga Protestante upang maisakatuparan ang pananaw at adhikaing Recto-Constantino na mabuo ang anti-imperialist na pagkakaisa ng mga Filipino? Ang sagot sa tanong na ito ay nakasalalay sa ating kakayahang ma-exorcise ang maka-imperialistang kamalayan at kung paano natin putulin ang “umbilical cord” na naguugnay sa atin sa “Mother America.” Bahagi ito sa mahala-gang sangkap upang makamtan natin ang matatag na kooperasyon at pagkakaisa.

III. Kontribusyon ng Mga
Misyonerong Amerikano

Sa usaping ito, mahalagang kilalanin natin ang papel ng mga unang misyo-nerong Amerikano sa pagpapakita ng marubdob na diwa ng pagkakaisa. Ang “Comity Agreement” at pagtatatag “Evangelical Union” noong 1901 ay katunayan ng kanilang pagkakaisa.[14] Bago dumating ang mga misyonero, nagkasundo ang mga Mission Boards na magkaroon ng “mutual understanding as to the most effective and equitable distribution of the territory and work.”[15] Noong pa mang 1898, sinikap na nilang iwasan ang pagkakaroon ng “unnecessary duplication of work and rivalry which have been costly and counter-productive to Christian solidarity.” Pinuri ng isang Mission Board Eexecutive ang pagkakaroon ng comity agreement dahil ito ang kauna-unahang pangyayari sa kasaysayan na ang mga Mission Boards ay nagpasyang iwasan ang masamang dulot ng denominationalismo.”[16] May dalawang impor-tanteng pasya: ang pagkakaroon ng iisang pangalan “The Evangelical Church in the Philippine Islands,” at ang paghahati ng mga teritoryo. Ang pasyang ito ay tinawag ng “Comity Agreement” at tumagal hanggang 1950.[17] Sila’y nagka-isa na ang layunin ng bawat Evangelical Church ay:
“to penetrate this country, open to the Christian influences, instill moral and spiritual life in each community; plant churches, schools, dispensaries, preachers, teachers, doctors and nurses in every strategic town...; develop a self-supporting church with well-trained leaders of Christian character and life; create a moral atmosphere that will inspire public opinion, and make a civilization that is bound to develop thoroughly Christian.”[18]

Talakayin natin sa bahaging ito ang kontribusiyon nina: Dr. James Rodgers ng Presbyterian Church; Dr. Elmer Higdon ng Church of Christ Disciples; at si Dr. Frank C. Laubach ng Congregational Church.

A. Dr. James Burton Rodgers. Si Rodgers ay isang iskolar at nagtaguyod ng ekumenismo. Ayon kay Anne Kwantes: “He was well-known for his enthusiastic support of interdenominational cooperation and church union. His background suited Rodgers well when he began his many years as a missionary in the Philip-pines.”[19] Ang pinakamahalagang kontribusyon ni Rodgers bilang ay sa larangan ng evangelismo. Bilang kauna-unahang misyonero sa bansa, siya ang unang nagpala-ganap sa pag-aaral at pagpapahayag ng Biblia sa mga tao. Dahil may mataas siyang pinag-aralan, naakit niya ang mga Filipinong nasa middle class upang sanayin na maging lider ng simbahan. Ilan sa mga naakit niya ay Nicolas Zamora ng Tondo, Monico Estrella ng Cavite, Francisco Beltran ng Lucban, at Roman Amorante ng Timog Luzon.[20] Siya’y sumulat ng aklat kasaysayan, Forty Years in the Philippines: A History of the Philippine Mission of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1899-1939.

B. Dr. Elmer Kelso Higdon. Siya’y misyonero ng Disciples of Christ. Itina-guyod ni Higdon ang “Social Gospel” at hinikayat niya ang mga lider na Filipino tulad nila: Dr. Jorge Boccobo at Rev. Proculo Rodriguez. Magkakasama silang dumalo noong 1928 sa Jerusalem Conference ng International Missionary Council. Pag-uwi nila, itinaguyod ang “comprehensive development of rural churches and to alleviate the plight of rural people.”[21] Si Higdon naman ay naging abala sa problema ng “mass migration of people from the rural to the cities as well as the social unrest among the peasants.” Siya at ang kanyang kapanalig ay matatag sa pagtataguyod ng pananagutan ng simbahan sa lipunan. Ayon sa kanya:
“We believe that the duty of the Church in this area of social tension is clear. Missionaries and churches in the Philippines, aided and encouraged by churches and mission boards in America, should select three or four well-trained Filipino and American Christians, release them from all other responsibilities, and ask them to live in one of these ‘hot spots’ long enough to find a solution of the problem. It might take two years or more. These men might have to neglect for a season some of the routine of their churches. But is that too high a price to pay in order that we may become ambassadors of reconciliation on behalf of Christ?[22]

Higdon’s specific proposal foreshadowed what we may call “theology-in-life exposure program” or “frontier internship” or other forms of social action, community organizing and empowerment. Kung itaguyod ng simbahan ang mga ganitong programa, malamang babansagan itong isang subsersibo. Datapuwa’t si Higdon ay hindi natakot. Bagkus, siya’y nabahala sa mga maling patakaran ng gobiyerno na nakasasama sa mga karaniwang tao. Ayon sa kanya:
“. . . while some of the missionaries took the attitude that they would not ‘meddle in politics,’ others openly declared their sym-pathies with the hopes and aspirations of the Filipino people.... Evangelicals, therefore, are now in the good position to help solve the problems that have arisen, first, out of the economic inequalities of the Tydings-McDuffie Act, and second, out of the general world situation.”[23]

C. Dr. Frank C. Laubach. Siya’y isang misyonerong Congregational Church sa Mindanao. Makabuluhang ang kanyang kontribusyon sa pagpapaunlad ng kabu-hayan ng mga Maranao. Para sa kanya ang mga gawaing ito ay pundamental na bahagi ng teolohikal at etikal isyu dahil and Diyos ay banal at makatarungan. Noong 1926, siya nagpahayag ng mga nakababahalang mga tanong:
1. Shall the public domain be homestead out to small Filipino landholders or shall it be given over to great American corporations?. . . American capital insists upon permanent ownership and upon unlimited size to its holdings.
2. When a moral issue becomes political, does it automatically drop out of the Christian program, and is it the duty of the missionary both to ignore the question and enjoin the native church to ignore it?
3. Shall missionaries attack social problems or shall they refrain, hoping that native Christians will do this when they become strong enough?
4. How far shall missionaries be kept silent about moral issues by fear of the effect it may have upon the Home Board’s efforts to raise their budgets in America?
5. Shall missionaries purchase the approval of fellow foreigners by maintaining silence about the morals, business practices. . . of foreigners?
6. If an individual missionary feels that his fellows are unconsciously paving the way for imperialism, does he owe it to them to maintain silence until he can persuade his colleagues to go with him?
7. Shall a mission board silence a native pastor who is an agitator for independence either by threat or by transferring him to another station?
8. Have or have we not missionaries too much saved themselves by falling to try to right injustices?[24]

Ayon kay Dr. Sitoy, ang kilalang Church historian ng UCCP, “Laubach’s outspokenness became a mark of prophetic courage at a time when many were opting for silence as a mark of ‘prudent’ non-involvement.”[25] Si Dr. Laubach ay higit na kilala sa buong daigdig sa kanyang Literacy Strategy na “Each Teach One.”

IV. Nasyonalismo at Pagtataguyod Pagkakaisa.

Ang pagtataguyod ng pagkakaisa Protestante ay nagsimula sa pagkakatatag ng Evangelical Union noong 1901. Isang balakid sa pagkakaisa ng mga simbahan ay ang isyu ng nationalismo. Ang pagkakahiwalay ng ilang simhaban ay nag-ugat sa hangarin ng mga lider na Filipino upang makalaya sa panghihimasok at pamama-halang mga Amerikano.[26] Ang pinaka-unang kaganapan ng pag-iisang organiko ay pagkatatag ng Union Church of Manila sa pagitan ng mga Presbyterian at Methodist noong October 11, 1914. May 25 indibidwal na miembro ng Disciples of Christ na sumapi sa bagong congragasyon. Sumunod naman ang isang mas mala-wak church union na kinasangkutan ng lahat na simbahang Protestante. Datapuwa’t naging hadlang ang isyu tungkol sa church polity (i.e., congregational autonomy) na pinagdiinan ng mga Baptist at Dicsciples of Christ. Subalit ang mga misyonerong Presbyterian at Congregationalist ay nagpatuloy sa kanilang magan-dang ugnayan at ito’y nagbunga sa pagkakatatag Silliman Bible School noong 1921 [na siya ngayong Silliman University Divinity School]. Dahil sa karanasang ito, napalakas ng dalawa ang mithiing isakatuparan ang pagkakaisa sa mga susunod na taon. Samantala, ang mga lider na Filipino ay tila nainip at nayamot sa kabagalan ng mga negosasyon tungo sa pagkakaisa. Kaya, pinangunahan ng mga ito ang pag-organisa sa “United Church of Manila” noong February 1924. Layunin ng grupo ng mga Filipino na “ipakita ang praktikal na kabutihan ng pagkakaisa at paghandaan ang malawak na pag-iisang simbahan sa buong Pilipinas.”[27]

Si Rev. Juan A. Abellera ang unang pastor na Filipino ng “United Church of Manila.” Subalit hindi siya nagtagal dahil siya’y may karamdaman. Siya’y pinalitan ni Rev. Enrique C. Sobrepeña, na katatapos ng pag-aaral sa America. Dito nagsimula ang pangunguna ni Sobrepeña sa pagtataguyod ng pagkaka-isang Kristiyano na humantong sa pagkakabuo ng United Evangelical Church in the Philippines [UECP] noong March 15, 1929,[28] at ng United Church of Christ in the Philippines [UCCP] noong May 25, 1948.[29] Kung kaya’t si Sobrepeña ang naging kilalang pangunahing lider sa pagtataguyod ng pagkakaisang Kristiyano sa Pilipinas.

V. Mga Pangunahing Lider ng Protestante.

Nais kong banggitin ang ilang lider at ang kontribusyon nila sa lipunan at pagpapalaganap ng simulaing Protestante dito sa Pilipinas.

Ang una ay si Dr. Jorge Boccobo. Siya’y naging decano, College of Law, at Presidente ng University of the Philippines. Siya ang kauna-unahang Filipino na nangulo ng Evangelical Union noong 1921. Dahil dito, naipamalas ang aktibong pakikibahagi sa liderato ng mga Filipino sa Evangelical Union. Ang pagkahalal kay Boccob ay “the most far-reaching action ever taken by the Evangelical Union.” Ito’y nangangahulugan sa pagkilala sa kakayahan ng mga lider Filipino. Pahayag ni Laubach: “. . . Earlier the missionaries had been planning and working for Filipinos, like spiritual fathers; . . . [now they] work with Filipinos as brothers.”[30]

Don Toribio Teodoro. Siya’y kilalang lider ng industriya [Ang Tibay Shoe Factory] at naging masugid na tagapagtaguyod ng pagkakaisa ng mga simbahang Protestante. Inanyayahan niya ang kapuwa lider sa kanyang tahanan at ang pagpupulong na ito ay nagbunga sa pagkakabuo ng Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Cristo noong January 3, 1932. Sapagkat ang liderato ng bagong simbahan ay nakaatas sa mga balikat ng mga Obispo, si Don Toribio Teodoro ihinalal na “honorary member for life” of the Church’s General Council.[31]

Josefa Jara Martinez. Siya ang kauna-unang Filipina na nakapagsanay bilang social worker sa New York School of Social Work noong 1921. Pag-uwi niya sa bansa, siya’y nagtrabaho sa Bureau of Public Welfare [1921-1934] kung saan itinaguyod niya ang kapakanan ng pamilia at mga bata. Hindi nagtagal, siya’y naging hepe ng kanyang Bureau. Siya ang nagtatag sa Welfareville, isang institution na tumutulong sa mga homeless children. Siya’y naging Executive Secretary ng YWCA [1934-1946] kung saan itinaguyod niya ang “character building and physical education for women and girls.” Si Mrs. Martinez ang nagtatag ng Philippine School for Social Work na nakaugnay sa Philippine Women’s University. Siya ang nagtaguyod dito sa bansa ng graduate social work education. Siya’y naging mataas na opisyal ng United Nations bilang Social Welfare Adviser. Naging consultant din siya sa iba’t-ibang non-government agencies. Dahil sa mga gawaing ito, siya’y pinuri ni, Dr. Higdon noong 1941 dahil sa kaniyang “development of public opinion and deepened convictions concerning the necessity for social welfare work, the need for trained personnel for it,. . . and the care of dependent and delinquent children.”[32]

Asuncion Arriola Perez. Matapos siyang makapagsanay sa America noong 1920, siya’y nagturo sa Far Eastern University. Nagkaroon ng malawak ng sunog sa Tondo [Manila] noong 1923 at nabago ang direksiyon ng kanyang buhay. Iniwanan niya ang pagtuturo at siya’y naging Social Worker. Ito ang naging deskripsiyon sa kanya:
“Her passion for justice and service was ignited by the plight of the fire victims. As greedy property owners began to rebuild houses which were virtual fire-traps intended to be rented out with great profit, Mrs. Perez lodged her vigorous protest and demanded for a law requiring five safeguards in building permits and because of her persistency the national government complied with her demand.”

Hindi naglaon, siya’y hinirang sa Gabinete [“only woman member”] ni President Manuel L. Quezon. Naging kinatawan siya ng bansa sa International Conference of Social Workers na ginanap sa United States noong 1941, at inatasan ni Pres. Quezon na pag-aralan and kondisiyon ng mga Filipino migrant workers in the U.S. West Coast. Pagbalik sa bansa siya hinirang na director of Public Welfare noong 1941. Noong sumiklab ang World War II sumapi siya sa mga guerrilla na may rangkong Lt. Colonel. Siya binhag ng mga Hapon, at noong natapos ang digmaan, siya nagbalik sa pagiging social worker. She unselfishly organized 80,000 homeless orphans, widows and war victims.[33] Noong 1948, si Mrs. Perez ay nahirang na Chairperson of the United Nations International Children’s Educational Fund [UNICEF], ang kauna-unahang babae na humawak ng mataas na position sa isang international organization. Mula 1954-1964, siya’y naging Presidente ng Wesleyan University-Philippine sa Cabanatuan City.

Senator Jovito R. Salonga. Anak ng isang pastor na Presbyterian, si Salonga ay kinilalang topnotch lawyer, educator and fearless legislator. Nagtapos siya ng Master of Laws [Harvard University] at Doctor of Science in Jurisprudence [Yale University]. Naging professor and dean ng College of Law sa Far Eastern University. Noong 1961, siya’y nahalal bilang Congressman. Pagkatapos ng isang term, siya’y nahalal na may pinakamataas na boto bilang isang Senador noong 1965. Muli siyang ibinalik sa Senado noong [1971 and 1987] and in both occasions he garnered the highest number of votes. Bilang isang mambabatas, siya kilala sa kanyang impeccable honesty and integrity. Kung kaya’t tinagurian siyang “Mr. Good Government”.

Noong idineklara ang Martial Law, isa siya sa unang binilanggo ni Marcos. Noong siya’y nakalaya, walang pakundangan ang kanyang panunuligsa sa rehimen lalo na sa mga panghihimasok ng Estados Unidos at patuloy na presencia ng base militar nila. Siya rin ang tumuligsa sa Philippine-Japan Treaty of Friendship and Navigation noong 1974 dahil sa maaring pagsasamantala ng mga malalaking Hapon sa likas-yaman ng ating karagatan. Tulad nina Ninoy Aquino, Jose Diokno at Lorenzo Tañada, si Salonga ay lumibot sa buong bansa upang ipahayag ang maka-propetang mensahe tungkol sa pagmamalabis ng rehimeng Martial law. Bilang isang magaling at popular na predikador, si Salonga ay laging kinukuhang pana-uhing pandangal sa mga Church anniversaries, convocations and commencement exercises. Siya’y hinirang ni Pres. Cory Aquino noong 1986 bilang taga-pangulo ng Presidential Commission for Good Government upang mabawi ang mga “hidden wealth” ni Marcos at kanyang mga cronies. Matapos na makakuha ng pinaka-maraming boto noong election sa 1987, si Salonga ay naging Senate President. Dahil sa kanyang liderato sa Senado, nagawang pagpasyahang patalsikin ang mga base milatar ng Estados Unidos. Siya ang nagtatag ng Kilosbayan, isang non-government organization, upang ipagpatuloy ang kanyang panunuligsa sa katiwalian sa pamahalaan.

Ito ang mga ilan sa maraming lider sa hanay ng mga Protestante na nagpakita ng kakaibang gilas at responsibleng pakikibahagi sa buhay ng ating lipunan. Ipinamalas nila ang kamalayang nagmamalasakit at maka-propetang patotoo ng simbahang Protestante.

VI. Ang Kongklusiyon:
Pag-uusig sa Simbahan.

Sa mahabang kasaysayan ng ating bansa, ang naging papel ng simbahan ay kabahagi sa mga makapangyarihang umaapi sa mga mahihirap. Datapuwa’t ngayon nagsisimulang magising ang sektor ng simbahan upang makiisa sa mga mahihirap sang-ayon sa itinataguyod ng Banal na Biblia. Ang bagay na ito ay may tatlong kahulugan. Una, ang pagkakaroon ng radikal na pagbabago sa estilo ng pamumuhay ng mga lider simbahan upang ilaan ang kanilang kakayahan sa paglilingkod sa mga mga mahihirap.

Pangalawa, nagkakaroon ng mga patutuwid (redirection) sa mga programang institusyunal ng simbahan tungo sa pag-oorganisa sa mga tao upang makamtan ang katarungan, kalayaan at pagkapantay-pantay. Ang traditional na programa ng ebangelismo ay hindi sapat na tumugon sa kumplikadong problema ng lipunan. Si Richard L. Deats,”[34] dating Professor sa Union Theological Seminary, ay nagpahayag:
“Much of the Protestant social witness has been in the nature of ‘first aid’ . . . without challenging the entrenched evils caused by gross exploitation. The basic Christian communities which are being established nationwide are ... actively working for and participating in the transformation of society. What is being emphasized is a crucial understanding of Jesus Christ who is not only concerned with the souls of men and women but equally concerned with the mutilation and desecration of human bodies because of oppressive and exploitative structures of society.”

Pangatlo, nagkakaroon ng reaksiyon mula sa mataas na liderato ng mga simbahan at lipunan na nagpapatunay sa mala-kolonyal na sistema ng lipunang Pilipino. Dahil dito, anumang mahalagang pagbabago ay tinatanaw at inaakalang isang “subversive activity”. Kaya, nangyayari ang malawakang pag-uusig sa sektor ng simbahan at bumabalik ang karanasan ng “catacomb Christians.” Ang karanasang ito ay nagbibigay ng matatag na ugnayan sa sektor simbahan at ng masang Pilipino, isang matatag na buklod na hindi maaring buwagin ng diktador na rehimen. Ang pagkakaisang ito ay bagong anyo ng ekumenismo na naka-ugat sa biblikal na paniniwala. Ito’y nabibigyan ng mayamang kahulugan dahil sa karanasan ng samasamang pakikibaka.

Dahil dito, ang dating pagkawatak-watak na minana natin sa makitid na kamalayang sektarian, kung saan ang mga Katoliko’t Protestante ay nag-aaway, ay naglalaho na. Ang bagong pag-unawa na ibinusod ng Vatican II sa mga Catoliko at bagong tuklas na kaalaman sa Biblia na nakatuon kay Jesus na taga-Nazareth, ang Cristong Panginoon lalo na ng mga dukha at inaapi ay simula ng tunay na pagkakaisa at pagbabago sa of istraktura ng simbahan at lipunan. Dahil sa bagong pag-unawa at pagkakaisa, ang buong sambayanan ng Diyos ay may karapatang angkinin ang pangako ng Panginoon na naksaad sa Magnificat ni Maria: “Ibinagsak niya ang mga hari mula sa kanilang trono; At itinaas ang mga nasa abang kalagayan. Binusong niya ng mabubuting bagay ang mga nagugutom; At pinalayas niyang wala ni anuman ang mayayaman” [Lukas 1:52-53].

(Ang panayam na ito ay inihanda at ibinigay ni Dr. Melanio L. Aoanan bilang bahagi ng NCCP Lectures Series noong 1998 sa tatlong dako: NCCP Ecumenical Center, Quezon City; College of Theology Chapel, Central Philippine University, Iloilo City, and Central Baptist Church in Bacolod City.)

[1] Tingnan ang mga sumusunod: Teodoro Agoncillo at Milagros C. Guerrero, History of the Filipino People. 5th ed. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1977, pp. 117-137; John N. Schumacher, S.J., Revolutionary Clergy: The Filipino Clergy and the Nationalist Movement, 1850-1903. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1981, pp. 87-123; David Sturtevant, Popular Uprisings in the Philippines, 1840-1940. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978; Paul M. Monk, Truth and Power: Robert S. Hardie and Land Reform in the Philippines, 1950-1987. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1996.
[2] See Robin Moyer, et al, Bayan Ko. Hongkong: Project 28 Days Ltd., 1986. Tingnan din Richard L. Schwenck, Onward Christian! Protestants in the Philippine Revolution. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1986, p. 6.
[3] Feliciano V. Cariño, “Editorial,” TUGON, Vol. VIII, No. 1 [1988], p. 2.
[4] John E. Smylie, “National Ethos and the Church,” Theology Today, Vol. XX, No. 3 [1963], p. 314. See also G. H. Anderson, “Providence and Politics Behind Protestant Missionary Beginnings in the Philippines,” Studies in Philippine Church History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967, p. 279.
[5] Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History. New York: 1966, p. 257 as cited by Anderson, op cit., p. 280.
[6] Sidney E. Mead, The Lively Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America. New York: 1963, pp. 153-154.
[7] James F. Rustling, “Interview with President McKinley,” The Christian Advocate, Vol. LXXVIII, 1903, pp. 137-138. Cited also in T. V. Sitoy, Comity and Unity. Quezon City: N.C.C.P., 1989, P. 19.
[8] See Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1932, pp. 99-102. For an anti-imperialist sentiment, see Roger J. Bresnahan, In Time of Hesitation. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1981.
[9] See the “Foreword” written by Salvador P. Lopez in Bresnahan, op cit., p. viii.
[10] Bresnahan, op cit.., pp. 74-75.
[11] Claro M. Recto, The Making of the Filipino. Manila: Center of Nationalist Studies, 1969.
[12] Renato Constantino, The Nationalist Alternative. Manila: Center for Nationalist Studies, 1979.
[13] Noel C. Villalba, “Setting the Stage...” SIMBAYAN, 1987.
[14] Sitoy, op cit., pp. 4ff.
[15] Arthur J. Brown, New Era in the Philippines. New York: Fleming Revell, 1903, p. 179.
[16] Cited in Sitoy, op cit., p. 6.
[17] Ibid., p. 126.
[18] See the 104th Annual American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Report. 1914, p. 190. See also Sitoy, op cit., p. 41.
[19] Anne C. Kwantes, Presbyterian Missionaries in the Philippines: Conduits of Social Change. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1989, p. 21.
[20] Ibid., pp. 191-192
[21] Proculo A. Rodriguez, The Contribution of Mindanao to the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, ed. By Lloyd Van Vactor. 1987. A Typescript.
[22] Quoted in Sitoy, op cit., p. 46.
[23] Ibid., p. 47.
[24] See The Missionary Herald CXXXII, 1926, p. 309, as cited by Sitoy, pp. 48-49.
[25] Ibid., p. 49.
[26] Ibid., p. 54.
[27] Walter Roberts, The Filipino Church, 1936, p. 111.
[28] For a complete discussion on the UECP, see Mariano C. Apilado, “Revolution, Colonialism and Mission: A Study of the Role of the Protestant Churches in the United States’ Rule of the Philippines, 1898-1929.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 1976.
[29] Para sa isang kumpletong talakayan sa kasaysayan ng UCCP, tingnan ang aklat ni Melanio L. Aoanan, Pagkakaisa at Pagbabago: Ang Patotoo ng United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1996.
[30] Frank C. Laubach, People of the Philippines, p. 209.
[31] Sitoy, pp. 76-77.
[32] Sitoy, pp. 50-51.
[33] Ibid., p. 52.
[34] Richard L. Deats, The Story of Methodism. Manila: National Council of Churches in the Philippines, 1964, p. 26. See also Moving Heaven and Earth: An Account of Filipinos Struggling to Change Their Lives and Society. Manila: CCPD-WCC and Philippine Ecumenical Writing Group, 1982.