Bituka

Doctrine of the Trinity in Church History

2006-05-11T06:20:00.000-07:00

The Doctrine of Trinity in Church History

“WE BELIEVE
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.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

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

2006-05-11T06:19:00.000-07:00

The Relevance of Bernard Lonergan
To Third World Theology

Dr. Melanio LaGuardia Aoanan**

Introduction

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.
[11]Ibid.
[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

2006-05-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

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.

Marx's Critique on Religion

2006-05-11T06:11:00.000-07:00

Philosophical Roots of Karl Marx’s
Radical Critique of Religion

Melanio LaGuardia Aoanan, Th. D.

“For Germany the criticism of religion is in the main complete, and the criticism of religion is the presupposition of all criticism.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world ands the soul of a soulless circumstances. It is the opium of the people…

“Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself… The criticism of heaven is thus transformed into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.” (Karl Marx)[1]

Introduction

Karl Marx wrote the above quoted paragraphs in 1844. These words appear in Toward a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction, where he proclaims the radicality of his critique of religion. They are Marx’s kerygmatic paradigm, or the Magna Carta of his materialist, atheistic philosophy. And as such, they are of pivotal importance in our attempt to understand Marx’s philosophical system.

This paper seeks to present a compact picture of Marx’s critique of religion in the context of his formative philosophical milieu. It also seeks to show that Marx’s preoccupation with religion or its repudiation, is not peripheral to this thought; rather, it is a fundamental and continuing concern that pervaded and permeated his entire intellectual career. This central concern is reflected in the writings of the so-called ‘young Marx’ as well as the ‘mature Marx’.

A correct understanding of Marx’s critique of religion gives us a key to comprehend his philosophical system. In this system religion plays a significant role. This paper presupposes that only by confronting Marx’s critical assessment of religion, or his rejection of religion, could we begin to construct a theology that takes seriously the challenge of a dynamic movement in contemporary culture and history.

The explicitation of the philosophical roots of Marx’s critique of religion is based on his three works. These are: 1) Marx’s letter to his father dated November 10, 1837;[2] 2) Marx’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature” completed in March 1841;[3] 3) and the article “Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” written at the end of 1843 and early 1844.[4] Indeed, if there is a peculiar thrill in diving and wading “into the sea” of Marxian texts, there is far more thrill and pleasure in the successful act of bringing “genuine pearls into the light of day.”[5]

Religion in the Context of Marx’s Critique

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to clarify our definition of religion with the kind of understanding which Marx himself presupposed. Undoubtedly, as presupposed in the Marxian quotation at the beginning of this paper, what Marx had in mind was the religion of his contemporary Germany. It was, writes McClellan, “a religion dominated by the dogmatic and over-spiritual Lutheranism.”[6] Moreover, it was a religion that emphasizes the quality of transcendence and dichotomizes the supernatural and the natural, the other world and this world.

Ultimately, the religion that Marx sought to repudiate is the religion that was promoted and protected by the Prussian State, a religion that in turn legitimized sanctified and perpetuated the socially and economically exploitative Prussian State.

In a sense, religion is a form of an “inverted world-consciousness” produced by a society or state that is an “inverted world”. In the typical, stinging Marxian statement: “Religion is the general theory of that [inverted] world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification… The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.”[7]

A careful textual analysis of Marx’s early writings up to 1844 could provide us with three distinct stages in the development of his attitude towards religion. The first stage is that of controversial acceptance of Christian ideas as transmitted through Marx’s family and the dominant Christian culture. This is clearly seen in Marx’s “Gymnasium” days particularly in two of his Final examination essays: “Reflection of a Young Man on a Choice of Profession”[8] and “The Union of Believers With Christ According to John 1:1-14, Showing its Basis and Essence, its Absolute Necessity and its Effects.”[9]

A second stage in Marx’s attitude towards religion is diametrically opposed to the first: an outright rejection of Christian and all theistic beliefs on philosophical grounds. This attitude was developed during Marx’s studies in the universities of Bonn and Berlin. It was a thoroughly atheistic attitude. While at Berlin University, Marx could not escape the seductive appeal of Hegel’s philosophy who has been a professor there until he died in 1831. The influence of Hegel continued to be very strong even after his death through his young and radical disciples who were known as Left-wing Hegelians.

The third stage in Marx’s attitude towards religion is seen in his radical critique of the use made of religion by the state. Coupled with this radical critique was Marx’s profound socio- economic analysis of the interests represented by the state. This stage is seen in his work as a journalist in 1842 and lasted for the rest of his life.

Marx’s Philosophical Patron Saints

We will now have a detailed textual analysis of the three Marxian primary texts mentioned earlier. By doing this exegetical exercise, he hope to draw out the identity of philosophical patron saints whose names Marx invoked in his elemental revolt against religion. In the “Foreword” to his dissertation, Marx cited the words that Aeschylus put into the mouth of Prometheus, “I hate the packs of gods.” The resolute decision not to give his having been chained to a rock in exchange for the offer of servitude to “Father Zeus” earned for Prometheus, according to Marx, the singular accolade of “the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar.”[10]

Let us begin with Marx’s letter to his father. This unusually lengthy letter (10 pages) gives us a glimpse of Marx’s philosophical and spiritual pilgrimage.

One of the most characteristic features of Marx’s life and thinking, even at this early stage, is an intense sense of history. This is immediately obvious in the letter to his father. The first paragraph states: “There are moments in one’s life which are like frontier posts marking the competition of a period but at the same time clearly indicating a new direction.”[11] This tremendous sense of history, which pervades in most of Marx’s writings, points to a convergence of world history in an individual’s biography. This centrality is a Hegelian notion that Marx has recently been absorbing in his studies. Says Marx: “Individual life, like a movement of world history, reveals the inner activity of the spirit. The essence of objective and subjective reality is in action.”[12]

During the formative years of his academic career, Marx sharpened his sword of reason and engaged himself in an intellectual fencing with prominent philosophers. He was driven by an unrestricted desire for knowledge, as he continuously made excerpts of literary-historical and philosophical works, until he became completely exhausted in body and mind. And he fell ill. His doctor prescribed a long rest in the countryside. It was there, while recovering, that he “got to know Hegel from beginning to end, together with most of his disciples.”[13]

Marx recognized that he is ever more firmly bound to the modern world of philosophy from which he sought, unsuccessfully, to escape. The invigorating taste of Hegel’s philosophy allured Marx “to dive [deeper] in the sea… with the definite intention of establishing that the nature of the mind is just as necessary, concrete and firmly based as the nature of the body. My aim was no longer to practice tricks of swordmanship, but to bring genuine pearls into the light of day.”[14]

His launching into the deep resulted into a 24-page work, Cleanthes, or The Starting Point and Necessary Continuation of Philosophy, which united art and science. This work gives a “philosophical-dialectical account of divinity… as religion, and nature, and as history.” He refers to this work as “my dearest child, reared by moonlight,” which has caused him endless headaches “until for some days my vexation made me quite incapable of thinking.”[15]

Marx continues his report to his father by mentioning the names of philosophers and legal luminaries whom he has been studying. Among them, beside Hegel, were Feuerbach, Aristotle, Kant, Keesing, Fichte, etc. He concludes the letter with the mention of domestic family affairs and request for fatherly forgiveness on account of “my much agitated state of mind… overwhelmed by my militant spirit.”[16]

In assessing the import of this revelatory letter , I would like to cite reliable Marxian literary guides. One, Fr. Joel Tabora who, after thoroughly dissecting the letter in the original German language, discovers “a temporal dichotomy in Marx’s thought between the real and the ought.” Marx himself recognizes the untenability of the dichotomy and seeks to overcome it by interpreting t5he “side of the ought to be emergent from the side of the real.” Tabora concludes that the philosophical thought of the young Marx could be described as “dialectical realism or dialectical materialism [that] must yet unfold in detail. But the seeds that are to unfold are, uncannily, already recognizable in this letter.”[17]

Another reliable guide says that the letter reveals Marx’s state of mind which is “torn between two contradictory ideas and passions…” It embodies the inextricable entanglement of Marx’s “philosophical reflections, artistic enthusiasm, and the ardor of a consuming love. It is this particular mixture which makes a true revelation of Marx’s “inner development.”[18] Marx’s encounter with Hegel’s philosophy as reflected in the letter leads to an intimate “conversation story with a depth of a confession of faith.” This encounter, says van Leeuwen, “is permeated by all the blissful and terrifying features which make the water symbolism such a striking expression of the mysterium tremendum et fascinosum, the tremendous and fascinating mystery of religion.[19] In brief, there are both fear and fascination felt by Marx. Fear because the strong impact of Hegelian thought threatens his own freedom of thought, fascination because he was challenged to dive deeper into the sea (Hegel’s thought) in a heroic effort to bring the genuine pearls of truth into the light of reason.

Seeds of Atheism in Epicurean Philosophy

It is at this point that Marx’s dissertation concerns us. His diving and immersing into the ocean depths of Hegel’s philosophical system culminated in the precious pearl of truth contained in his dissertation.

This work was completed in March 1841, and the University of Jena conferred his degree on him in absentia a month after. The dissertation provides us with a key to understand the philosophical foundation of Marx’s thinking, its methodology and its structure. It is unfortunate that not the whole manuscript is preserved. What is preserved, however, gives us an adequate profile of Marx’s philosophical thought specifically his critique of religion. Happily, seven books of exercises filled with notes on Epicurean philosophy, which Marx used in preparing the dissertation, have been preserved.[20]

Marx announces in the “Foreword” that his dissertation has solved a particular problem in Greek philosophy. It is obvious that Epicurus stands out prominently among Marx’s philosophical patron saints.

Marx begins by asserting that the Epicurean theory of the heavenly bodies and their movement is radically opposed to the postulates of Greek philosophers as a whole. Then he launches an attack on “the religious attitude of the Pythagoreans, Plato and Aristotle.” Worship of the celestial bodies is a cult practiced by all Greek philosophers. The system of the celestial bodies is the first naïve and natured determined existence of true reason (Veraunft). The same position is taken by Greek self-consciousness in the domain of the mind (Geist). It is the solar system of the mind. The Greek philosophers therefore “worshipped their own mind in the celestial bodies.”[21]

Marx then makes a detailed presentation of the conflicting positions of Aristotle and Epicurus, and ends with the judgment that those who fail to recognize the contradictions between the two positions are greatly confused. Then with his mastery of juxtaposition, he declares:

“Aristotle reproached the ancients for their belief that heaven required the support of Altas who … with his shoulders [supports] the pillar of heaven and earth. Epicurus, on the other hand, blames those who believe that man needs heaven. He finds the Atlas by whom heaven is supported in human stupidity and superstition. Stupidity and superstition also are Titans.”[22]

Marx cites the letter of Epicurus to both Pythocles and Herodotus as supportive of the Epicurean position against Aristotle who held on to certain absolute “axiom and laws” in explaining the reality and movements of heavenly bodies. Epicurus insisted that the “myth [i.e. heavenly bodies are eternal and immortal because they behave in the same way according to Aristootle] be removed.” Marx argues in support of Epicurus:

“The great number of explanation, the multitude of possibilities, should not only tranquilize our minds and remove causes for fear, but also at the same time negate in the heavenly bodies their very unity, the absolute law that is always equal to itself. These heavenly bodies may behave sometimes in one way, sometimes in another; this possibility of conforming to no law is characteristic of their reality; everything in them is declared to be impermanent and unstable. The multitude of the explanations should at the same time remove … the unity of the objects.”[23]

Marx’s exposition of Epicurean philosophy closes with the following revolutionary statement as far as philosophy of nature is concerned: “Since eternity of the heavenly bodies would disturb the ataraxy of self-consciousness, it is necessary, a stringent consequence that they are not eternal. The heavenly bodies are therefore the atoms become real.”[24] This conclusion, says Marx, is the apex, the culminating point, of Epicurean philosophy of nature. It is this conclusion that led Epicurus to oppose “the most glaring contradiction” and thus “turns vehemently against those who worship an independent nature containing in itself the quality of individuality.” It is at this point that Epicurus achieved the “profoundest” knowledge of his system, the point where he, finally, resolved the contradiction between essence and existence, between form and matter. Here is Marx’s magisterial formulation of the materialist philosophy of nature based on Epicurus:

“Matter, having received into itself individuality, form, as is the case with the heavenly bodies, has ceased to be abstract individuality; it has become concrete individuality; universality. In the meteors, therefore, abstract individual self-consciousness is form, the universal that has become existence and nature… Thus as long as nature as atom and appearance expresses individual self-consciousness and its contradiction, the subjectivity of self-consciousness appears only in the form of matter itself. Where, on the other hand, it becomes independent, it reflects itself in itself, confronts matter in its own shape as independent form.”[25]

Thus Marx acclaims Epicurus as “the greatest representative of Greek enlightenment,” another patron saint in the atheistic calendar. He quotes the poem of Lucretius and ascribes it to Epicurus:

Fables of the gods did not crush him
Nor the lightning flash and the growling
menace of the sky…

Therefore a religion inn its turn lies
crushed beneath his feet, and we by his
triumph are lifted level with the skies.

A powerful poem that the last summative paragraph of the chapter appears anti-climactic.

Marx’s Kerygmatic Paradigm in Paradox

We shall now come to the third work, “Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” a work which contains the sharpest expression of Marx’s critique of religion. Written in early 1844, this article is the distillation and culmination of a decade of intense intellectual praxis. For as Van Leeuwen says, “at the root of Marx’s critique of religion, as this took shape during his ten formative years between 1836 to 1846, there is a fundamental paradox.”[26] Marx’s critique of religion as articulated in the 1844 work is a paradox in two senses. First, in the context of the entire Marxian literary works, it is a point of arrival, at the same time, a point of departure. Secondly, it is a paradox in the deeper sense because while he considers criticism of religion as already completed, he is still impelled to undertake it in his work as journalist.

Being the editor in chief of Rheinische Zeitung in 1842, Marx made a remark about his intention to criticize religion by criticizing political conditions rather than vice-versa. He gives three reasons for this. First, it is in keeping with the character of the newspaper and the need of enlightening the public. Second, it is because religion “draws its life from this earth and not from heaven and will disappear of its own accord, once the perverted reality whose theory it represents is dissolved. Third, “one should flirt less with its meaning.”[27] These remarks seem to indicate that, for Marx, the critique of religion is a futile exercise.

Toward an Exegetical-Hermeneutical Exercise

What follows is an exegetical and hermeneutical attempt at three of the Marx’s statements in his criticism of religion.
[1] “For Germany the criticism of religion is in the main complete, and the criticism of religion is the presupposition of all criticism.

In this statement, Marx is referring to Ludwig Feuerbach who has completed the task of criticizing religion in Germany. Feuerbach is the philosophical and theological father of Marx’s criticism of religion. Fourteen years older than Marx, Feuerbach spent his whole life working on the critique of religion. He is considered as one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. In his famous work, The Essence of Christianity, he explains religion by way of psychology. He uses “projection theory” to explain the phenomenon of religion. This could illustrate by means of a slide projector wherein a small slide could be projected and enlarged in a wide screen. Similarly, God is seen to be nothing other than the image of man and his attributes, projected and enlarged onto the celestial screen. God is the expression of the essence of humanity, stripped of all earthly limitations. Feuerbach’s basic thesis is as follows:

“Religion… is the relation of man to himself, or more correctly, to his own nature… but a relation to it, viewed as nature… apart from his own. The divine being is nothing else than the human being, or rather, the human nature purified, free from the limits of the individual man, made objective—i.e., contemplated and revered as another, a distinct being. All the attributes of the divine nature are, therefore, attributes of the human nature.”[28]

In this major work, Feuerbach consistently reduced divine attributes to human qualities. He did this to all the central creedal affirmations of the Christian faith. For instance, the statement “God created man in his own image” is reversed as “Man created God in his own image.” Or the statement “God is living-in-community” is transposed into “Living in community is godly.” In other words, theology is reduced to anthropology whereas anthropology is elevated to theology.

The substance of Marx’s critique of religion is derived from Feuerbach. Marx, writes Hans Kung, “was firmly convinced that with Feuerbach the critique of religion had been completed and atheism solidly established. Marx as critique of religion does not really get beyond Feuerbach [so] the reason that had to be cited against Feuerbach’s atheism are valid also against Marx’s atheism.”[29]

The second part of the statement means that criticism of religion is of pivotal importance in Marx’s philosophy. In fact, it is the foundation stone of the entire Marxist edifice that contains economic, political, legal and all other Marxian critiques. Bockmuehl comments that this statement is “valid in terms of his biography, his methodology and his motivations. The phrase is true in the sense that atheism is already a fact before the philosophy of dialectical materialism is born. Marx was an atheist before he became a dialectical materialist.”[30]

Another meaning of the statement is that atheism has a methodological priority in the philosophy of Marx. All other critiques are methodologically preceded by the critique of religion. It provides the needed push and pressure for all other critiques. Thus, for Marx, the elimination of religion is necessary for the development of true humanity. Atheism and critique of religion are integral parts of Marx’s philosophical system, the abrogation of which is tantamount to the dismantling of its historical materialism, its anthropology, its eschatology and ethics.

[2]“The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion, religion does not make man… Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur…”

This paragraph stresses the centrality of the human being in Marx’s philosophy. It is the human being that makes religion. The human here means the world of human beings, the state and society. It is the human as the ensemble of social relationships. It is this state of society that produces religion, a perverted world-consciousness derived from a perverted world. There are two distinct aspects of this religion: one stresses the theoretical and philosophical aspect; the other deals with the ethical and emotive element of religion. Under the first aspect, religion is characterized as general theory, as encyclopedic compendium, as logic in popular form, as spiritual point d’honneur. Whereas under the second aspect, religion is characterized as “the enthusiasm of the perverted world, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation and justification. The mentioning of these characteristics leads to the conclusion that “the struggle against religion is therefore the fight against that world… of which religion is the spiritual aroma.”[31]

Furthermore, all these have reference to Hegel’s view of religion as “a representation of absolute philosophical truth in a popular imaginative form.” Essential to Marx’s description is “focused on the relationship of religion and the world of man, state, society. This is the only relationship in which he is interested. In so far as religion have reality, it owes its reality to this world.”[32]

While Marx is critical of Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, he could not disengage himself from this philosophy. It is like the ever-present shadow that follows Marx wherever he goes. Therefore, an adequate understanding of Marx’s critique of religion must start from his critique of Hegel’s philosophy as a whole. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper.

[3]“The criticism of religion disenchants man in order to make him think and act and shape his reality like one who has been disenchanted and has come to reason, so that he will revolve around himself and therefore around his true sun. Religion is the illusory sun which revolves around man only so long as he does not revolve around himself….”

Anyone who is familiar with Immanuel Kant’s idealist and metaphysical philosophy could immediately detect the influence of that 18th century philosopher on the above quoted Marxian declaration. There is an obvious parallelism between the succession of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, followed by his Critique of Practical Reason and Marx’s transition from theory to practice. Marx’s entire intellectual effort – critique of religion and philosophy during his earlier years and the critique of political economy that absorbed him for the rest of his life – is founded on the whole understanding of the essence and meaning of critique. “Marx had recognized Kant’s philosophy,” observes Van Leeuwen, “as the German theory of the French Revolution, as contrasted with the historical school of right, which he characterized as the German theory of the French Ancien Regime. Marx’s “Critiques Towards Hegel’s Philosophy of Law” is basically a devastating critique of the anachronism of the German state of affairs in 1843, which had not yet arrived at the stage equivalent to that of French history in the year 1789.”[33]

A closer analysis of the passage quoted above discloses two Kantian fundamental principles. First, Kant’s famous notion of a “Copernican Revolution” is alluded to by Marx when he describes religion as the illusory sun which revolves around man until man learns to revolve around himself, which could happen only when man is brought to a sense of reality by the critique of religion. The second principle has something to do with the Kantian “categorical imperative” which is arrived at the transition from theoretical critique into praxis. Marx formulates this profound principle this way: “The critique of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence of man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence.”[34]

Before bringing this paper to a close, let me point out that Marx’s article of 1844 written in Paris is really a turning point in his life and thought. In the words of the perceptive Dutch professor, this article represents “a transition from the critical philosophy to a critique of political economy” in the evolution of Marx’s thought. “It was an attempt to reap the harvest of his formative years and at the same time contained the seed of his maturity.”[35]

Concluding Statement

We have traced and analyzed the philosophical roots of Marx’s radical critique of religion. Our investigation focused on three of Marx’s important works that have a bearing on his critique of religion. We din not only explicitate the extent of influence that Epicurus, Kant, Hegel, and Feuerbach had on the evolution of Marx’s thought. We also focused on some selected statements in Marx's writings, and tried to draw out from them some shades of meaning, not so much as abstract ideas that could neatly explain or describe the reality in our world, but as a potent, dynamic truth that could, in the right moment and place, transform our history and society.

Word count:4,761 words
Previously published in
TUGON, Vol. XII, No. 1 (1992), pp. 37-48.

[1] Karl Marx, Early Texts. Trans. and edited by David McLellan. Oxford: Alden Press, 1971, pp. 115ff.
[2] Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works. Vol. I. New York: International Publishers, 1975, pp. 10-21.
[3] Collected Works, I, pp. 25-105.
[4] Karl Marx Early Texts, pp. 115ff.
[5] Collected Works, I, p.18. I am particularly challenged to “wade through” the three above-mentioned Marxian texts by the example of my Ateneo de Manila University mentor (Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J.) whose admirable adeptness with the German language enable him to write his doctoral dissertation, The Future in the Writings of Karl Marx. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 1983), based on the “primary German sources”. In writing this paper, I am also greatly helped by two books, namely: Hans Kung, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. Trans. by Edward Quinn. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1980; and Arend Th. Van Leeuwen’s two-volume Gifford Lecture entitled Critique of Heaven. London: Lutterworth Press, 1972; and Critique of Earth. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974.
[6] McClellan, Karl Marx Early Texts, p. 89.
[7] Collected Works, I, p.175.
[8] Collected Works, I, pp. 3-9.
[9] Collected Works, I, pp. 636-639.
[10] Collected Works, I, p. 31.
[11] Collected Works, I, p. 10.
[12] Collected Works, I, p. 11.
[13] Collected Works, I, p. 19.
[14] Collected Works, I, p. 18.
[15] Collected Works, I, p. 18.
[16] Collected Works, I, p. 21.
[17] Tabora, op. cit., p. 21.
[18] Van Leeuwen, op. cit., I: 64.
[19] Van Leeuwen, op. cit., p. 65.
[20] Marx’s dissertation is part of a general research project on the history of Greek philosophy which he planned to undertake as far back as 1839. This project had not been carried out except the collection of this seven notebooks on Epicurean, Stoic, and Sceptic philosophies. See Collected Works, I, pp. 29, 401-509, 734-735. For the purpose of this paper, I focus on Chapter 5 – “The Meteors” – Marx’s discussion on the movement of the heavenly bodies in the thought of Democritus and Epicurus. This discussion has bearing of Marx’s critique of religion and theology. Relevant also is a fragment included in the Appendix entitled “Critique of Plutarch’s Polemic Against the Theology of Epicurus.” See Collected Works, I, pp. 102-105.
[21] Collected Works, I, p. 66.
[22] Collected Works, I, pp. 67-68.
[23] Collected Works, I, p. 69.
[24] Collected Works, I, p. 70.
[25] Collected Works, I, p. 72.
[26] Van Leeuwen, Critique of Heaven, 1972, p. 184.
[27] Van Leeuwen, ibid., 185. See also Hans Kung, Does God Exist? 1980, p. 221.
[28] Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 1957, p. 14.
[29] Kung, op. cit., p. 244.
[30] Klaus Bockmuehl, The Challenge of Marxism: A Christian Response. Illinois: Inter-varsity Press, 1980, p. 51.
[31] Van Leeuwen, op. cit., p. 190.
[32] Ibid., p. 190.
[33] Critique of Heaven, p. 13.
[34] Critique of Heaven, p. 13.
[35] Critique of Heaven, p. 14.

State of Theological Education in the Philippines

2006-05-11T06:05:00.000-07:00

“The Present State of Theological Education in
the Philippines Towards the 21st Century”

Melanio L. Aoanan, Th. D.

Introduction
The topic assigned to me is so intimidating. To describe the present state of theological education in the Philippines in thirty minutes or even one hour is next to impossible. To give justice to the topic, I propose to discuss with you my insights and experiences having been involved theological education for almost forty years, inclusive of my seminary training and the thirty five years as a theological faculty in three UCCP seminaries and two Roman Catholic post-graduate schools of theology.

On the outset, let me say that I started my theological education in 1966, the year after Vatican II culminated. I consider my theological formation as through and through ecumenical from the start. In fact, as a senior college student (Philosophy major) in PCU-Taft, I saw to it that I attended lectures and symposia sponsored by the Jesuits of the Padre Faura campus of Ateneo de Manila. They used to have Lenten and Advent Series of Lectures which were always opened to the public. Almost all the lecturers, of course, were Jesuits as they expounded on the philosophical and theological thoughts of Martin Buber, Teilhard de Chardin, Bernard Lonergan, etc. The only exception, I remember was the presentation of a young faculty of Union Theological Seminary who has the singular distinction of being the only Filipino Protestant who participated in the sessions of Vatican II as a “delegated observer”. I’m referring to Dr. Emerito P. Nacpil, who later was elected to the episcopal office of the United Methodist Church.

When I went to Silliman University Divinity School for my Master of Divinity degree, I remember that a Roman Catholic bishop (Bishop Cornelius de Witt) visited us and distributed copies of The Document of Vatican II with a subsidized price of P5.75.[1] I trace my interest in Protestant-Catholic dialogue by getting a copy of that book from Bishop de Witt, a personal interest which was sustained until I took my doctorate in theology at Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University from 1989-1992.

Aside from the radical changes brought about by Vatican II, our theological education in the 1960s was like an open-ended experiment shaped by the progressive ideas from Europe and North America. The more popular and big theological names were Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Europe, and the Niebuhr brothers (Richard and Reinhold) in America. Of course, Harvey Cox’s The Secular City and John A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God were the theological best-sellers of the mid-sixties.

My New Testament professor (Dr. Proceso U. Udarbe) and, at that time, newly installed first Filipino dean of our seminary, expounded the “twin touchstones of theological education” which shaped our seminary formation.[2] The first touchstone is “the outward thrust” wherein theological education is directed outward into the secular world. “We labor on the proposition that the church that we serve is an outgoing institution… Our direction is undoubtedly outward. The regnant terms… in our seminary have been the catchwords “dialogue”, “relevance”, and “involvement”.[3] Because of this outward thrust, every seminarian was required to join inter-seminary programs of field education like rural-agricultural ministries where we were exposed to the problems of farmers and how they cope with life such as through organizing credit-cooperatives, modern farming with diversified crop production, animal dispersal, etc. Another summer program was with urban-industrial ministries in which seminarians were exposed to the struggles of factory workers and slum dwellers. The third program was hospital chaplaincy or Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). Every seminarian was required to undergo two of the three summer programs.

The second touchstone in Dean Udarbe’s address is “the inward thrust”. This has to do with the ultimate concern of the gospel. Writes Udarbe: “Theological education must never lost sight of the fact that God acted in Jesus Christ for the radical transformation of all… Education for the ministry that is preoccupied with the intellect [but] does not touch the heart can only lead to a ministry of the ivory tower. Any preoccupation with the world’s life that does not plow deep into the sphere of the Spirit is nothing but ordinary humanitarianism and philanthrophy that the ‘children of darkness’ also engage it.”[4]

After finishing my basic theological schooling in 1970, I have a one-year of pastoral experience in Paranaque, Metro Manila. Then, I pursued my Master of Theology degree with the Southeast Graduate School of Theology under the guidance of a German professor specializing in Ecumenics and Ecumenical Theology. As a graduate student, I served also as a Research and Teaching Assistant. The focus of my thesis is “The Development of Ecumenical Thought on Economic Issues,” being a comparative study of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches social thought.

After more than thirty years engaging in theological education (in three UCCP seminaries and two Catholic graduate schools of theology), I embarked on a shift in professional work, a pastorate in an academic/scientific community, University of the Philippines in Los Banos. This shift to pastoral ministry requires the combined virtues and aptitude such as the venturous spirit of Abraham, the resourcefulness of a Jacob, the patience-persevering spirit of Job, the charismatic-artistic talent of a David, and the boldness of the Old Testament prophets.

The UCCP congregation at UPLB is a unique church. It has about 750 members, and in my latest count, there are about 78 people who are holders of advanced scientific-academic degrees like PhDs. On my first month, I committed a blunder of telling a disastrous joke in the pulpit. You know, I said, in Union Theological Seminary we have professors with PhDs, others have ThDs. Do you know the meaning of PhD, I asked. Of course no one gave the obvious answer. So, I said: PhD means “puro hangin ang dala.” But my degree, I continued, is worst: I have a ThD which means “talagang hangin ang dala.”

You know what happened? The former chairperson of the church council, a PhD holder, was offended and he did not talk to me for several months. Fortunately, the more than seventy others had the grace not to take themselves too seriously and so they appreciated the joke.

I learned through this incident that in order to survive as a Pastor in CAP, you need the virtues of humility combined with a sense of humor. But beyond the humor and the humility, one needs to have hard work and the readiness to learn from your members. These are the very virtues of my favorite pope, who brought the ecumenical revolution into the Roman Catholic Church, the good Pope John XXIII. When he was still the Cardinal Archbishop of Venice, he was involved in an ecumenical dialogue with other religious leaders. As they were about to go up the building, a young Jewish Rabbi wanted the Cardinal to go up first. With his witty sense of humor, the Cardinal said, “In the Bible it is the Old Testament first, then the New Testament.” When he was already elected pope, he was fond of visiting the different religious congregations in the city of Rome. One day, he visited the orphanage ran by the Congregation of the Holy Spirit. When he reached the place, the Mother Superior was so excited saying: “Welcome, Your Holiness, I am the Superior of the Holy Spirit!” To which good Pope replied: “Your so lucky, my daughter, but I’m only the ‘Servus servorum Dei’ (Servant of the servants of God).

With this combination of wit, sense of humor and humility and the capacity for openness to new ideas, we now continue to consider our theme: “The Present State pf Theological Education Towards the 21st Century.” The start of the 21st century was a jubilee not only for the church but also for the wider human community. And as such, we who are religious and theological educators are challenged to live out God’s Jubilee in all aspects of our task. This is our commitment to contribute meaningfully to the realization of God’s reign that ushers in the transformation of church and society, i.e., the bringing about of God’s reign characterized by peace, justice, freedom and abundant life for all.

From a more personal level, I want to emphasize that we are part of the church as community of God’s people called out of darkness into God’s marvelous light [I Pet. 2: 9]. Jesus Christ, the light that shines in the darkness of this world, dwells in our midst and gives us the power to become children of God so that we can enjoy the abundant life that Christ brought into the world [Jn. 10:10].

Mandate for Theological Education
Towards the 21st Century

Part of the mandate for the Church, as the theme suggests, is to build vision towards theological education that is relevant in the 21st century. This means that as a Church, we need to relate our theologizing, our articulation of ecclesiology, and the praxis of our ministry to the concrete cultural expressions prevailing in our Filipino consciousness and imaginations. I suggest that our theme requires of us to formulate a vision for religious and theological education that is appropriate for our Filipino context in the 21st century. This vision, I suggest, must strive for the following. First, to strive for a clarity of theological foundations for the life and work of the church. Second, to strive for sensitivity and awareness of the realities that impinge deeply upon the life of people in community. Third, strive for the identification of essential needs, and thereby, establish priorities; Fourth, to keep the spirit aflame in unity and collegiality among those who must work in solidarity with the marginalized.

Building our vision for theological education for the 21st century requires of us to strive for:

a) a common obedience to the Lord who brought the church into being, and called us to be God’s servant for the world;
b) a common faithfulness to the Holy Spirit, to hold us together in unity in the bonds of collegiality;
c) a valid vision of the future of the Church grounded firmly on the living testimony of the Bible, the courageous history of the Church and in the light of the challenges of the present;
d) an authentic lifestyle, informed by the precepts and example of Jesus Christ, incarnating the community of love, justice, righteousness and peace;
e) a common humanity for all in dignity as created in the image of God, in wholeness of body, mind and spirit, where the people are the bearers of their destiny and agents of their own liberation.[5]

Bible as Motive Force in Our
Task of Theological Education

As members of the ecumenical stream of Christianity in our country, our motive force in the search for a life-giving theology is none other than the Bible. A key to our theological process and emerging spirituality is the word LIFE (Buhay). Our God is a God of life, who enjoins us to “choose life and prosperity” [Deut. 30:19]. It is, therefore, appropriate that the preparatory committee for this ecumenical conference has chosen II Kings 4 as our biblical text. What we have in this passage is a collage of Elisha's miraculous works: filling empty vessels with oil, granting a childless couple a son, raising a person from the dead, neutralizing poisonous food, and feeding a multitude with food for but a few.

In all these acts, Elisha demonstrated the power of God at work as a marvelous deed for the sake of others in need, specifically to bring, to sustain, or to restore life and avert death. The power of Elisha as “a man of God” testifies to the power of God over life and death. It is noteworthy that Elisha’s acts were a response to basic, human needs: freedom and life for the destitute, hope for the childless, restoration of a dead child to a desperate mother, food for the hungry. These were acts to address the mundane, personal needs of people living life day to day. In our country today, these are also at the heart of our prophetic calling and ministry.

To be sure, one may not have the power of Elisha to fill empty vessels with oil. Yet, in the face of the desperate plight of the destitute, one may take a cue from Elisha about the economic enablement of the poor. Elisha pro-vides a means by which the destitute widow is able to resolve her economic problem and save her children from enslavement. Indeed, the miracle of economic enablement may take many forms—it only takes the eyes of faith to discern those forms in our day and age. We may not be able to resurrect a dead child, as Elisha did. Yet, we are also confronted with critical moments in our ministry that demands our immediate, personal, direct, and prayerful involvement in the problem at hand. We may not have the technical know-how to detoxify poisonous food or to cause limited quantities of food to multiply. Yet, it is imperative that we feed the hungry with whatever resources we may find. Our preaching of the word of the Lord involves much more than words; it involves reactive and proactive action to bring life and to give hope to others.[6]

In this work, Elisha foreshadows the miracles performed by Jesus in the New Testament. It is important for us to anchor the foundation stone of our ministry in the words of Jesus that he “came so that we may have life in its fullness” [John 10:10]. We believe that when Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life,” he is talking about full humanity and full life as well as the integrity of creation, for the hidden plan of God is to bring together everything in heaven and on earth in Christ Jesus [Eph. 1:9-10]. In our time, it is the Spirit of the Risen Christ dwelling in us who gives life in its fullness [Rom. 8:11].

Our cry and struggle with our people is for life. As we involve ourselves in the people’s struggle for life, we experience God’s empowering Spirit, inspiring, comforting, sustaining with inner strength--the very same Spirit manifest in the people’s commitment to preserve in their search for justice and peace. People saying NO to forces and systems that try to diminish their humanity and their assertion of their rights as human beings are steady signs of God’s redemptive activity in the Spirit. In Isaiah, God is imaged like a woman groaning in travail, giving birth to a new beginning for a people suffering in exile. Blood and pain announce the beginning of a new life [Isa. 42:14-17; cf. Rom. 8:22-23].

Our quest for life is a quest for God’s reign as envisioned and inaugurated by Jesus. We believe that our struggles will bring God’s reign closer to reality. In the struggle, we experience a deep and enduring sense of satisfaction and encouragement as we stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers. As our participation in the struggle bear fruit, we experience joy and fulfillment. By identifying ourselves with the suffering, we enter into the cycle of life where the cross preludes the resurrection and the resurrection draws us more into the wellspring of life to enable us to bear the cross when it comes again. This way we get a glimpse of the new life that is to come, we are given a foretaste of God’s reign.[7]

As the struggle continues, our anticipation of the fullness of God’s reign intensifies and our commitment is renewed once again. We will not settle for less than the glorious reign of God. In accordance with God’s promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where justice dwells.

“For I am about to create new heaven and a new earth, the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind....
No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime;
They shall not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity,
They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountains; Says the Lord.” [Isa. 65:17-25; cf. Rev. 21:1-4].

From the combined prophetic vision of Isaiah and Jeremiah, I want to outline with you five targets which, as members of the community of learning and faith being religious and theological educators, we can perceive the presence of God’s reign.

The first target is to see to it that children do not die prematurely. You know, there are disturbing statistical reports on the situation of children in our country. Consider the following: Children ages 0 to 18 comprise more than half of our population, and they are the most vulnerable; about 70%-80% of children below seven years old are severely malnourished. In fact, mortality rate is more than 65% per 1,000 live births. Of the total number of death each year in our country, about 70-80% are children. Roughly 5.5 million children are adversely affected by the political armed conflict that is raging in our country.[8]

Let us listen to a powerful declaration of a group of children about their dreams. This is in Filipino:

“Kami bilang mga batang Filipino ay nangangarap ng sapat na pagmamahal, pagkalinga at pag-unawa; sapat at wastong pagkain, tirahan at serbisyong pangkalusugan; pagkakaroon ng karapatang makapag-aral, makapaglaro at makapaglibang kung kinakailangan. Nais din naming magkaroon ng tunay na maka-Pilipiniong identidad at pangalan…. Nanga-ngarap din kaming lumaki bilang mga responsibleng mamamayan sa isang malinis, ligtas at mapayapang kapaligiran sa isang bayang tunay na mahalaga.”[9]

It must be clear to us by now that God’s agenda for children not to die prematurely is also very much related to the second target: it is God’s intention for older folks that they should live in dignity and die with dignity. Advancing God’s purpose for the older folks or senior citizens is not alien to our Filipino culture. We have an inherent respect and reverence for older people. We look up to them as the source of authority, source of wisdom and guidance. The biblical mandate is for us “to honor our father and mother,” all our elders. Let us see to it that they live in and with dignity; and when death comes to them, they can die in and with dignity.

Our third target in advancing God’s intention according to the vision of Isaiah asserts that every working family should have a place to call a home. Not being able to have a house of our own, especially after retirement is definitely an affront to human dignity. On the other hand, craving for many big houses or mansions (like that of Erap’s extended families) is definitely not wise nor responsible in our time considering that there are barely not enough trees to cut for lumber. There is, therefore, enough biblical sense to stop acquiring larger and larger houses for ourselves so that our energies and resources could be directed to helping the homeless acquire a permanent roof over their heads.

The fourth target in manifesting God’s intention requires that the church must be concerned also with the fair and just wages of the workers. In fact, part of our witnessing as a church is that enough people must have gainful employment especially at a time when close to six million Filipinos are unemployed. More than this, we must provide a deeper analysis about why there are big corporations like AMA Computer University’s global expansion has to retrench teaching faculty members because they have to make us of on line instructional strategy. Our understanding of the mission and ministry of the church must be related with how to resist the forces behind the manipulation and domination of global forces that affect the survival of our daily wage earners!

Finally, the fifth target in advancing God’s purpose and intention for our time means that we have to take seriously the challenges and issues being pushed by our women colleagues. Let us seriously reconsider what the Prophet Jeremiah said in 31:22b. Let me read it in five different translations:

“For the Lord has created a new thing on earth: a woman protects a man.” (RSV) “For the Lord has created a new thing in the earth: a woman encompasses a man” (NRSV) “I have created something new and different, as different as a woman protecting a man” (TEV). The Filipino version is more colorful and suggestive: “Ako, si Yahweh, ay nagtatag ng isang bagong kaayusan; ang babae ay siyang yayakap sa lalaki.”

Certainly, this is one of the most difficult texts in the Bible to interpret. James P. Hyatt makes a suggestion that in the light of Jer. 3:1, the best interpretation of this passage is that “in the future the land will become so peaceful that a woman will not need protection but indeed will be able to protect a man”[10] John Bright comments: “Quite possibly we have here a proverbial saying indicating something that is surprising and difficult to believe, the force of which escapes us.”[11]

Whatever is the meaning of this text, I believe, this text projects the urgency for advocating women issues. Our women partners are rediscovering their inherent strength and are asserting their God-given dignity. Sadly, for many of us males, having been accustomed to our patriarchal prerogatives, would feel threaten by the feminist liberation movement. But I would like to affirm the statement printed in one of my old T-shirts: “Men of quality are not afraid of women equality.”

The resurrection of Jesus has brought a radically new event in human history. A cursory reading of the gospel stories of the resurrection event tells us of the fact that it was a group of women disciples who first encountered the risen Lord. This is a validation of Jeremiah’s daring and disturbing word: “For the Lord has created a new thing in the earth: a woman protects a man.”

I believe that Jeremiah had an unusual insight into the place of women; he envisioned the new sources of women’s strength that have been there but have been silenced and subjugated, sources that have almost been erased. The women’s liberation movements, embryonic as they may be, are slowly blossoming all over the world. They have been critical of institutionalized and domesticating religions because, as Sr. Rosario Battung writes:

“Religion has had a great part in the domination of women or subjugation of women. It had been an effective carrier of values and traditions which made of women non-persons. Women’s movements have a distinct thrust to liberate religions from prejudices against women, from structures and practices against the dignity and integrity of women, and equal partnership between men and women. This problem is in all religions.”[12]

As we consider the present state of theological education in the Philippines, let us never forget the five target objectives of bringing about God’s agenda. The primary mission of the Church is to advance God’s agenda for people empowerment that leads to the transformation of church and society. I submit, there-fore, that if we have healthy children who grow strong and educated to be productive citizens; if we show respect and reverence to our elders so that they live in and die with dignity; if our own people are provided with decent homes to stay, and if our workers enjoy the fruits of their labors; and finally, if we promote wholesome partnership between men and women then we can work for the protection and preservation of the integrity of our environment.

All these, my sisters and brothers, comprise our collective vision and mission as disciples of the risen Lord. I suggest, therefore, that these five target objectives should comprise the core of our concerted vision for theological education towards the 21st century. We need all the concerted, creative imaginations and collaborative efforts to advance God’s agenda for people empowerment. This is the summon to our common action. These five targets are integral part of the task to proclaim and to live out God’s jubilee for transformation of church and society.

Creative Initiatives in Doing
Theology and Praxis of Ministry.

Beyond the dynamic spiritual renewal that we observe in many churches are examples of creative initiatives in the praxis of ministry and theologizing in our country. On May 18-22, 2000, I have the opportunity to participate in the 9th Pacific Rim Think Tank on Urban Transformation. It was under the auspices of Mainline Protestants in cooperation with Roman Catholic organizations. This is one more example of our ecumenical and prophetic involvement in the ministry of our church. Through that workshop we have learned and seen innovative models of ministry in urban transformation. Let me briefly describe two of these models.

1. The Center for Community Transformation was started in 1992 by Ms. Ruth Callanta, an Evangelical lay leader and former AIM professor of economics. The CCT approach to development is holistic and transformational, addressing both the material and spiritual needs of the poor so that they can reach their full potentials as human beings created in the image and likeness of God. They work in densely populated and highly depressed communities. Using micro-finance as strategy, they have transformed people’s groups into Christ-centered faith communities through Bible studies, child-care feeding program medical services and education. In 1999, they reached more than 40,000 individuals with medical care, spiritual nurturing, and informal skills training. Of this number, 6,132 availed of loans as working capital to start or expand their sari-sari stores. In addition, some 174 orphans, abandoned children, and those from indigent families were sent to school. More than 1,050 families were provided with social security benefits. Love in concrete action.

2. Parish of the Risen Christ, Smokey Mountain, Tondo. This ministry initiated and sustained by Fr. Benigno Beltran, SVD, for the last 22 years. This ministry has evolved out into a rallying point for the transformation of youth and poverty alleviation, environmental management and cooperative development involving business, civic groups and the government. Smokey Mountain used to be the livelihood source for over 20,000 families. It is now transformed into a government housing facility for 3,000 households, a livelihood/computer training center, and non-formal education center. During our visit, the Waste Management Project was officially blessed and turned over to the parish community. The project could turn solid waste into compost fertilizer in a period of three to five weeks.

During our visit last week, we personally met and heard the testimony of a 26-year person who was a former scavenger (naghuhukay ng basura sa SM) but now became a computer programmer. What a transformation indeed! This was realized because of the persistent and prophetic ministry of Fr. Beltran.

What are the implications of these new and innovative models of ministry to your theme “Building Our Vision for Theological Education for the 21st Century”? Ms. Ma. Sophia L. Bodegon recently wrote a paper entitled “Jubilee: Agenda for a Church in the City”. This paper incorporates UCCP Ellinwood-Malate Church’s second long-range plan, covering 2000-2009. According to this plan, EMC “aims at building a community of faith that … consistently grows in caring relationship with the people of God and vigorously works with others [toward] peace, justice and abundant life.” As a church, they seek to grow “from being merely a community of fate” and from “a community of convenience” into a “called out and covenanted community” that is committed toward personal and societal transformation. Their goal is to be:

“responsive to the call of the Holy Spirit, awakened to the life of Christ in them and in the world, equipped and empowered to serve the community of faith, committed to sharing of God’s saving and transforming grace, actively growing in faith and participating in worship, good stewards of God’s creation, gifts and resources.”[13]

This is the shape of what Ellinwood church hopes to be as it responds to the urgent task of “working for the welfare of the city” as envisioned by the Prophet Jeremiah in his letter to the Jewish exiles (Jer. 29:4-9). Lest, you are mesmerized by the cloud-nine of theological formulas, let me bring you back to earth; after all, Jeremiah’s counsel to the exiles is down to earth. He said: “build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat your produce; get married and have children; seek the welfare of the city, and pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

At the start of the 21st century, our people in the cities are also engulfed by vast seas of suffering and misery. We are told that in 1995 about 48.5% of total Philippine population live in urban centers; by the year 2000 there were 52% who dwell in the cities. This is an irreversible trend. For the church to effectively work for the welfare of the city, we have got to devise ways of innovative ministries in the cities so that we could bring about urban transformation. In symbolic, biblical language, this is what John saw: the holy city, the new Jerusalem, is coming down from heaven. The dwelling place of God, God’s home base, is with peoples. God will be the God of peoples. And God will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, more grief or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”

How this drama of transformation be translated into concrete reality in the megapolis of Metro Manila and the expanding urban centers in our country? One thing is clear: urban planners are unanimous that as social problems in the cities are compounded every year with the influx of migrants from the war-torn country sides of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, the government has become so helpless and unprepared to intervene.

Government bureaucracies enmeshed in the culture of corruption and run by people whose primary concern is to enrich themselves could never alleviate the human misery in our ever-expanding cities. In fact, the recent Payatas tragedy wherein about 200 poor people were buried alive in the mountain of garbage is a painful consequence government neglect and uselessness. It is because of this that there is an urgent need for people in the churches and in NGOs to establish alliances and networks. The mission of urban transformation has become the significant challenge for the churches in the new millennium.

To bring about the reality where God is no longer far off but dwells in the midst of people, this is the goal of working for the welfare of the city. The coming of the new heaven and new earth is not merely something to look forward to. In Christ there is already the possibility, in the power of God's Spirit, to bring about that new reality in individual lives, though with painful and sometimes bloody struggle like the giving birth of a child.

Interconnectedness of Justice
Jubilee Spirituality

The Bible stresses that spirituality and justice are central concepts in our understanding of God who initiated the establishment of a covenant relationship not only with human beings but with all creation. The colorful history of the Old Testament conveys a unique covenant relationship established by Yahweh with Noah and the Hebrew community after the flood [Gen. 8:20-21; 9:8-19]. This portion of the Scripture conveys the meaning of genuine spirituality and social justice.

The symbol of the covenant is a colorful rainbow. After the flood that brought destruction on earth, the rainbow appeared in the horizon. God’s wrath and punishment due to the widespread violence, wickedness and corruption of people brought about the flood. But the appearance of the rainbow was a sign that God’s anger has subsided. To the perception of the ancient Hebrews, the bow and arrows [lightning] were instruments of war. The fact that the bow is hanged and the arrows are safely kept means that the anger of war is over. Yahweh, the warrior God, now assures the people against whom he was at war. Yahweh said:

“I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood to destroy the earth... This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth....” [Gen. 9:11-16].

“I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; Nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease!” [Gen. 8:23].

What do these words mean for us in the Philippines where crises after crises come without let-up; bank robberies, kidnappings, massacres; spiraling of prices of basic commodities, the Abu Sayaf hostage drama and the real threat of Jihad in Mindanao, etc. Our country is undergoing a catastrophic socio-political convulsion, trembling towards an edge of bloody destruction, violent killings, senseless kidnappings which will continue to occur for as long as our people would not learn to live and co-exist peace-fully and harmoniously. The story of God forging an everlasting covenant with Noah and with future generations, a covenant that is constantly and continually renewed every time we see the rainbow up in the sky, is part of our heritage of human hope. We who belong to that covenant community [through the Church] needs always to be reminded that we are prepared to face whatever tragedy that will befall us. Like Noah, we are called upon to build an ark of human hope, build an altar of human faith, and offer a sacrificial aroma of human love. This is the only way, I believe, how we could withstand the floodgates of violence and destruction cascading into our midst. That is why among the UCCP constituency, we are striving that each and every local congregation and institution should be offered as a sanctuary of shalom throughout the land.

The rainbow symbolizes God’s presence in our midst. It constantly reminds us of three things. First, the rainbow spirituality reminds us of God’s permanent dependability, generosity and goodness. Thus, God is our absolute ground of hope. God continues to assure: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” [Gen. 8:22]. Here, not only the dependable rhythm of the season is promised to us. More than that, God assures us that never again God will destroy life on the face of the earth.

Second, the rainbow symbolizes God’s justice and ecological integrity because it reminds us of our interconnectedness not only with each other but also with the whole of creation. The covenant relationship established by Yahweh with Noah continues to remain a foundational source of order and governance in our society. Each of us is a carrier of God’s image and therefore we are capable of creating societal framework that gives premium to peace based on justice, social responsibility, protection of the rights of women, children and senior citizens, and the preservation of the integrity of God’s creation.

Third, the God who is loving, merciful and compassionate is also a God of judgment and of righteousness. Therefore, each time the rainbow appears in the sky, we are assured of genuine hope, spirituality and social justice.

Let me end this talk with a “Parable of the Rainbow”.

Once upon a time, the colors of the rainbow were praised so much by their friends for their beauty until they were too proud to acknowledge each other. This created a conflict and they started to quarrel among themselves.

The RED color said to the others: “You are able to be noticed because I, RED, give you the life; You see, I am the color of blood which means life. I am also the color of love. Without me, none of you would be in existence!”

The ORANGE was so furious and said: “I believe, my fried, that you need to reconsider your statement. Do you know that I am the color of the sun? Don’t you know what happens when it becomes dark? People have no choice but to sleep. Even if they are awake, they still need artificial light and that is ME!”

The YELLOW looked at the two with irritation and said: “It is obvious that I mean more than any of you put together. You are able to be a rainbow because you try to get closer to me for warmth. I and I alone give meaning to your very existence!”

The GREEN thought that the argument was getting too much out of hand, and said: “Hey, none of you has any hope of existence without me. Don’t you know that I am the color of HOPE and Prosperity? You all keep hoping that it will rain so that you may get an opportunity of forming a rainbow. I give you that hope, otherwise you would all have given up and gone home.”

The BLUE color was so annoyed that she responded: “I guess you all have forgotten that I am the color of PURITY, that is why I am the favorite color of Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord. I mean a lot because you all know what incarnation means for the whole creation!”

VIOLET or PURPLE looked at every body and began to defend herself. “Well, well, my dears. Just look at me and tell me, don’t you see that I am the color of royalty? Even the bishops look so proud with their authority if they don their purple vestments. If these important personalities use my color, who are you not to recognize me? It is not obvious that I am the most important?”

So, none of the different colors was willing to acknowledge that the others was better or more important, so they were forced to part company and display their beauty separately. After a while, no one was praising them any longer. Suddenly, there was burst of lightning and thunderstorm. The colors were so scared that they ran and gathered together. The colors were so scared that they ran and gathered together. Their different colors blended once more beautifully, and people were able to admire the rainbow once again!

Like the diverse colors of the rainbow, people of diverse political and ideological colors, gender, class, culture and creed, can emerge and are empowered to forge solidarity towards a free, just, peaceful, productive, and harmonious society. The church’s messages of faith, hope, love and liberation are not alien to the human aspirations and dreams, joys and struggles for a better and brighter tomorrow. Let us, therefore, look up to God’s rainbow because it reminds us of our total dependence upon God’s goodness as well as affirm our interdependence with our fellow human beings and with all of God’s creation.

(Lecture Delivered by Dr. Melanio L. Aoanan at the First Ecumenical Conference co-sponsored by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines and the Religious Education Department of De La Salle University-Dasmarinas, held at the Tanghalang Julian Felipe, DLSU-Dasmarinas, Cavite, Philippines, October 20, 2004).

[1] At that time, Bishop De Witt, a Dutch National, was the chairman of the Commission on Ecumenism of the Catholic hierarchy. See my Ecumenical and Prophetic: The Witness of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Quezon City: Claretian Publication, 1998, pp. 58-59.
[2] See Dr. Proceso U. Udarbe’s installation address as the first Filipino Dean of the Divinity School, Silliman University, on November 1, 1965 in his The Christ and the Crisis. Dumaguete City: Silliman University Press, 2003, pp. 145-251.
[3] Udabe, The Christ and the Crisis, pp. 146-147.
[4] Op. cit., pp. 148-149.
[5]See Spirituality for the Struggle: Biblico-Theological Reflections. Quezon City: ECTEEP, 1988, pp. 65-66.
[6]See exegesis and commentary on II Kings 4 in the New Interpreter’s Bible, Electronics Edition, 1995-2000.
[7]This image of groaning and pain in childbirth is borrowed from Luna L. Dingayan, “An Alternative Way of Doing Theological Education,” Ministerial Formation 95 (October 2001), pp. 9-16.
[8]Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino, “Filipino Children in the Crosswar,” TUGON, Vol XI, No. 3 (1991), p. 527.
[9]Ibid, p. 535
[10]J. P. Hyatt, in Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. V. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956, p. 1034.
[11] John Bright, The Anchor Bible: Jeremiah. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1965, p. 282.
[12]R. Battung, RGS, in Spirituality, the Activist, and the Social Movements, p. 77.
[13]Ma. Sophia L. Bodegon, “Agenda for a Church in the City,” (Typescript).

Mary in Protestant Theology

2006-05-11T06:03:00.000-07:00

The Place of Virgin Mary in the
UCCP Statement of Faith

“WE BELIEVE…
That in Jesus Christ, who was born of Mary, God became human and is Sovereign Lord of life and history.”
(UCCP Statement of Faith)

I. Introduction

The popular movie, “The Sound of Music,” depicts the struggle of the Von Trapp family in Austria during Hitler’s time. The Von Trapp household with seven children was without a mother. And it was ruled by a strict, disciplinarian father [Christopher Plummer]. The household was regimented like a military camp, punctuated by the sounds of whistles and marching orders. Certainly, there was order in the household; but it was a kind of monotonous life, devoid of music and joy. The zest for life and spontaneity needed for the wholesome growth of the children was absent. However, everything changed when a new governess in the person of Maria [a problematic novice from a nearby convent played by Julie Andrews] was hired. Faced with the dilemma of releasing Maria from the convent, the Mother Superior and all the nuns, chorused: “How do you solve the problem like Maria?”

For the Protestant Christians, particularly we in the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, are also confronted with the problem of solving (or resolving) the issue of Maria, the Mother of our Lord. As heirs to the Reformed faith, we are like children growing up in a household without a mother. We have ignored or neglected the rightful place of Mary, the Mother of our Lord, and the benefits she brings to our life. This neglect of Mary contradicts the witness of the Scriptures and teachings of the Reformers. We could no longer pretend to close our eyes to the testimony of the Bible as well as the hallowed tradition of the universal (ecumenical) Church in which we belong. Our ecumenical witness and relationship with other churches in the Philippines such as the Philippine Independent Church (with whom we have already established a concordat), the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as with the world-wide confessional families which give importance to Mary will definitely be enhanced. Consequently, it has impoverished our theology, liturgy and life as disciples of her son Jesus Christ.[1]

This article has three purposes. First, it aims to discover the reasons why, as Protestants, we have downplayed the role of Mary in the life and practice of our faith, despite the clear biblical witness. I intend to do this by analyzing selected scriptural basis on Mary and the views of selected Protestant theologians from the time of the Reformation up to the present. Secondly, this paper seeks to understand the significant shift in Roman Catholic thought on Mary since the Second Vatican Council. Thirdly, it endeavors to raise the challenge to us, Protestant Christians in the Philippines, to have a second or third look at the rich Scriptural witness to Mary with the hope of enriching the dialogical nature of our theologizing, our liturgy and our witnessing in the world today.

Necessarily, we need to take into consideration the emerging views of the feminist liberation theologians that is providing a corrective to the traditional male mariological teaching in the Roman Catholic Church.

II. The Biblical Witness on the Role of Mary

This section summarizes the witness of the Scriptures on the role of Mary. If one diligently searches the Scriptures, one can find numerous references that concern about the role of Mary as the mother of Jesus. Let me enumerate these references into ten groups.

1. The Genealogy of Jesus. There are two accounts of Jesus’ family tree or genealogy. The Matthew account explicitly states that Joseph “married Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah” (Mt. 1:16). However, the Luke account does not mention Mary. It simply states that Jesus was the son, “so people thought, of Joseph” (Lk 3:23).

2. The Announcement of Jesus’ Birth. In Luke’s account, the angel Gabriel conveys the message to “a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph… The virgin’s name was Mary” “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God… you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus” (Lk. 1:30-32). Mary was perplexed and pondered upon the message. She said: “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Gabriel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:34-35). In Matthew’s account, the angel’s unexpected news was conveyed to Joseph who was also perplexed by the message. Being a righteous man and does not want to expose Mary to a public disgrace, Joseph thought of breaking the engagement privately. But the angel appeared to him in a dream and said: Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt. 1:18-21).

3. Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth and her Song of Praise. As soon as Mary arrived at the home of Elizabeth and the usual exchange of greetings done, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb… And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1:42-45). Then Mary recites what became to be known as “Magnificat” or Song of Praise. A contemporary woman pastor writes: “The Magnificat is a canticle of revolution which expresses a hope for various types of liberation from oppressive structures… The message of the Magnificat proclaims a cultural revolution in which the proud and the haughty are put down and the humble and meek are exalted; a political revolution in which the political power passes from the mighty to the masses of the people; and an economic revolution by which the hungry are given food and all good tidings which the rich are sent empty away. This great prayer of Mary shows a powerful and pleasing combination of practical action, deep reflective prayer and personal concern.”[2]

4. The Birth of Jesus. Again, both the gospels of Matthew and Luke record the account. Luke gives a historical and political context of the event by citing the imperial decree requiring all inhabitants to register. Joseph and Mary (in full term of pregnancy) went to Bethlehem and there came “the time of her to deliver her child.” Luke also incorporates the story about the visit of the shepherds who found “Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in a manger” (Lk. 2:1-20). Matthew, on the other hand, stresses the point that the birth of Jesus was a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.” Matthew enriches his story with the visit of the magi from the East following the movement of a star. When they came to Bethlehem, they “saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage (Mt. 2:1-12).

5. Escape to Egypt. The story is unique in Matthew’s account who, again, stresses the fulfillment of prophecy. An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him to “take the child and his mother, ad flee to Egypt… for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him…” Later, when Herod died, the angel instructed Joseph (again, through a dream): “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel” (Mt. 2:19-20). Joseph settled his family in Galilee, in the town of Nazareth, so as to fulfill prophecy that Jesus “will be called a Nazorean” (Mt. 2:23).

6. Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. It is only the gospel of Luke which record this two events The presentation of Jesus at the temple was part of a Jewish law (circumcision of a male child and purification of the mother after giving birth). What’s significant in this incident were the words of a righteous and devout man named Simeon who pronounced blessing to Jesus and his parents. He said to Mary: “This child is destined for the living and for the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too”(Lk. 2:34-35).

7. The Holy Family’s Visit to Jerusalem. This was an incident during the annual festival in Jerusalem when Jesus was already twelve years old. As his parents started to return home, he stayed behind in the temple, “setting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.” When they found him, Mary, his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” When they went home together, his mother “treasured all these things in her heart” (Lk. 2:48, 51).

8. Is He the Son of Mary?: The Public Rejection of Jesus. When Jesus started his public ministry, people began to wonder about his identity. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record how his mother and brothers began to be worried because of the people’s rejection. People question his exceptional wisdom and his miraculous deeds, asking: Isn’t he the carpenter’s son? Isn’t Mary his mother?” (Mt. 13:55-56) Isn’t he the carpenter, the on of Mary?” (Mk. 6:3). Luke states that while he was busy with his work, his mother and brothers are standing outside looking for him. He said: My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (Lk.8:21).

9. Mary and Jesus in the Gospel of John. There are two instances where Mary and Jesus were spoken of closely: the wedding feast in Cana (Jn 2:1-12) ad the crucifixion (Jn 19:25-27). The first incident concerns the miracle of changing water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana attended by Mary, Jesus and his disciples. When the supply of wine was gone, Mary, out of her concern to end the embarrassing situation, called the attention of Jesus. She said: “They have no [more] wine.” To which Jesus replied: “Woman, what concern is that to you and me? My hour has not yet come.” Mary, the mother of Jesus, unobtrusively told the house servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” The second was the incident at the foot of the cross where Mary and other disciples commiserate at the suffering of Jesus. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother: “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the beloved disciple: Her is your mother.” (Jn. 19:25-27).

10. Mary with the Early Disciples Praying Together (Acts 1:12-14). The last instance that Mary was explicitly mentioned in the Bible was the assumption of Jesus to heaven. It was a time when the disciples devoted themselves to reflection and prayer. They were at the Upper Room, all the men and women disciples, including Mary, the mother of Jesus.

There are other implicit allusions to the role of Mary and her relations to Jesus in the rest of the New Testament. For instance, it is safe to presuppose that Mary was among the women disciples who went to the tomb to anoint his body but were met by the resurrected Jesus. Another allusion to Mary is found in Paul’s epistle that “in the fullness of time ‘God sent his Son, born of a woman… in order to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Lastly, the writer of the Apocalypse (Revelation) alludes to Mary as the “woman clothe with the sun,” pregnant and “in the agony of giving birth… to a child… who is to rule all the nations…” (Rev. 12:1-2, 5)[3]

III. Mary as Viewed by the Protestant Reformers
and in Contemporary Protestant Theology

This section seeks to review the role of Mary in the teachings of two leading Reformers (Martin Luther and John Calvin) as well as the view of Karl Barth, undoubtedly the most influential Protestant theologian of the twentieth century.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation were not at all neglectful or indifferent to Mary, the Lord’s mother. Having been nourished in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, they have imbibed in their theology and piety the place of the Virgin Mary.

A. Martin Luther [1493-1546]. His religious revolt in the sixteenth century became the pattern for all subsequent Protestant attitudes toward Mary. He criticized and reacted to many “abuses of Marian devotion and veneration” which became central theological issues on the Reformation. Luther’s view on Mary went through a certain development, sometimes erratic and contained inconsistencies.[4]

Of course, Luther’s thought on Mary is just a tiny bit of his entire theological enterprise. The development of Luther’s view on Mary had its beginnings while he was still an Augustinian monk. Then, during his struggles with Rome, his thought went “through contradictions, uncertainties, and terminates in a new Marian viewpoint, one which Luther described as Christocentric, biblical, un-exaggerated, and edifying.”[5]

There were two sources of Luther’s shifting view on the Virgin Mary. First, was his experience of superstition and exaggeration and popular devotional abuses in the medieval veneration of Mary. For instance, it was pointed out by the Dominican theologian Thomas O’Meara that when Luther went to Rome in 1501, “he was shown some milk from the Virgin’s breasts and some of Mary’s hairs.” Therefore, Luther “rebelled against what he felt was an accretion of superstition and falsehood around Christianity.”[6] These blatant abuses within the Church contributed to the rapid success of Luther’s personal theological struggle which emphasizes sola fide led to “a new frame of reference for Mary, the exemplar of the Catholic Christian and the first among the saints.”[7]

Luther’s systematic study of the Bible led him to feel dissatisfied with his medieval heritage of Marian piety. This led him also to develop a more coherent mariological position. He looked up to Mary as “the great example of the faith, the most pure venerator of God. . ., who magnifies God above all things.”[8] His mariology is centered on his Christology. He said: “If Mary detracts us from Christ and God. . . then we must practice Christocentric moderation. Mary must be honored but Christ must be the matrix of this veneration. Mary exists for Christ alone, and this is the view of the Bible.”[9]

Luther’s decisive grounding of his view on Mary in Christology is in accordance not only with the Scriptures but with Christian tradition. This is why he retained the belief in Mary as theotokos. This is the doctrine about Mary as “the bearer of God” promulgated at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A. D. Most Catholic experts on Marian studies concur with Luther on this point. The doctrine on Mary as theotokos was defined to safeguard the truth about the ‘word made flesh’ [Jesus Christ] in the face of the Nestorian crisis in the fifth century. Historically and theologically interpreted, therefore, theotokos was and still is Christological, rather than mariological, affirmation.[10]

Luther also continued to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary but not at the expense of disparaging the dignity of marriage. And so in one of his sermons, he said:

Some claim since Christ was born of a virgin, that virginity is superior to marriage. He did not have to be born of a virgin so that he might be Savior without sin. But take note that he was not born of a nun or a woman outside of the married state. Christ wished marriage to retain its honor along side the virginity, splendid, but not the disparagement of marriage. Virginity, marriage, and widowhood do not earn heaven. They enter into heaven through faith in this little Child.”[11]

Luther’s final position on Mary would be summed up with these words: “Mary is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personifies. He can never honor her enough. Honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” Luther interprets Mary’s name as “Stella Maris” (Latin) which means Mary as a “pure drop in the sea of fallen humanity.”[12]

Till his death Luther continued to honor Mary by keeping her feast days. He never stopped preaching sermons on Mary, most of which are among Luther’s finest. Through the proclamation of the Word, the most central act in Protestant worship and church life, Luther described “the reality of God made man and the splendor of the woman who was his mother.” The making of these sermons may have drawn inspiration from the picture of Mary which hanged in his study room. He said: “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. . . Honor the Mother of God, but in such a way as not to be detained by her; rather push on to God and fix your heart in Him. Thus you will be keeping Christ in the center.”[13]

Luther’s rejection of what he called “papist superstition” or excessive medieval piety regarding Mary have been rectified by the Roman Catholic Church through Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” [Lumen Gentium] and subsequent pronouncements of the magisterium about Mary. We will discuss this further in later section of this article.

B. John Calvin [1509-1564]. As far as the Reformed Faith is concerned, Calvin did not give importance to Mary in his theological works. He mentioned Mary in passing in his commentaries and sermons based on the earlier chapters of Luke’s gospel. Compared with Luther, Calvin did not have much change in his views and attitude toward Mary. Commenting on Calvin’s theology, says O’Meara:
“. . . the mother of the Lord is examined by a theology which flows from the Protestant principle of the Scriptures as the sole norm of revelation, the equality of men [and women] under God’s grace, the scandal of papal superstition, the transcendence of God, and the unique mediatorship of Christ.”[14]

While Calvin [unlike Luther] had no place for Marian feasts in Reformed piety, he [like Luther] consistently defended the perpetual virginity of Mary. A French Dominican theologian says: “When Calvin says Mary is a virgin, holy, the mother of the Lord, he is trying to retain the original meaning of this while at the same time divesting it of the fantasies of piety he believed he saw every where.”[15]

Trained in both law and theology, Calvin’s position in most issues, including mariology, is simple and precise. What is obviously biblical, he defended; what is not found in the Bible, he denied. What is excessive and papist, he negated. This led him to take exception to Mary’s title of theotokos or “Mother of God”. He insisted on calling Mary “Mother of the Lord” following the Gospel of Luke. Calvin hesitated calling Mary as “Mother of God” [theotokos] because of the excesses of Marian devotion during his time.

For Calvin, the virgin birth and perpetual virginity are articles of faith. The conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb was accomplished by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit without the work of man. To support his belief on Mary’s perpetual virginity, Calvin translated the Greek word “adelphos” [Matt. 13:55] as relatives or cousins, or brothers. His comment on Matthew’s statement that Jesus was Mary’s first born is in accord with that of St. Jerome who “earnestly and copiously de-fended Mary’s perpetual virginity.”[16]

Calvin held that Mary’s having been chosen for the work of God’s kingdom. As any believer has a role in God’s kingdom, Calvin did not see any difference between Mary and other Christians. Mary is privileged just as any person whom God justifies is privileged. Calvin does not agree with the usual Roman Catholic exegesis of the Angel’s words “full of grace” referring to Mary. In one sermon Calvin proclaimed that “Mary’s grace . . . is a pure gift of God who does not consider persons when he bestows grace. . . She needs Christ as her Redeemer as much as we do…We will profit from the Magnificat when we have understood well the teaching that Mary not only bore Jesus with regard to his human nature in her womb, but in her heart and in all her faculties and in her spirit.”[17]

Calvin disputed the excessive honor accorded to Mary by Roman Catholics of his day. “It is certain,” he said in one sermon, “the priests have made an idol of Mary.”[18] Calvin attributed this error to the Catholic’s unfamiliarity with the Scriptures. With all the force he could muster, Calvin denounced the claim that Mary has special cooperation in mediating God’s grace and redemption to humankind. Repeatedly, he insisted that there is only One Mediator between God and humankind-- only Jesus Christ. There is no place in Calvin’s theology [just as in Luther] for the Roman Catholic’s speculative development of dogma culminating in promulgation of the dogma of Immaculate Conception [1854] and the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary [1950].

From this survey of the Protestant Reformers’ view on Mary, one thing becomes clear: both Martin Luther and John Calvin retained a wholesome and positive regard for Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. The important place of Mary in the life of the Church was part of the total theological and homiletical discourses of the Reformers. Unfortunately, due to the tragic historical developments when the chasm between Catholics and Protestants became wider and wider, and ended up into an all-out religious wars, many precious practices [among them the high regard for Mary] had been thrown away by the later descendants of the Reformers.

IV. The Role of Mary in Contemporary Protestant Theology

This section deals with contemporary Protestant theology. I have chosen Karl Barth [1886-1968], the most significant voice in Protestant theology for the twentieth century. Expectedly, as a worthy heir of the sixteenth century Reformation, Barth minces no words in his critique of Roman Catholic mariology. Barth’s writings constitute the “epitome in Protestant theological evaluation of Marian theology.”[19]

Among the catch phrases that describes Barth’s thought is “dialectical theology”. Thus, even his view on Mary is dialectical: on the one hand, Mary as the Virgin Mother is seen as “the guarantee of orthodoxy”; and yet, the subject of mariology is seen as “the cancer of theology.” Here’s a typical Barthian polemic: “Mariology is an excrescence, i.e., a diseased construct of theological thought. Excrescences must be excised.”[20] He considers Catholic mariology as “a supreme exemplification of the exaltation of the creature.” He insists that mariology is the “center of Catholic theology, the sum and criterion of the confusion of the human with the divine, a heresy which explains all others.”[21]

Despite Barth’s strong critique of Catholic mariology, he is unequivocal in affirming that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, which is consistent with the witness of the gospels and the teachings of Luther and Calvin. Since the time he wrote about the subject, the dogma on Mary “suddenly lost its terror for the younger theologians and was once again accepted.” For Barth, the virgin birth has an “essential rightness and importance”; it is “a safeguard for the person of Jesus Christ.” In other words: “The necessity of the dogma of the virgin birth, according to Barth, provides a twofold function. First, it functions not so much to repeat the reality of the true divinity and humanity of Jesus as to underline the mysterious character of the event of the Incarnation. Second, it describes the mystery of the Incarnation. Summarizing Barth, O’Meara writes: “The virgin birth is the sign, the Incarnation the thing signified. To reject the virgin birth, God’s sign, is to expose oneself to a grave danger of misunderstanding the thing signified.”[22]

In brief, the virgin birth is a sign. And as such, it has no meaning unless seen in relation to the Incarnation. Barth’s concluding statement is: “All ‘Mary the Virgin’ actually signifies is that man is really the other upon whom and with whom God acts in His revelation.” However, Barth rejects mariology as a dogma for two reasons. First, when it becomes an “arbitrary innovation in the face of the Scripture and the early Church. Second, when such innovation “consists essentially in a falsification of Christian truth.”[23] Two years before Barth died [in 1968], the theological patriarch from Basel had a one-week trip to Rome. The trip was on September 22-29, 1968. Aside from the audience with Pope Paul VI, Barth had engaged in ‘private conversation’ with three important Catholic theologians [Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, and Otto Semmelroth]. He inquired of them about their somewhat divergent views on mariology.[24]

During the trip Barth had the singular privilege of having a one-hour dialogue with Pope Paul VI. He considered this experience as the highest point of his pilgrimage. “I count the full hour which Pope Paul VI gave me as among the most pleasant memories of our week.”[25] Barth boldly raised theological questions with the Pope, even the difficult issue on mariology. Barth writes that as a result of his trip he “gained a close acquaintance with a church and a theology which have begun a movement. . . In looking at it we can only wish that we have something comparable. . . I would be happy to see the words ‘Protestants’ and ‘Protestantism’ disappear from our vocabulary.”[26]

Certainly, Barth’s Vatican sojourn has made him irenic and more conciliatory in tone. But did it change his basic position on mariology which he held before the Second Vatican Council? Had he lived longer, would he be revising his very sharp criticism against mariology as developed in Catholic theology?

I am inclined to believe that if Barth would have lived longer, he would be rewriting his views on Mary, especially concerning its solid biblical and Christological grounding provided by Vatican II. However, I also believe that Barth would continue to insist his prophetic No to the Catholic mariological dogma. As a matter of fact, shortly after he arrived from Rome, he received from a Catholic theologian a lecture on mariology. In response, he writes: “I plunged into reading it almost immediately with some attentiveness with which I read detective stories”[27]

After three paragraphs where Barth was very cordial and appreciative of his colleague’s treatise on mariology, the typical bombastic Barth comes out. Let Barth speak for himself:

“You know as well as I do. . . that the ‘theotokos’ of the Council of Ephesus. . . was a formula to aid in expressing Christology, and not to mariological statement, nor the enunciation of an independent dogma besides the one which the council stated as the doctrine of the ‘two natures’ of Christ. When this ‘theotokos’ is used to build a mariology. . . it becomes the starting point of a development which I can only regard as grotesque.

“Not even all the diligent reminders that it was really praise of her Son could alter the fact that the handmaid of the Lord of Luke 1 become the wearer of her crown, to which new pearls were always being added with justification and by necessity, down to those added by Pius XII in 1950. . . It appears to me that the Church. . . deprived this handmaid of her best pos-session by making her a queen, the ‘queen of heaven’, in unavoidable competition with ’our Father who art in heaven’. And it seems . . . that the more this strangely contrived and decorated figure became the object of ‘dulia’ or ‘hyperdulia’ in the order of higher and lower piety, and the more the teaching office of the Church, as in 1854 and 1950, could appeal to ‘consensus of the Church’ as a form of divine revelation, the more complicated, unnatural, and difficult it became for the theologians to make the best of it. . . It was no accident that while Vatican II often acknowledged mariology out of sense of duty, it deliberately avoided it in all the important statements, or use it only for decorative purposes. I had a similar impression when I listen to my colleagues. . . discuss their mariological views in Rome. The Catholic Church does not stand or fall [thank God], on its mariology.”[28]

One significant outcome of Barth’s pilgrimage to the Holy City, aside from the realistic but critical assessment of Roman Catholicism, is his critical self-questioning of Protestant Christianity in the light of the ‘movement of renewal within the Roman Catholic Church.” Barth identifies three “biggest roadblocks” namely, the mariological dogma with its so disagreeable development, the persistence of papal infallibility, and the ‘invisible principalities and powers’ around the Pope, (curia) “which have not yet been noticeably touched by the movement that manifested itself in the Council. Closely related to his consistent mariology critique, Barth commended Pope John XXIII for the reception of St. Joseph into the Canon of the Mass.[29] In the last analysis, the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches
“are not static power groups . . . devoted to the preservation of their possessions or the multiplication of their prestige and influence. Both are directed to the unification of all Christianity as their final end. Both live the dynamics of the evangelical Word and Spirit which are totally constitutive of both. Both live to the extent that they are living communities of the living Jesus Christ. The question that confronts them . . . is not the cooperation of their different doc-trines and institutions but this dynamic movement. They are summoned to give mutual attention to this movement.”[30]

But Barth reserves the sharpest, most self-critical series of questions to the Protestant Christians:

“For a change we. . .are in special way the ones who are questioned. Certainly, we are asked whether, in view of the spiritual motion that is taking place there, something has been set in motion . . . on our side, in the rooms of our church. And do we [as Protestant Christians] exist as ecclesiae semper reformandae? Do not we . . . lack too much that interesting and progressive flexibility which characterizes many of our Roman Catholic colleagues? . . . Are there not also [Protestant] ‘Ottavianis’. . . who everywhere to some extent determine the appearance of the churches? How would things look like if Rome . . . were one day simply to overtake us and place us in the shadows, so far as the renewing of the Church through the Word and Spirit of the gospel is concerned? What if we should discover that the last are the first and the first last, that the voice of the Good Shepherd should find a clearer echo over there than among us?”[31]

These are honest, profound theological questions from a person whose whole life is committed to the proclamation and interpretation of the Word of God in the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Barth is such a modern ‘Church Father’ whose clear voice may be ignored with great peril!

V. Mary in Catholic Theology Since Vatican II.

In this section, we will deal with Vatican II’s discussion on mariology [Lumen Gentium, 52-69] and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines Pastoral Letter, Ang Mahal Na Birhen.

Pope John XXIII’s announcement on 25 January 1959 to convoke an ecumenical council was a pleasant surprise. The Pope’s symbolic suggestion to open the windows of the Church to let the fresh air inside so that the dust accumulated for four centuries will be blown away.[32] From one Protestant way of seeing, the Catholic mariological dogmas have indeed accumulated some ‘disagreeable dusts’ of superstition which must be blown away by the new wind of critical self-study and ecumenical dialogue.

The mariological issue is one of the hotly contested, most controversial doctrines tackled by the bishops and theological experts of the Second Vatican Council. Many of the Protestant ‘delegated observers’ were as eager as the council protagonists on how the “Maria problem” have been resolved. The bone of contention was whether or not to have a separate schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Council Fathers finally decided to incorporate the schema on Mary into the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” [Lumen Gentium].[33] Robert M. Brown notes that before the crucial vote was taken “there has been furious politicking” obviously on the side of the “Marianists”. He notes that those “desiring a separate schema have indeed been working at a furious rate. These have been some of the arguments and tactics:
· To deny Mary a separate schema is to downgrade her;
· Alternate proposals... deny the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven;
· The ecumenical situation will be harmed unless there is a separate schema....;
· The true mind of the Church favors a separate schema....[34]

The observers, like Brown, received copies of pamphlets that argue as follows: ‘The two most important facts of the past half century have been the rise in Marian devotion and the rise of the ecumenical movement. Clearly the latter is the result of the former and therefore ecumenical advance is dependent upon heightened Marian devotion.’ Thus, the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium is entitled “The Role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” The Marian chapter has five headings: I. Preface; II. The Role of the Blessed Virgin in the Economy of Salvation; III. The Blessed Virgin and the Church; IV. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin in the Church; and V. Mary, the Sign of Sure Hope and Solace for God’s People in Pilgrimage.[35]

That tightly contested vote has significant ecumenical implications even for our time. A vote for a separate schema on Mary could mean “further excesses of mariological devotion, further doctrinal developments proceeding independently of the rest of Catholic theology.” It could also mean further widening of the chasm between Catholics and Protestants. On the other hand, inclusion of the Mary schema into Lumen Gentium, as it is now, signifies that the Council Fathers understand Mary in relation to the Church. They see Mary as very important part, not independent, of the Church. Seeing Mary in the context of the Church provides safeguards against excesses of Marian devotion and piety. But to see the Church in the context of Mary, the position advocated by the Filipino Cardinal [Rufino Santos], will probably encourage independent development of Marian dogma following the impetus of Pope Pius IX. If so, there will probably be an onward march of Marian dogma which may culminate in the definition of Mary being a “Co-redemtrix”.[36]

Robert M. Brown enumerates three reasons for incorporating the Mary schema into Lumen Gentium. First, it was a matter of providing a context of bringing Marian excesses into some kind of control. Second, it was the only proper theology to discuss Mary in a treatment of the Church of which her Son is the head. Third, it was a matter of ecumenical emphasis, to demonstrate to the ‘separated brethren’ that the Church is basic for Catholic theology, rather than Mary, and that while Mary is important, she is not at the center.[37] A noted Jesuit theologian, Avery Dulles, agrees that the Council Fathers saw the danger of treating mariology separately.[38] Albert Outler, another Protestant theologian, states that placing Mary in the Dogmatic Constitution will have “the effect of reaching Protestants to an important aspect of Christian faith that they have tended to underestimate in their reaction to what was deemed the excesses of conventional mariology.”[39]

There are peculiar conciliar dynamics in the sessions of Vatican II characterized by the mastery of compromise and the skill of ecumenical diplomacy. This is so especially with how the Council Fathers were able to orchestrate and piece together Lumen Gentium’s eighth chapter. As the footnote states:
“This present chapter, while it treats Mary’s relationship to the Church, speaks also of her relation with Christ.... The entire text represents a skillful and prudent compromise between the two tendencies in modern Catholic theology with Christ, the Redeemer; the other, her close connection with the Church and all the redeemed.”[40]

It is this theological tension that is felt throughout the chapter. At one point, the Council Fathers were hesitant and cautious: they do not intend “to give a complete doctrine on Mary” nor to “ decide those questions which have not yet been fully illuminated by the works of theologians” (L.G., 54). Another point, they proclaim with confidence the exalted position of Mary as:
“preserved free from all guilt of original sin, the Immaculate Virgin was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory upon the completion of her earthly sojourn. She was exalted by the Lord as the Queen of all.... Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, and Mediatrix” (L.G., 59, 62).[41]

Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium seeks to fulfill a dual function in relation to Mary: a) to describe the role of the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of the Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body; b) to describe the duties of the redeemed humankind toward Mary, the mother of Christ and the mother of all faithful disciples (L.G., 54).

The treatment of Mary’s role in the economy of salvation (L.G., 55-60) and her place in the Church exemplifies sound biblical scholarship. Mary’s ties with Christ is stressed with abundant Scriptural citations. Also, the motherly solidarity of Mary with the Church is carefully explained in such a way “to remove any impression that it could detract from the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ’s position as Mediator.”[42]

Since this paper raises the issue of whether Protestant Christians have a place for Mary in their church life, piety and devotion, it is important to know what Vatican II says. Devotion to Mary has always been part of Roman Catholic piety “within the limits of sound and orthodox doc-trine.” The criterion of orthodoxy, even in Marian devotion, is Jesus Christ. The Council Fathers declare: “While honoring Christ’s mother, these devotions caused her Son to be rightly known, loved, and glorified, and all his commands observed” (L.G., 66). The Council Fathers also insist that devotion to Mary must be “Christ-centered and free from all exaggeration” so as “to avoid any thing which might unnecessarily offend the sensibilities of the separated brethren.” All are exhorted (theologians, pastors, and teachers that their promotion of Marian devotion) to “carefully and equally avoid the falsity of exaggeration.... and the excess of narrowmindedness... and rightly explain the offices and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which are always related to Christ, the Source of all truth, sanctity and piety.” In order not to mislead the separated brethren, all Catholics are reminded that true Marian devotion “consists neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain vain credulity.” Rather, it proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues” (L.G., 66-67).

Finally, the Council Fathers point to Mary as a “sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God.” As such, Mary continues to intercede with her Son “until all the people of the human family.... are happily gathered in peace and harmony into one people of God, for the glory of the Most and Undivided Trinity” (L.G., 69).

IV. Mary in Philippine Life Today

Vatican II’s restatement of mariology, backed up by sound biblical and theological teachings, are offered to all Roman Catholics as the fruit of the aggiornamento initiated by Pope John XXIII when he convoked the Vatican II. In the Philippines, these new teachings have been reinforced, re-echoed, and enriched by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in their Pastoral letter Ang Mahal Na Birhin issued on February 2, 1975.[43] Together with the CBCP’s Pastoral Letter, I would like also to mention the emerging mariological articulations coming from feminist liberation theologians.[44]

This Pastoral Letter offers guidelines on the renewal of devotion to Mary especially “at a time when there are excesses in both directions, credulity and unbelief” (AMNB, 4). It begins with a descriptive survey of Mary’s veneration in the Philippines. The Philippines has a very extensive practice of Marian devotion. The Bishops pointed out that, aside from the “many and rich, positive and potential values of this devotion,” there are attitudes or practices which “are less commendable, cannot be unreservedly approved, and in this respect there is need of instruction and correction” (AMNB, 77). With stern but pastoral warning, the Bishops state:
“We cannot approve, for instance, of the presence of several images of Mary in the same house, chapel or church... as if they are rivals. Medals, scapulars and votive candles are ... religious symbols and manifestations of spiritual trust and candid devotion. However we see a danger connected at times with their use, when people consider them as magic, talismans, a kind of anting-anting for mere or bodily protection. We are seriously concerned about the abuses in some places, where so-called faith-healers use the popularity of the devotion to Mary under one or other of her titles to persuade the simple that their faith-healing power comes from her.... Above all we wish to emphasize that all veneration of Mary is to be subordinated to the adoration of the triune God and of Christ who is the Mediator” (AMNB, 79).

Most interesting in the Pastoral Letter is its relevance to the issue of women’s liberation and social justice. True devotion to Mary determines a man’s way of relating to women. “The dignity, self-awareness and spiritual realization to which Mary is summoning the Filipina is for the Filipino man a challenge to under-stand her correctly and a reminder to respect, love and protect her. A woman is degraded when treated like an object, the conquest of which is taken as a proof of one’s masculinity in the spirit of childish machismo. A woman is a companion and a partner, an equal and not a plaything or slave” (AMNB, 93).

Devotion to Mary has also a clear implication to the work of social justice. The Pastoral letter reminds us that “Mary should also be seen in the Biblical context.” The God of Mary is a “God whose action on behalf of the lowly and the poor endures through the ages” (AMNB, 94). As a model of a perfect disciple, Mary is committed to the work for justice “which sets free the oppressed.” Devotion to Mary in the Philippines today must lead to the work of justice and freedom from oppression” (AMNB, 98).

Let me now consider the emerging (and necessary corrective) views on Mary from feminist liberation theologians. Feminist theologians like Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza (and a few others) assert that Mary had been “mythologized far beyond any historical resemblance.” Fiorenza, the more prolific articulator of feminist theology provides a corrective and necessary alternative to what she calls “malestream image of Mary and of patriarchal mariology.”[45] This traditional and dominant construction of mariology, she continues, is not only a “projection of a celibate male priestly hierarchy” but also legitimizes “male domination in church and society.”[46] This male domination continues today as exemplified by John Paul II’s proclamation: “The fact that the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination … is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the Universe.”[47]

Consequently, this model of femininity is not an appropriate example for ordinary women because it serves to inculcate a sense of “dependency, subordination and inferiority” among normal women. An American writer asserts: “For women like me, it was necessary to reject that image of Mary in order to hold onto the fragile hope of intellectual achievement, independence of identity, sexual fulfillment. Yet we were offered no alternative to this Marian image; hence we were denied a potent female image whose application was universal.”[48]

Furthermore, Fiorenza insists that the dominant male mariology constructs devalue women in three ways: first, by emphasizing virginity to the detriment of sexuality; second, by unilaterally associating the ideal of “true womanhood” with motherhood; and, third, by religiously valorizing obedience, humility, passivity and submission as the cardinal virtues of women.”[49] She continues to stress that “the image of the servile, obedient, self-sacrificing, and sexually inexperienced ‘handmaiden of the Lord,’ projected into heaven as the eternal feminine, cannot but serve kyriarchal interests. In short, malestream Mariology continues to inscribe the socio-cultural image of the feminine that sanctifies the marginalization and exploitation of women. Such a Mary cannot be an inspiring and liberatory model for women either as the feminine yet subordinate human being.”[50]

During the 1990s, there was a resurgence of a “new cult of femininity” as documented by Time Magazine. It became a force to “relegate women to low paying jobs or to push them back into the home altogether, a reactionary politics in the church has gone hand in hand with many apparitions of Mary, the increase of capitalist right-wing religious groups, and the exclusion of women from ordination and church leadership.”[51]

Fiorenza has reacted to this tendency when she writes: “Feminist attempts to revise malestream mariology and to rearticulate mariology as liberating for women must not only scrutinize doctrinal language and cultic imagery. They must also confront their socio-historical context and its politically conservative dominant mariology if they do not want to contribute to the further marginalization and exploitation of women.”[52]

It is clear from the foregoing feminist articulations that any coherent and theologically sound teachings on the role of Mary in the life and ministry of the church must listen to the women’s voice. After all, the church as the household of God would not be complete without the complementation of mothers and the daughters in God’s family.

V. Concluding Statement

The shift in Marian devotion since Vatican II had finally focused in Jesus Christ. This is the rightful place of Mary in the Church and in the history of God’s redemptive work in the world. This is the witness of the Scriptures and the tradition of the early Church. This is what the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin proclaimed and demanded, to honor Mary in the context of Christology. This is also the continuing challenge of the Reformers to their descendants in our time.

Does Mary have a rightful place in Protestant theology and piety? My answer is a qualified YES! Yes, because the Bible, the foundation of our faith, has a place for Mary. Yes, our early ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.) and the ecumenical councils recognize the important role of Mary in the Church’s life and witness.

Therefore, as Protestant Christians in the Philippines, if we are truly evangelical and truly ecumenical, we should reclaim our Reformation heritage. Above all, we should discern the Holy Spirit’s movement in and through the voices of women as they seek to enrich our Filipino culture, our liturgy and popular piety, our theology and church praxis by purifying and renewing them for the greater glory of the triune God.

[1] My interest in this topic is traced back to my scholarly sojourn at the Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University from 1989 to 1992 in pursuit of a doctoral degree. I wrote a paper in response to the challenge of the Cebu General Assembly of 1990 mandating the Faith and Order Committee “to establish a Biblico-theological inquiry on the role and place of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the understanding of our life and work as Filipino Christians…” (GA Action: 1990:50). That initial paper on Mary was published with two other works by Dr. Valentino Sitoy and Ms. Mirzah Rodriguez. See Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Quezon City: UCCP Publications Desk, 1992.
[2] See Mary, the Mother of Jesus: Faith and Order Series 4. Quezon City: United Church of Christ in the Philippines, 1993, p. 6.
[3] However, the NRSV annotation to Revelation 12:1-17 states that the “woman clothed with the sun” symbolizes both “the Israel from whom the Messiah came (v. 5) and the church (vv. 6, 14, 17). The “male child” refers to the “Davidic Messiah who will rule all nations with a rod of iron” (Psalms 2:8-9).
[4] See Thomas O’Meara, O.P. Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966, p. 119.
[5] Ibid., p. 113.
[6] Ibid., p. 113.
[7] Ibid., p. 114.
[8] Ibid., p. 116.
[9] Ibid., p. 118.
[10] Frederick M. Jelly, O.P., “Characteristics of Contemporary Mariology,” Chicago Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1988), p. 63-69.
[11] Martin Luther, Christmas Sermons. Trans. By Roland Bainton. Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press, 1948, p. 31.
[12] O’Meara, op. cit., p. 119-120.
[13] Ibid., p. 123.
[14] Ibid., p. 125.
[15] D. B. Dupuy, O.P. “The Mariology of Calvin,” ISTINA Vol. V (1958), pp. 479-490; See also Jerome Hamer, O.P., “Protestants and Marian Doctrines,” in The Thomist, XVIII (1955), pp. 480-502.
[16] Ibid., pp. 130, 142.
[17] Ibid., p. 132.
[18] Ibid., p. 133.
[19] For Barth’s treatment n Mary and his consistent critique of the Roman mariological dogma, see his Church Dogmatics, I/2: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956, pp. 138-146, 172-202. Hereafter to be referred to as CD I/2.
[20] O’Meara, op. cit., p. 207.
[21] Ibid., pp. 214-215
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] Barth, CD I/2, p. 143.
[24] Karl Barth, AD LIMINA APOSTOLORUM: An Appraisal of Vatican II. Trans. By Keith R. Crim. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1968, p. 60.
[25] Ibid., p. 17.
[26] Ibid., pp. 59-60.
[27] Ibid., pp. 61-62.
[28] See AD LIMINA APOSTOLORUM, p. 71.
[29] Ibid., p. 72.
[30] Ibid., p. 73.
[31] Ibid., pp. 74-75.
[32] See Appendix: Pope John Convokes the Council,” in The Documents of Vatican II. Ed. by William M. Abbott, S.J., New York: Herder & Herder, 1966, pp. 701ff. See also Robert M. Brown, The Ecumenical Revolution: An Interpretation of the Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1969, pp. 57-67.
[33] The Documents of Vatican II, p. 85. The vote on this issue was: 1114 favor; 1074 not favor; 5 void.
[34] Robert M. Brown, Observer in Rome: A Protestant Report on the Vatican Council. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1964.
[35] The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 85-96.
[36] Brown, Observer in Rome, p. 124.
[37] Ibid., p. 125.
[38] The Documents of Vatican II, p. 105.
[39] The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 85.
[40] The Documents of Vatican II, p. 105. As a Protestant, I find it difficult to accept the highly exalted titles of Mary such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Co-Redemptrix,” etc., as well as the dogmas promulgated by Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) and by Pope Pius XII on the Bodily Assumption of Mary to heaven in 1950.
[41] The Documents of Vatican II, p. 96.
[42] The Documents of Vatican II, p. 13.
[43] CBCP Pastoral Letter, ANG MAHAL NA BIRHEN: Mary in Philippine Life Today. Manila: Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, 1975. Hereafter referred to as AMNB.
[44] I find the works of Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza or Harvard Divinity School very helpful. See chapter 6 “In Her Image and Likeness,” in JESUS: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1994.
[45] JESUS: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet, p. 163.
[46] Ibid., p.164.
[47]Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone (Vatican City, May 22, 1994).
[48]Mary Gordon, “Coming to Terms with Mary,” Commonweal (January 15, 1982, p. 11.
[49] Fiorenza, op. cit., p. 165.
[50] Ibid., p. 165.
[51] See Richard N. Ostling, “The Search for Mary: Hand-maid or Feminist?” Time (December 30, 1991), p. 62-66.
[52] Fiorenza, op. cit., p. 166.

Muslim-Christian Dialogue

2006-03-12T20:02:00.000-08:00

Solidarity in Struggle and Spirituality Muslim-Christian Relationship in the Philippines
Melanio La Guardia Aoanan Initial Theological Affirmations
First of all, the advocacy of Muslim-Christian dialogue and solidarity is imperative not only due to the actual tensions and turmoil in the region but primarily due to the self-understanding of both the communities of faith. Both Islam and Christianity, aside from being monotheistic, affirm the dual structure of human existence as inter-acting and comprehending (in relation to God and to other beings). This means we can, and do, encounter God through actualizing God's will in our lives, and inter-acting with others, and also comprehending partially God's nature and mystery. This partial understanding of God needs to be translated into words and communicated in order to be enriched and also to establish human community.
Secondly, both Islam and Christianity need to maintain the essentially communal and dialogical nature of our understanding of God, and to keep it dynamically open and alive. This dynamic freedom and openness is necessary to enrich each community of faith and establish a wider human community.
Thirdly, as a Christian who accepts the fundamental insights of the 16th century Reformation, I affirm that God's Word remains free in relation to particular community of faith. This is to safeguard the truth that God is the Sovereign Lord not only of the Church but also of the whole creation. Because God's Word is free, through our Muslim-Christian dialogue we must be open to the new breakthroughs whenever and whichever it pleases God. Thus, we must maintain the sense of humility, openness, responsiveness, and responsibility within the limits of our respective communities of faith.
Insights into Islamic Spirituality
Very recently, an important book on Islamic spirituality was published. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, in the introduction to the volume, affirms that "spirituality in Islam is inseparable from the awareness of the One, of Allah, and a life lived according to His will."1 The core of the Islamic faith is the principle of unity (al-tawhid); and Islamic spirituality in all its plurality is determined by tawhid. "Spirituality is tawhid and the degree of the spiritual attainment achieved by any human being is more other than the degree of his or her realization of tawhid."2
There are two major sources of spirituality in Islam, says Seyyed H. Nasr. These are the Koran and the ‘inner’ substance of the Prophet. Since Islam embraces all aspects of human life, both the outward and the inward, Islamic spirituality is nothing but the realization of unity (tawhid). In this paper, I would like to stress the ritual practices of Islam that lead to inwardness and the world of the spirit.
The Arabic word for spirituality is ruhhaniyah. It is derived from ruh or spirit. Spirituality concerns what God has revealed or what God has commanded (Sura 17:85). As such, Islamic spirituality "possesses inwardness and interiority, and is identified with the real, permanent and abiding rather than the transient and passing." Furthermore, it evolves "a sense" of the presence of the barakah (grace and blessing) which flows in the veins of the universe and within the life of man to the extent that he dictates himself to God."3
In short, the essence of Islamic spirituality is to realize the principle of unity as expressed in the Koran and exemplified in the life of Prophet Muhammad. Throughout the more than 1,300 years of Islamic history, this spirituality has rejuvenated and produced "countless men and women of saintly nature who have fulfilled the goal of human existence and brought joy to other human beings."4
Two of the five pillars of Islam which deepen our understanding of Islamic spirituality are ritual prayer (salat) and fasting (sawm). The practice of ritual prayers was borrowed by Muhammad from the Jews and the Christians in Arabia.5 The importance of ritual prayers in Islamic piety and spirituality was prescribed by Muhammad himself in the Koran. Several verses attest to this. Here are some:
"Fulfill your devotional obligations... and you find God" (Sura 2:110)."Piety lies in believing in God...observing your devotional obligations" (Sura 2:177)"...perform your act of prayer befittingly; and praying at fixed hours prescribed for the faithful." (Sura 4:103)"Observe the service of prayer, from the sun's declining from the meridian, to the darkening of the night, and the recitation at dawn." (Sura 17:78)
It is clear from the above verses that salat is central in the devotional life of the Muslims. It is obligatory, i.e., "a regulated ordinance of Islamic religion." The practice of five daily prayers, as indicated in the above Koranic verses, was based on two popular legends. The first is that when Muhammad ascended to heaven, Allah imposed fifty daily salats on the community. Nabi Musa (Moses) heard of it and told Muhammad: "Return to thy Lord for the community is not able to bear this." So Allah changed it from fifty to twenty-five salats. But Musa believed that twenty-five daily prayers would still be too much for the community. Again, he sent Muhammad back to Allah until the number was reduced to five. Another widely held tradition why there are five daily prayers is that the Angel Gabriel came down fives times in one day and performed the salat in Muhammad's presence and the latter on each occasion imitated the angel.6
There are three prerequisites for a valid salat. The first is the ritual purification by washing of the face, hands, head and feet with water. Once purification is done, the believer is ready to perform the salat and the reading of the Koran. The second prerequisite is the proper covering of the body. For the females, the entire body must be covered except the face, hands and feet. The third requirement has something to do with the place. It must be clean, tranquil, and free from any distraction. Prayer rugs are often used but are not absolutely necessary. The worshipper must face the Qiblah which indicates the precise direction of Mecca.7
The Sura't Al-Fatiha is also a very significant aspect of ritual prayers. Fatiha is the opening chapter of the Koran. According to Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Fatiha has a significant place in Islamic spirituality. First, it is an essential element in liturgical worship." As such, M. M. Ayoub claims that the Fatiha is being recited at least 17 times in the five daily prayers. Secondly, the Al-Fatiha is a formula of supplication, i.e., a source of divine blessing and an expression of praise and thanksgiving to God. As such, it is used to "begin every ventures, to seal agreements and relationships, and to mark birth and death."8 Allahbakh Brohi says the Sura’t Al-Fatiha "sets forth the essence of the prayer, if not the whole of Islamic religion itself. It is the quintessence of the whole of the Koran."9
M. M. Ayoub examines the Sura't Al-Fatiha verse by verse and suggests that its significance in Islamic spirituality parallels that of "the Lord's Prayer" in Christianity. He states: "Like the Lord's Prayer, the Fatiha constitutes the essential element of liturgical worship... Again, like the Lord's Prayer, the Fatiha has been regarded not only as a prayer of supplication and praise but also as a wellspring of divine grace and blessing (barakaj which the pious can internalize and make their own through repeated recitation."10
The first line of the Fatiha is "In the name of God, the All-Merciful, the Compassionate." This is known as the Al Basmalla or the invocation. It is comparable to our Christian formula "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The importance of the Basmalla is attested to by the following statement. "All branches of knowledge are contained in four sacred books: the Torah, Psalms, Gospel, and the Koran. The knowledge contained in the first three is all contained in the Koran. The knowledge of the Koran is expressed in the Fatiha, and that of the Fatiha is contained in the Basmalla.11
Islamic tradition affirms that performance of the five daily salats secures entrance into Paradise. It is said that on the day of the final reckoning, the performance of salat is the consideration of first importance: "The first thing to be dealt with is the salat; if this point is in order, the person has attained bliss, if not then the person is lost."12 In short, salat should be performed devoutly, wholeheartedly and with concentration because as Ibn Sina said, it is an "intimate conversation with God." Ibn Sinna further wrote that the "essence of salat is the recognition of God in His existence". He then asserted that "a man in prayer is in intimate conversation with his Lord.... Those who are in this state of mind are spiritually in the presence of God as they gaze upon the deity in a real vision."13
Let us now expand our understanding of Islamic spirituality by discussing the significance of sawm. According to Zafar Ishaq Ansari, sawm or fasting is part of "an act of worship that consists of religiously intended abstention from eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse from dawn till dusk."14 The original Arabic word sawin means "to be at rest." The practice of fasting seems to have been appropriated by Muhammad from the Jews and Christians whom he encountered.
It is believed that Muhammad introduced the practice of fasting to his followers in 622 CE. He himself fasted and enjoined his followers to do the same on the 10th day of the month of Muharram. The Koranic injunctions for the practice of sawm is in Sura 2:183-185. Fasting is commanded on the believers so that they "might become righteous." The number of days in the month of Ramadan are fixed by the Koran in Muslim religious life. In the understanding of the Muslim, fasting is "a means of fostering piety, of celebrating the glory of God, and of thanking Him for revealing the Koran as a guide for [humankind] and clear signs for guidance and judgment."15
The practice of fasting during the month of Ramadan has special significance in Muslim religious life. It is obligatory for anyone who has reached the age of puberty and is in full possession of his/her senses. Those who are travelling, women who are pregnant, nursing as well as menstruating, and those who are sick are exempted from fasting, but they have to make up for it at a later date. The elderly and the incurably sick are totally exempted from fasting.
Fasting begins when "the white thread of dawn appears" and continues "until the night falls" [Sura 2:187]. It is a widespread practice following the Koranic prescription that those who fast should eat before dawn and again after sunset, and they could break the fast with a light meal or iftar. They have to take the light meal hurriedly because the sunset prayer (maghrib) is performed immediately after twilight.
Like food, sexual intercourse is allowed after sunset and before the break of dawn. The Koran says: "You are allowed to sleep with your wives on the nights of the fast. They are your dress as you are theirs. God is aware you were cheating yourself, so He turned to you and pardoned you. So now you may have intercourse with them, and seek what God has ordained for you" (Sura 2:187).
Let us now assess the importance of fasting as held by Muslims through the ages. The noted Muslim reformer Al Ghazzali observed that "the high esteem in which fasting stands with God" is twofold. First, "fasting is a passive act and no one sees men fast except God." Secondly, fasting is a "means of defeating the enemy of God, because human passions, which are the Shaitan's (Satan) means of attaining his ends, are stimulated by eating and drinking."16
There is a widespread belief among Muslim today that fasting, especially during the month of Ramadan, "is the most fitting atonement for sins committed in the course of the year." No wonder, the practice of fasting is widely observed among Muslims. They have a tradition that a person who practises fasting has a more pleasant scent before God than that of any perfume. It is also believed that a person who fasts is highly honored in Paradise; he or she enters by a special gate and meets God and receives heavenly joy.17 With these promises of heavenly reward, and the inner assurance of one's intimate relationship with God, Muslims have a vibrant and sustained praxis of spirituality that we can only envy as Christians.
Salat and Sawin: Pathways Towards Muslim-Christian Solidarity
After discussing the theoretical and practical significance of ritual prayer and fasting, let me now propose that these two pillars of Islamic faith could be effective instruments for promoting the bond of Muslim and Christian solidarity or what Khalid Duran calls "Chrislamic" solidarity.18 Duran cites examples of Muslim-Christian unity and cooperation "born out of a very simple necessity" amid the backdrop of "centuries of futile enmity." These samples of synergistic efforts "resulted in the birth of a new symbol, illustrating unity of purpose of the two religious communities."19 This new symbol is a white flag bearing a red crescent and cross. Two of the noteworthy experiences of Muslim-Christian cooperation cited by Duran are the following. First was the experience of some 200 medics from France who "spent about a year with the Afghan resistance in a country ravaged by Soviet occupation forces." Afghanistan with an entirely Muslim population "has always shown a repellent attitude toward every thing foreign." But the Afghans were deeply touched by the "sacrificial spirit" of the young French volunteers who risked their lives during "every moment of their sojourn in the 'liberated areas,' sharing the sufferings of a people subjected to the most savage aggression of our times." Hashint Zamani, a poet of the Afghan resistance, describes this experience as "a new page that has been opened in Muslim-Christian relations."20
Another significant effort towards Muslim-Christian relations was spearheaded by the Mission Academy of Hamburg University in Germany. This is noteworthy because the work has something to do with the Moros, "a suppressed Muslim minority in the southern Philippines." Staff of the Mission Academy endeavor "to preserve Moro literature and traditions" making them available to the media, thus helping the Moros maintain their identity. Due to these efforts, the Moros have developed a new consciousness that their struggle for freedom is not a war between Christianity and Islam. Rather, their collective struggle is a popular resistance against a corrupt regime [the then Marcos dictatorship] that was just as anti-Christian as it was anti-Muslim.
The important realization that the "Mindanao problem" is not a conflict of religion [Christians versus Muslims] has motivated enlightened leaders of both groups to embark on efforts at mutual understanding and cooperation. In these efforts, we must. listen to Vatican II’s declaration that Christians, whether Catholic or Protestants, should look upon Muslims with "sincere respect" because their monotheistic faith "often reflects a ray of that Truth which enlightens all [peoples]."21 Moreover, Vatican II declares that the Muslim "submit wholeheartedly even to [God's] inscrutable decrees, just as did Abraham, with whom the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus; at times they call on her, too, with devotion. Consequently, they prize the moral life, and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."22
Although these efforts will not settle important theological differences, they will sail forth amid the tumultuous ocean of human suffering and will continue to deepen humanitarian commitment for the defence of human rights. It is at this point, I believe, that the praxis of Islamic spirituality such as salat and sawm could open the way towards a confidence-building mechanism between Christians and Muslims that will lead to a bond of "Chrislamic" solidarity.
Let me describe here a program [Muslim-Christian dialogue exposure] which I personally facilitated in my capacity as a college chaplain in North Cotabato. This was a part of a series of activities we call "Duyog Ramadan". The word "Duyog" means "to accompany". As a program, therefore, it is an expression of solidarity on the part of Christian Filipinos with Muslim Filipinos. It was a unique educational campaign to build and deepen Christian awareness and understanding about Muslim Filipinos--their faith and culture--and together discuss the practical issues of life such as socio-economic and political struggles, cultural and religious practices, our common hopes and aspiration for a wholesome and harmonious coexistence.23
The activity started with a two-day live-in retreat which included orientation into the purpose of the program, getting to know the participants and facilitators, sharing of perceptions and experiences regarding Muslim-Christian relationship, lecture-presentation on the national situation, the history of the Moro struggle, the meaning of Ramadan and the practices of ritual prayer and fasting, etc. After the two-day intense encounter, the participants were brought to different Muslim villages for exposure for two days. A pair of Muslim and Christian participants stay with a Muslim family for 24 hours or more, to be part of the family, as it were. The pair join the family activities, particularly in the observance of fasting and ritual prayer. And since the family members are fasting, there are no heavy chores except sitting or lying down on the floor and engaging in conversation. By evening, the pair join the family in going to the mosque as the whole village community comes together to celebrate Id-ul-Fitri, a religious service to break the fast with a community feast (buka). The following morning the participants come back to the college campus for a half-day evaluation and sharing of significant insights gained from the experience.
Without exception, all the Christian participants share many positive impressions of their Muslim hosts as well as the whole village celebration and feast. The religious devotion and ethical practices of Muslims are quite similar to Christian practices. This was the discovery of the Christian participants. Of course, for most of the Christian participants, it was their first experience of the practice of fasting. This experience brought them to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the poverty situation among the majority of the Muslim villagers. The realization among the participants was that the poverty situation is one that makes the majority of the Muslims and Christians share the struggle for liberation and freedom. In short, there is realization of the oneness of the struggle against poverty.
It is at this juncture that the deep well of spiritual resources of both faiths becomes a powerful weapon for the common struggle against poverty. There is the discovery of spiritual strength which is abundant but latent in both communities. This latent spiritual resource is waiting to be tapped for the building of a more peaceful, harmonious and productive 'Chrislamic' bond of solidarity.
Conclusion
Thus far, we have recognized the urgent need for a serious study of spirituality among Muslim and Christian Filipinos. We have suggested that ritual prayer and fasting have been of central importance in Islamic spirituality through the ages. Muhammad prescribed the observance of them as works of piety as attested by the Koran. We have described their theoretical and practical significance and they could be used as effective instruments in promoting a wholesome Muslim-Christian relationship.
The annual celebration of Duyog Ramadan promoted by churches and Church-related colleges has contributed to the confidence-building mechanism among Muslims and Christians in Mindanao. It has promoted stronger bonds of Chrislamic solidarity forged with the realization of three factors. First, the discovery that the so-called Muslim-Christian conflict in Mindanao is not really a war between the two communities of faith--Islam and Christianity. Secondly, the discovery that both Christians and Muslims could draw from their respective wellsprings of spiritual resources, particularly the practice of salat and sawm. Thirdly, and more significantly, the discovery that we are not only drawn closer by our shared poverty but by the unity (tawhid) which we find in God, the All-Merciful and Compassionate One! Our nearness and intimate conversation with God through the praxis of prayers and fasting lead as to establish the bond of Chrislamic solidarity that could restore the landscape of peace, harmony and prosperity to our beloved yet blood-stained Motherland!

References
Seyyed H. Nasr (ed.) Islamic Spirituality: Foundations 4. New York: Crossroads Publishing, 1987, p.xv.
Ibid., p. xvii.
Ibid., p. xviii.
H.A.R. Gibb (ed.) Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961, p.491.
Ahmed Ali. Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Gibb, op cit.
Keith Crim, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1981, p.577.
M. M. Ayoub, "The Prayer in Islam," in Journal of the American Academy of Religion. XLVII/4 [Dec. 1979], p.635.
Allahbakh Brohi, "The Spiritual Dimension of Islam," in S. H. Nasr (ed.) Islamic Spirituality. New York: Crossroads Publishing, 1987, p.132.
Ayoub, op cit., p.639.
Ayoub, ibid p.640.
Gibb, op cit p.498.
Gibb, ibid p.499.
Zafar Ishaq Ansari in Encyclopaedia of Religion. Vol. 13 (ed. By Mircea Eliade) New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, p.90.
Ansari, ibid p.91.
Gibb, op cit., pp. 506-507.
Gibb, ibid, p.507.
Khalid Duran, "Muslim-Christian Cooperation," in Hans Kung & J. Moltmann (eds) Christianity Among World Religions. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986, pp. 22-28.
Duran, ibid., p.22.
Duran, ibid, p.24.
Walter M. Abbott, (ed.) The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Association Press, 1966, p.662.
Ibid., p.663.
For a more detailed description of this program, see my book, Strengthening Muslim-Christian Solidarity. Davao City: SCC MIND Series, No. 1, 1992.

Intestinal Theology

2006-03-12T19:53:00.000-08:00

TOWARD THE MAKING OF FILIPINO
INTESTINAL THEOLOGY

I. Two Introductory Stories

When I was a young lad of five, there was a poor family in our neighborhood in northern Philippines. Often, the padre de pamilya came to our house to borrow or ask for a chupa of rice, a pinch of salt, a few match sticks, some stalks of kalamunggay leaves, etc. My mother, being a compassionate, caring, and generous, would always share something in response to the need of this poor family. Fortunately, there was always something to share from our house to this poor family.

But one early morning the father came and stood in front of our house. He was very mad--burning with rage. With a bolo tacked on his waist, he told my mother: “Nana, If only I know where God is to be found, I’ll go to him and quarrel with him.” The red face and the fiery look from the man’s eyes are still vividly etched into the screen of my consciousness until now.

One more story. In September of 1990, a former successful student of mine at Silliman University treated me for lunch in a cozy eating place [Mid Town Ramada Hotel]. At that time, he was one of the Pastors at Ellinwood-Malate Church, the biggest UCCP churches in Manila. [Unfortunately, this Pastor died suddenly on December 20, 1990].

After our sumptuous meal, we walked back to the church passing through Pedro Gil Street, which is lined up with cheap Chinese food stalls. On this street, we passed by a man, very filthy, foul-smelling, squatting on the pavement. He was eating something which obviously came from the garbage box nearby. To me, it was a terrible sight. I felt revolted and I could hardly look at the man -- a human being eating something that is fit only for the dogs!

II. Linguistic Analysis and Phenomenology
of Behavior: Methodological Framework

Part of the important theological task in the Philippines is to articulate theology with the use of Filipino language, cultural, and idioms. This is an integral part of our struggle for human liberation. Giving importance to our historical experience, culture and language, is becoming more and more a must for Filipino theological articulators. It is through the promotion and utilization of our language that we could shape and develop the emerging Filipino consciousness. I am convinced that as long as we continue to make use solely of the English language in our theological articulation, we would continue to be under the skirt of Western colonialism and forever be chained to a colonial consciousness.

Allow me to present a graphic scheme on how Filipino consciousness, or any nationality for that matter, is shaped through the reflection on our historical experience and the use of our Filipino language. Here we will realize how rich, how distinct, how vivid and colorful is the Filipino language and idiomatic expressions. Our language and consciousness are potent tools in the shaping and the transforming of our society. [See the illustration below]

In reflecting on our historical experience, we are able to form our consciousness/ thought/understanding [ISIP]. Inherent in our being human is the need to communicate our thought through language [USAP]. The more we communicate through our native language, our feeling [DAMA] becomes intensified, deepened, sharpened. And because of deepened feeling and willing, we can actualize or put into practice some things [GAWA]. Individual as well as collective actions of people lead to a deeper and continuous reflection. Thus the process is repeated on an on, until our consciousness or awareness about realities around us become more intense. I submit that this frame-work of analysis [developed and articulated in Filipino language] could enhance our doing of theology in an authentic Asian way.

USAP

ISIP LOOB DAMA

GAWA

Experience, Language, and Filipino Thought
Toward a Meaningful Life

Doing theology the Asian way must take seriously the whole gamut and matrix of life--human and other forms of life. Central to the matrix of life, the continuance and sustenance of life, is food. The availability of food, or lack of it, becomes crucial, central challenge for the church in its theological and missiological witness throughout all of Asia. Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church as well as of history, is not only the “life of the world” [Jn. 14:6] but is the bread of life which comes from heaven [and] anyone who eats this bread lives forever...” [Jn. 6:48-51].

The Gospel of John was written for the purpose that people may believe that Jesus Christ “is the Son of the living God, and that believing [they] may have life in his name” [Jn. 20:31].

In the original Greek language, there are three words used which refer to life: BIOS, PSUCHE, and ZOE. In my simple under-standing, these words could be used to describe the three levels or dimensions of life. Our present situation indicates that the life of the vast majority of peoples in Asia is in the precarious bios-dimension. This means to say that human life has been dehumanized and demeaned to the level of beastly existence. This level of life that is barely surviving or subsisting, which the Filipino idiomatic expression describes as isang kahig, isang tuka existence. Literally, like a hen scratching the ground: each scratch is followed by a pick. It is that kind of life lived by the man we saw squatting in the pavement of Pedro Gil Street in Malate, Manila. That man embodies a beastly existence. And he represents countless people, including innocent children and aging adults in Asia, subsisting and eating food fit only for the pigs!

Human life in our time is characterized by “the cycle of production==> consumption ==>competition==>exploitation==>domination syndrome. It is a kind of life that has been reduced to a beastly existence. Human life particularly in the bios-dimension is threatened by an insidious and pervasive philosophy. It is a philosophy which advocates the notion that without the requisite conditions, life is not accorded with sanctity and infinite worth that God intends human life to be. Because of this, it becomes so easy to “salvage” [extra-judicial killing] or murder a person because of political and ideological convenience. In like manner, it is so easy to abort the fruit of an ill-timed intimate relationship between a man and a woman because it is devoid of commitment and responsibility.

Let us look at the second level of life, the psuche-dimension. Psuche is the root of the word “psychology” or “psyche”. In all the three Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke], almost every reference to life is psuche. For instance, “Whoever wants to save her/his psuche, will lose it, whoever losses her/his psuche for me and for the Gospel will save it. What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit her/his psuche”[Mk. 8:35-36]. Therefore, I tell you, do not worry about your psuche, what you will eat or drink, ... I not psuche more than food?” [Mt. 6:25; Lk. 12:22f.]

From the perspective of the Synoptic Gospels, the psuche-dimension of life transcends the mere survival or subsistent level of life. Therefore, it is more advanced than the bios-dimension. It is a dimension of life that aspires to realize or satisfy what Abraham Maslow calls “the hierarchy of needs”. Nevertheless, it is a dimen-sion of life is still full of worries and anxieties. It worries not only about basic necessities such as food, clothing shelter; it also concerns itself with socio-economic, political and psychological satisfaction.

It is very clear that the psuche-dimension of life revolves around the preservation of self-interests, selfish aspirations, and the actualization of one’s egoistic agenda. It is pre-occupied with how one could out-shine, out-smart, and out-maneuver our fellow human beings. Because of this, there is always a deep-seated desire to equal if not surpass others. That is why isip talangka [“crab mentality”] dominates our personal and social relationship.

And because of the limitations of what we can do, many a time we could not accomplish what we want to accomplish; we cannot actualize most of our intentions. Thus, worries and anxieties beset our life. We are faced with complex and complicated problems such as lack of finances, physical and psychological handicaps, lack of health, etc. Thus we become not only helpless but hopeless. This is the psuche-dimension of life with all its stark realities and problems which all of us share and experience. It is the dimension of life that is often vulnerable, violated and victimized.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, life in the psuche-dimension is not capable of fully realizing and fulfilling the higher longings and aspirations of life. Therefore, the third dimension of life is necessary. This is the zoe-dimension. This is the dimension that is spoken in the Gospel of John. It is the life that is definitely in accordance and consistent with the will of God. It is a spirit-filled life because it is a life submitted to the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is a purposeful and meaningful life. This is the life promised, offered, demonstrated and exemplified by Jesus here on earth. In other words, it is the life eternal; the life that became, and still is, the light of the world [Jn. 1:4].

The zoe-dimension of life is God’s free gift through Jesus Christ. But we can claim this gift only through our firm faith in God. Acceptance of this free gift of life enables us to offer ourselves in steadfast commitment to serve God, and seek the welfare of our fellow human beings and the rest of God’s creation. This means sharing in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ through the Church, which is the “body of Christ.” “For the bread of God is that which... gives life to the world” [Jn. 6:33].

III. Towards an Intestinal Theology:
Sharing in the Body of Christ.

I
n the New Testament, the central concept or image of the Church is that of the “body of Christ.” Picturing the Church as the body of Christ is really significant especially in the thinking and under-standing of the Filipinos. Filipino language and consciousness is definitely more dynamic, concrete and picturesque if compared with western thought. And most of our key concepts are connected or intertwined with the parts of the human body. For instance, a person who is without shame is makapal ang mukha [‘thick-faced”]. In western thought, the concept of brotherhood/ sisterhood is somewhat abstract. But in the Filipino language, the words kapatid/igsoon/kabsat [Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, respec-tively for brother/sister] connote a concrete relational meaning. Literally, a brother or a sister is “cut- off from my intestine.” In other words, brothers and sisters came from the same intestine; they have one and the same intestine. Therefore, it follows that they have a very strong linkage, or connection, or relationship. Our being a relative with one another is defined or determined by the fact that we have only one bituka/tinai/bagis [Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, respectively for intestine].

Based on our linguistic analysis, therefore, it appears that the most central and vital part of the body, as far as the Filipino is concerned, is the intestine. It is not the heart. This is the reason why when one is wounded or cut, we would say: “Huwag kang mag-alala, malayo yan sa bituka!” [“Don’t you worry; it’s far from the intestine!”]. So the concept of sisterhood/brotherhood among the Filipinos could really be solid and strong. There is really a strong relationship and camaraderie among Filipinos because they share the same bituka or intestine.

That is why for us it is important that the Church is the body of Christ; as members of the Church, we are magkakapatid [of one intestine] in Christ. Therefore, more than the incarnational theology which we strongly affirm, we must also develop and promote an “intestinal theology”!

One simple yet profound truth in the life of magkakapatid [brothers/sisters] is the quality of food they put into their intestines. What kind of food they eat? Food and the intestine are always intertwined in a person’s life in order to survive. This new theology--nutritional/intestinal theology--is backed up with a philosophical dictum: “Comido ergo sum” “I eat, therefore, I am.” This dictum presupposes the fundamental fact that the quality of food we eat determines, to a great extent, the quality of our human existence. In this light, it is amazing to remember that during the 1986 “Snap Presidential Election” in the Philippines, one of the issues that tilted the victory of Mrs. Corazon Aquino over Mr. Ferdinand Marcos was the lowly galunggong, the fish that is always in the table of poor Filipinos because it is the only one they could afford.

In 1990, a book entitled Lasa: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces was published. This book argues that “food is the most concrete definition of what or who the Filipino is.” In a culture known for its pakiramdaman [sensing the feelings of others] rather than direct confrontation, it is “only through food that the Filipino expresses her/his deepest feelings, longings and even prejudices.” This is the central thesis of the said book. And going through this book enables one to taste “the morsels of Filipino character.” There are three significant insights from the book. First, the Filipino eats almost anything: dog meat, frogs, beetles, crocodiles, snakes, etc. Second, temporal routine determines the Filipino dietary habit. Thus, eating time is agahan [breakfast], tanghalian [lunch], and hapunan [supper]. Thirdly, food, like the Filipino moral behavior, is very flexible or adjustable. The Filipino eats, and acts, depending on the situation. The Filipino’s manner of food consumption depends on the circumstances: in times of abundant harvest, there is feast; but in times of suffering or famine, the Filipino learns to eat austerely.

Nonetheless, eating together or table fellowship is a very significant value and practice among Filipinos. This is the indication of an intimate and close relationship. This is the reason why when a friend visits another friend’s house, the usual and immediate question asked by the host is not “How are you doing?” but “Have you eaten already?” There is also a practice of padigo among Filipinos that is sharing a bowl of viand or special menu with the next-door neighbor. Again, this is an indication of a close and wholesome and intimate relationship. This practice of padigo is a symbolic act of connecting one’s intestine with that of the neighbor.

One of the most moving and intriguing stories in the Old Testament is how Esau was cheated by Jacob twice over. First, he was forced to sell his birthright to Jacob with a bowl of pottage [Gen. 25:28-33]. Second, Esau was further cheated by his brother when the final blessing of their dying father was stolen by Jacob [Gen. 27:1-45].

Central to both stories is the importance of food. Also, there was the all too human reality of someone taking advantage of the weakness of another. What is most pathetic is the use of deceit against an old, weak and dying father. What seems to be un-justifiable is the manipulative scheme perpetuated by a mother against her dying husband and against her eldest son just to gain favor for her favorite son! I could not imagine how feminist hermeneutics would deal with this text. Nevertheless, this was accomplished through the preparation of a very savory dish to satisfy the final wish of the dying and almost blind father [Gen. 27:1-45].

In the New Testament, eating together or table fellowship is seen as crucially significant in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Before he face his death, Jesus expressed his earnest longing to eat with his disciples [Lk. 22:15-16]. Earlier in his ministry, Jesus risked his reputation and integrity by eating and drinking with sinners. Because of this, he was accused of being a glutton by his enemies [Matt. 11:19].

In the feeding of the five thousand which was recorded by the three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus insisted: “You give them food to eat” against the disciples’ suggestion to send the crowd away at day’s end [Matt 14:16; Mk 6:23; Lk 9:13]. In the post-resurrection appearances, Jesus revealed his power and purpose in the context of table fellowship or eating together with his disciples. For instance, the two disciples whom Jesus joined in the journey to Emmaus recognized him only when Jesus “broke the bread, blessed it and gave it to them” [Lk 24: 28-31]. Jesus’ third appearance by the lake of Tiberias was through his invitation to the disciples to eat breakfast with him [Jn 21:12-14]. Shortly after their breakfast, Jesus singled out Peter, spoke to him three times, and gave to him his parting mandate “to feed my sheep” [Jn 21: 15-17].

When the early Church started to expand beyond the narrow ethnocentric perspective, it was the same old Peter who was first transformed, almost against his will, into having a much broader outlook. While he was praying at noontime, he became hungry and desired something to eat. He saw a vision of heaven being opened and of a “great sheet” let down from heaven containing “all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.” A voice commanded him to “kill and eat” but Peter refused. He said, “I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” But a voice from heaven was heard three times: “What God has cleansed you must not consider unclean.” [Acts 10: 9-15].

These selected Scriptural references directly and definitely provide an explicit affirmation that food plays a central and vital part in the whole drama of God’s redeeming purpose and action in the life of God’s people. Food is one important element in the trinity that makes human life meaningful and worth living. The other two are freedom and faith.

VI. Concluding Statement

Let us go back to the first story in the introduction. The raging anger of that poor father in Pangasinan happened because of the lack of food in his house. He could not feed his hungry and crying children. “If only I know where God is, I will go and find him and quarrel with him!” These could be uttered only by a person who experienced a great want: want not only of food but also of hope.

From the perspective of a five-year-old lad, nurtured as I was in the bosom of a God-fearing, neighbor-caring and not-so-poor Protestant family, those words were really shocking to me. They were blasphemous words. If only I could protect and defend God from that malevolent man! What a thought raging in the mind of a five-year-old lad!

In retrospect, however, the vivid image and the words of that angry man were the first shattering yet profound theological reality I ever encountered. For more than forty years since that incident, and with the help of an insight into the psychology of human suffering as well as the Gospels’ preferential option for the poor, I can now see that the poor man’s outburst was a primordial datum in my understanding of a genuine struggle and spirituality. In fact, that incident is among the significant revelatory events in my life as a pastor and theology professor.

Jesus said, “I am the living bread which comes from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, that one will live forever; the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” [Jn 6: 51]. We who are members of the Church are part of the body of Christ. Our intestines are intertwined in Christ because the food we eat and partake in is the one body of Christ. Therefore, we have a distinct pagkakapatiran [sisterhood/brotherhood] and a strong solidarity with one another. We celebrate our oneness in the sharing of the one body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. This is the central symbol and mystery of our Christian faith. Also the most prominent symbol of God’s reign in the teaching of Jesus Christ is that of the continuing banquet and feast where people are eating together, having table fellowship in total harmony and unity [Matt 22: 1-10; Lk 14: 15-24].

Is this not the realization and fulfillment of our aspirations for peace and justice and freedom and equality among men and women, of all races and socio-economic, political and cultural situations?

Questions For Group Discussion

1. What would be your reaction to a person who is intensely angry at God and wishes to quarrel with God? How could anger with God be a “primordial datum in understanding genuine spirituality” or a “significant revelatory event in one’s life”? Are there any parallel incidents recorded in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Psalms or among the prophets?

2. Do you agree with the model of a dynamic process of consciousness that is formulated by the author? Explain how this model be applied to your group, organization or church.

3. Kung ang wikang Ingles, ayon kay Isagani Cruz, “ay balakid sa pag-unlad ng literaturang Pilipino” dahil ito’y nagdadala ng mapanlinlang na kamalayan ng kolonyal na kahapon,” totoo din ba na ang patuloy na paggamit ng wikang ito ay balakid din sa pag-unlad ng teolohiya at simbahang Pilipino?

4. Is it clear in our mind as church workers, the “Wholisdtic View of Reality” and can we relate this to our programs in the organizations of our church? Regarding the five elements of a wholistic view of reality, where could your church organization contribute more? Explain.

5. Explain the three levels of life: bios, psuche, zoe. Do we really need a clear understanding of these levels in order to be effective in our preaching and teachiung ministry?

6. An important element in the formulation of a Filipino theology is the methodology of social sciences particularly of “linguistic analysis” and “phenomenology of behavior.” Relate these methodologies to the importance of food and intestine in the Filipino culture.

7. Totoo nga bang bukod-tangi sa kulturang Pilipino ang pagkain at pakikisalo sa kapwa. Ano ang implikasyon nito sa misyon at gawain ng simbahan?

8. Is there enough biblical bases in formulating a “theology of intestine and food”? What are your suggestions in order to strengthen the biblico-theological bases of this paper?

9. Ang mukha ng karukhaan, pakikipagsapalaran, at “pananangis ng huling tao sa daigdig,” ayon kay Cirilo Bautista, ay tataw at tugma sa karanasan ng nakararaming Pilipino. Ano naman ang akmang tugon ng ating simbahan bilang isang maka-propetang organisasyon? Magbigay ng kongretong halimbawa.

ENDNOTES

1 Isagani R. Cruz, “Teoriya at Wika: Kung Bakit Malabo ang Ingles pero Hindi Dapat Lumabo ang Ating Paningin,” PANTAS: A Journal for Higher Educa-tion, November 1989, p. 11.

2 Ibid., p. 12.

3 Alberto E. Alejo, S.J., TAO PO! TULOY! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1990, p. ix.

4 Ibid., p. x.

5 Ibid., p. x.

6 Hinango ko ang pananaw na ito kay Ponciano Bennagen, “Cultural Analysis for Social Transfor-mation,” United Church Letter, XXXII, 1 [1988], pp. 1; 6-9.

7 Ang awiting ito ay katha ni Jose Corazon de Jesus noong 1928, sa panahon ng makabayang pakikibaka laban sa mga Amerikano.

8 Howard I. Towne, “The Impending Ecological Nightmare: Can We Prevent It?” in Riding the Third Wave into the Third Millenium. Ed. By Richard L. Schwenk. Manila: SEED Center, 1991, p. 41-52.

9 Dioscoro L. Umali, “Be The Heroes We Never Were and Live,” in Schwenk, ibid., pp. 27-32.

10 Dennis Arroyo, “Hard Times Ahead for the Economy,” Sunday Inquirer Magazine, 11 November 1990.

11 Edicio de la Torre, “Toward A Just Reconciliation: The Philippines’ Post-Marcos Challenge,” Sojourner Magazine, Aug.-Sept. 1986, pp. 20-24.

12 Jose de Mesa, Kapag Namayani ang Kalooban ng Diyos. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990.

13 Tingnan ang aklat ni Padre Leonardo N. Mercado, Elements of Filipino Philosophy. Tacloban: Divine Word Publications, 1974.

14 Doreen G. Fernandez and Edgardo N. Alegre, Lasa: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1990.

15 Cirilo F. Bautista, “Ang Pananangis ng Huling Tao sa Daigdig,” Philippine Graphic Magazine, February 11, 1991.

REFERENCES

Alejo, Albert E. S.J., TAO PO! TULOY! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1991.

Baustista, Cirilo F. “Pananangis ng Huling Tao sa Daigdig,” Philippine Graphic Magazine, February 11, 1991.

Bennagen, Poncinao. “Cultural Analysis for Social Transformation,” United Church Letter, XXXII, [1988].

Cruz, Isagani R. “Teoriya at Wika: Kung Bakit Malabo Ang Ingles Pero Hindi Dapat Malabo Ang Ating Paningin,” PANTAS: A Journal of Higher Education, Vol. III, No. 1 [November 1989].

De Mesa, Jose. Kapag Namayani Ang Kalooban Ng Diyos. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990.

Fernandez, Doreen & Alegre, Edgardo N. LASA: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces. Manila: National Book Store, 1990.

Schwenck, Robert L. Riding the Third Wave into the Third Millenium. Manila: Philippine Christian University SEED Center, 1991.

Torre, Edicio dela. “Toward A Just Reconciliation: The Philippines’ Post-Marcos Challenge,” Sojourner Magazine, September 1986.

Bituka Theology

2006-03-12T19:41:00.000-08:00

Teolohiya ng Bituka at Pagkain
Tungo sa Teolohiyang Pumipiglas

Melanio LaGuardia Aoanan*

I. Panimula:
Dalawang Kuwento Ng Buhay

Noong ako’y batang musmos, limang taong gulang, mayroon kaming kapit-bahay sa Pangasinan na nakabaon sa kahirapan. Kadalasan, ang pamilyang ito ay nangungutang o humihingi ng mga bagay sa amin tulad ng isang chupang bigas, kunting asin, ilang palito ng posporo, dahon ng malunggay, atbp. Palibhasa’y ang aking ina ay likas na maawain, lagi niyang pinapaunlakan at tinutugunan ang pangangailangan ng pamilyang ito. Lagi niyang sinasabi: “Basta’t mayroon tayo, magbigay!”

Isang umaga, ang padre de pamilya ay dumating. Siya’y nakatayo sa harapan ng aming hagdan, namumula ang mga mata at galit na galit. Sa kanyang baywang nakasabit ang nakakalubang itak. Narinig kong may sinasabi sa aking Nanay. “Nana, kung matatagpuan ko lang ang Dios, lulusubin ko’t aawayin siya!” Hanggang ngayon, ang kanyang mga pulang mata na tanda ng matinding galit ay sariwa paring naka-ukit sa aking isipan.

Isa pang kuwento. Noong Setiyembre 1990, habang ako’y nag-aaral sa aking duktoral sa Ateneo de Manila, isa sa mga matagumpay kong estudyante sa Silliman University ay nag-imbita sa akin ng “lunch date”. Pinakain niya ako sa isang cozy restaurant sa Malate. Sa panahong iyon, siya’y Associate Pastor ng Ellinwood-Malate Church. Pagkatapos naming kumain, kami’y naglakad pabalik sa Ellinwood Church kung saan dumaan kami sa Pedro Gil Street. Sa bangkita ng Pedro Gil, isang taong halos hubad, madungis at nangangamoy, ang aming nakita. Siya’y kumakain ng mga tirang pagkain na malamang ay pinulot niya sa basurahan. Hindi ko masikmurang tingnan ang tao. Hindi ko matanggap na ang isang kapwa-tao ay kumakain ng nararapat lamang sa baboy o aso!

Ano ang nararapat na tugon ng simbaan upang masugpo ang laganap na problema ng mga taong namamalimos sa kalsada lalo na sa panahon ng terce milenyo? Bahagi ba ng pagdiriwang ng ‘Jubilee’ na matulungan ang mga taong nagdarahop at namamalimos? Mayroon bang makabuluhang pagtugon ang mga simbahan sa umiigting na pagdarahop ng ating nakararaming tao sa atying lipunan?

II. Balangkas Ng Analisis: Karanasan,
Wika at Kamalayang Pilipino.

Isa sa mahalagang aspeto ng ating pakikibaka ay ang pagmamahal sa ating sariling wika, pagpapahalaga sa ating karanasan, kultura at kasaysayan. Dito natin mabubuo at maitataguyod ang ating kamalayang Filipino. Ako ay naniniwalang habang ginagamit natin ang wikang banyaga tayo ay nananatiling nakagapos sa tanikala ng kamalayang dayuhan, nakakabit o under de saya ng kolonyalistang kaisipan at kaalaman.

Nais kong ilarawan ang hugis ng pagkakaugnay ng karanasan, wika’t kamalayang Filipino at ang proceso ng pagpapalaganap nito. Sa ganitong paraan, matutuklasan kung gaano kayaman at kahalaga ang ating wika; at sa ganito ding paraan makikita natin ang makulay, matingkad at mas makabuluhang uri ng pakikibahagi sa lipunan. [Tingnan ang pagsasalarawan sa sunod na pahina].

Sa pagmumuni-muni natin sa ating karanasan, mabubuo ang ating ISIP [o kaisipan]. Likas sa ating pagkatao ang pagpapahiwatig ng ating iniisip kung kaya’t kailangan nating ipahayag ito sa pamamagitan ng pangungusap [USAP]. Habang ipinapahayag natin ang ating isipan sa pamamagitan ng pangungusap, lalong tumitindi at tumitingkad ang ating damdamin [DAMA]. At dahil matindi ang ating damdamin, ito ang siyang nagtutulak upang maisakatuparan [GAWA] ang isang bagay. Ang pagsasagawa ng isang bagay ay nagbibigay daan upang muling magmumuni-muni at lalong maging malalim o lalawak ang proceso at pagbubuo ng ating kaalaman, kamulatan at kamalayan sa mga nagaganap sa ating kapaligiran. Mga indibidwal o kolektibong aksyon ay maging daan ng malalim at patuloy na refleksyon. Kung kaya’t ang proceso ay nagpapatuloy hanggang ang ating kamalayan sa mga nagyayari sa kapaligiran ay lalong tumitindi. Naniniwala ako na ang balangkas ng analisis na ito ay makapagpasulong sa ating pagteteolohiya bilang mga Filipino at Asiano.

USAP

ISIP LOOB DAMA

GAWA

Karanasan, Wika at Kamalayang Filipino
Tungo sa Makabuluhang Buhay

Gayon pa man, bahagi tayo ng mayamang pamana ng kulturang pandaigdig at hindi natin ito maaring ipagwalang-bahala. Kaya, may mga kataga sa iba’t-ibang wikang dayuhan, hindi lamang sa Ingles, na mahirap isalin sa wikang Filipino. Isa sa kalamangan sa paggamit ng wikang Filipino ay ligtas ito sa problema ng kasarian [gender or sexist language] na sa ngayon ay sentro ng pagtatalo sa mga grupo ng mga feminista.

Isa sa mahalagang pagpapasiyang eksistensyal para sa akin ay ang pagpapatuloy ko sa progrmang duktoral at ang pasiyang sumulat ng desertasyon sa wikang Filipino. Ito ay isang mapangahas na decisyon. Kaakibat nito ay ang mithiing maipakita sa tanan na ang ating wika ay maaring instrumento o daan sa masalimuot at matayog na proceso ng kaisipan; ang ating wika ay may kakayahang mailantad o matarok ang mga lilim at lapad ng intelektwal na proceso maging sa pilosopiya at teolohiya. Matatag ang aking paninidindignan na bahagi ng ating tungkulin sa pagteteolohiya ay ang paggamit ng ating wika’t idyomang Filipino. Ganito rin ang panawagan ni Dr. Romeo L. del Rosario, kasalukuyang pangulo ng Union Theological Seminary.[1] Ito ay bahagi ng kabuuang pagpupunyagi na makamtan natin ang makataong kalayaan.

Ang pagpapahalaga sa ating karanasan at wikang Filipino ay hindi dapat kaligtaan. Huwag na nating ipaubaya na ang ating kaisipan ay manatiling nakagapos sa tanikala ng kamalayang dayuhan. Ang wikang Ingles, ayon kay Isagani Cruz, kilalang kritikong pampanitikan, ay balakid sa pag-unlad ng literaturang Filipino: “Hinaharang kasi tayo mismo ng wikang Ingles.”[2] Ang konsepto sa wikang Ingles, panapos na pahiwatig ni Cruz, “ay nagdadala ng mapanlinlang na kamalayaan ng ating kolonyal na kahapon at ang ating malakolonyal na kasalukuyan.”[3]

Ako ay naniniwala na habang patuloy ang pagteteolohiya natin sa wikang Ingles, patuloy din ang ating pagkakagapos sa tanikala ng kolonyalistang kaisipan at kamalayaan. Ang pagpapangahas na maka-alpas sa tanikala, sabi ni Padre Albert Alejo, ay dapat isang “kolektibong pagnanasa ng isang bayan upang tumayo sa sariling paa, . . .[isang] anyo ng pakikibaka, ang pananatiling tapat sa sumpa sa kabila ng napakaraming hadlang, ang lahat na ito ay bahagi ng hiwagang nakalulula na nagmula sa loob ng tao.”[4]

Buong-buo ang aking pagsang-ayon kay Padre Alejo na, bagamat siya’y nanga-ngapa na tulad ko “sa paghahanap ng tamang salita,” ikinabibigat ng kanyang loob ang madalas na mangyari: “. . . nakapalamuti lamang ang ating mga katutubong kataga sa mga akdang sa Ingles nakasulat.” Kahangahanga ang kanyang hangaring palayain ang ating wika. Ayon sa kanya: “Sa tahimik na paraan, parang gusto kong tumulong upang palayain ang ating mga kataga sa pananakal ng mga panaklong, sa pagkakaipit sa mga panipi, sa latay ng mga italics at sa pagkakasangkapan sa salita bilang katutubong pamagat sa makadayuhang pananaliksik o bilang mga daglat ng mga kilusan o samahan na walang gamit sa salita kundi propaganda.” [5]

III. Ang Nagbabagong Lipunan Ngayon:
Kontekso ng Teolohiyang Pumipiglas

Ating pansinin ang nagbabagong lipunang Filipino bilang konteksto sa pagbubuo ng teolohiyang pumipiglas. Ang sinumang mangahas na makisangkot sa pagbabago ng lipunan ay kailangang magkaroon ng “kabuuang pananaw sa realidad” [wholistic view of reality] kung saan makikita natin ang patuloy na kontradiksyon sa lipunang Filipino. Sa pananaw na ito, dapat isa-alangalang ang mga magkakaugnay na sangkap gaya ng: 1] Lupa’t Kapaligiran; 2] Populasyon; 3] Ekonomiya; 4] Pulitika; 5] Sistima ng Kahalagahan at Paniniwala [values and belief system].[6] Bigyan natin ng maikling paliwanag ang bawat isa.

Lupa’t Kapaligiran. Ang ating bansa ay likas na kahali-halina gaya ng isinasaad sa maka-antig damdaming awit, Bayan Ko:

At sa kanyang yumi at ganda
Dayuhan ay nahalina
Bayan ko, binihag ka
Nasadlak sa dusa.

Ibon mang may layang lumipad
Kulungin mo at pumipiglas
Bayan pa kayang sakdal dilag
Ang di-magnasang maka-alpas
Filipinas kong minumutya
Pugad ng luha ko’t dalita
Aking adhika, makita kang sakdal laya![7]

Inihalintulad ni Jose Corazon de Jesus ang bayang Filipinas gaya ng isang ibong nakakulong sa hawla: “Ibon man may layang lumipad/ Kulungin mo at umiiyak.” Datapuwa’t noong sumiklab ang Sigwa ng Unang Quarto [First Quarter Storm], hindi na angkop ang pasibong pakikibaka. Kaya, binago ang titik na nagsasaad: “Ibon man may layang lumipad, kulungin mo at pumipiglas!” Pagpasok ng dekada nobenta nagbadya ng lumalaganap at tumitinding pagkasira ng kapaligiran. Binansagan ito na “decada ng ekolohiya.”[8] Ang patuloy na pagkasira ng kapaligiran, mga kabundukan, kakahuyan, karagatan, mga ilog at iba pang likas-yaman ay nagbabanta ng nakakikilabot na hinaharap. Ang kasindak-sindak na nangyari sa Ormoc City ay isang halimbawa kung papaano ang kalikasa’y gumaganti sa pagsasamantala sa kanya.

Ayon sa mapagpakumbabang pagtanggap ni Dr. Dioscoro L. Umali, isang kilalang siyentipiko sa UP-Los Baños, sa laganap na kasakiman at kapabayaan ng kanyang henerasyon ay siyang sanhi ng malawakang pagkasira ng ating kapaligiran. Hinamon niya ang mga kabataan: “Magpakabayani kayo, sapagkat hindi namin natupad ito, upang kayo ay mabuhay. Humayo kayo’t pabaliking muli ang kasaganaan ng lupa!”[9]

Populasyon. Naging tampok at mainit ang usapin tungkol sa popu-lasyon nitong nakaraang taon dahil sa International Conference on Population and Development sa Cairo, Egypt. Naging kontrobersyal ang programa ng ating gobiyerno dahil sa pagtuligsa ni Cardinal Sin at ng iba pang mataas na opisyal ng Simbahang Katoliko. Gayon pa man, ito ang binigyan diin ni Archbishop Leonardo Legaspi, O.P., sa kanyang panayam (lecture) kamakailan sa International Congress on Bioethics. Tinuligsa niya ang programa ng pamahalaan tungkol sa populasyoin at ang malagim na kahihinatnan nito lalo na kung tuloy-tuloy ang pagdami ng populasyon sa rate na 2.36 per cent.[10] Totoong maselan ang isyung ito dahil ang maunlad na bansa ay nangangailangan ng mabuting kalidad na populasyon.

Pang-Ekonomiya. Ang pagkassira ng kapaligiran ay bunga na rin ng nagdagsahang pagdami ng populasyon at mababang kalidad ng buhay pang-ekonomiya. Isang trahedya ng ating ekonomiya, ayon sa pananaliksik ni Prof. Dennis Arroyo ng UP-Diliman, ay ang dambu-halang utang sa labas [foreign debt] na sa ngayon ay humantong na sa mahigit na US$37 bilyones. Dahil dito, nawawalan ang gobiyerno ng pantustos sa mga mahalagang serbisyo tulad ng edukasyon, kalusugan, at iba pang serbisyong panlipunan. Ang lubhang masakit ay ang karamihan sa mga utang ay nagpunta sa mga lihim o nakaw na yaman ni Marcos at ang kanyang mga cronies.[11]

Sosyo-Pulitikal. Matapos ang diktaduryang regimen ni Mr. Marcos ang ating bansa ay tila wala ng kakayahang makatupad sa pundamental na layunin ng pamahalaan. Bagkus, nagyari na ang ilang mga simulain ng pamahalaan ay naging daan ng kapahamakan ng mga mamamayan. Ang mga Filipino ay mayaman sa karanasan ng pakikibaka laban sa mga mapanupil na kapangyarihan mula pa sa pagsakop ng mga Kastila, ang mga Amerikano, mga Hapunes, at maging ang rehimeng Marcos. Ang nangyri sa EDSA 1986 at 2001 kung saan lumaban ang mga mamamayan sa sukdulang kasamaan ng pamahalaang Marcos at Estrada ay isang ginintuang pagkakataon upang makamit ang tunay na pambansang kasarinlan. Ngunit ang mahalagang pagbabago sa lipunan ay naaksaya. Hindi lubusang naisakatuparan ng pamahalaang Aquino ang mga magagandang pagkakataon. Ayon sa pagkakalarawan ni Edicio dela Torre, ang pamahalaang Aquino ay parang “premature baby” na may napakalaking kanang kamay [militar] subalit napakaliit ang kaliwang kamay.[12] Dagdag pa dito, si Marcos at ang kanyang mga cronies ay hindi naparusahan, bagkus sila’y nanumbalik sa kapangyarihan lalo na sa administrasyon ni Erap Estrada.

Ngunit sa masusing pagsusuri, lumitaw na walang tunay na pagkakaiba ang rehimeng Marcos sa gobiyerno ni Aquino, Estrada, at maging ang kasalukuyang gobiyerno ni Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Sa mga pamahalaang ito, nangibabaw ang pagka-makasarili ng mga elitistang namumuno sa gobiyerno. Isa pa, malakas pa rin ang pananakop at pakikialam ng Estados Unidos sa ating ekonomiya, pulitika at kulturang pamumumuhay. Patuloy ang paghihirap ng bansang Filipinas hangga’t hindi nalalansag ang tanikala ng mga banyagang imperyalista na nagpapawalang saysay sa ating suberenya at kasarinlan. Ang mga sangkap na ito ay mahalagang mabigyan ng katuturan sa pagbuo ng teolohiyang pumipiglas.

IV. Tatlong Dimensyon ng Buhay:
Hamon sa Misyon ng Simbahan.

Ang pagganap ng tungkulin ng teolohiya dito sa Asia ay dapat isaalang-alang ang kabuuan ng buhay. Kailangang isaalang-alang ng teolohiya ang lahat na aspeto ng buhay sa kanyang kabuuan. Ang pagtugon sa pangangailangan ng pagkain ay mahalaga sa buhay ng tao. Nakasalalay ang buhay ng tao sa pagkakaroon ng pagkain. Kaya, ang hamon sa pagkakaroon ng masaganang pagkain ay pundamental sa teolohiya at misyon ng simbahan dito sa Asia. Ito’y dahil sa katotohanang si Jesu-Cristo ay Panginoon hindi lamang ng simbahan kundi ng kasaysayan. Ayon sa Banal na Kasulatan, si Cristo “ang buhay para sa sanlibutan” [Juan 14:6] at “ang tinapay ng buhay na bumaba mula sa langit at ang sinumang kumain ng tinapay na ito ay magkaroon ng buhay na walang hanggan” [Juan 6:49-51].

Binigyan ng Ebangelio ni San Juan ang kahalagahan ng buhay o pagbibigay-buhay na ginawa ng Panginoong Jesu-Cristo. Ang layunin ng pagkakasulat ng Ebangelio “ay upang kayo’y sumampalataya kay Jesus, ang Mesias, ... at sa gayo’y magkaroon kayo ng buhay sa pamamagitan niya” [Juan 20:31]. Sa pamamagitan ni Jesus ay naipahayag ang kalooban ng Dios: “upang magbigay ng buhay at magkaroon ng kabuluhan at layunin ang buhay” [Juan 5:40; 6:33; 10:10].

May tatlong salita sa wikang Griyego na hiniram at ginamit ng mga sumulat ng Ebangelio at ng buong Bagong Tipan patungkol sa buhay: bios, psuche, at zoe. Ang mga ito’y ginamit upang ipahiwatig ang tatlong dimensyon ng pamumuhay. Ang unang antas ng buhay ay bios. Hinango dito ang salitang biology. Ang buhay sa dimensyon ng bios ay siyang pinaka-ugat o pinakapundasyon. Ipinapahiwatig nito ang antas na “pantawid-buhay,” na ang ibig sabihin ay pawang sapat lang para mabuhay [a level of barely survival existence]. Inilalarawan ito sa pamilyar na kataga: “isang kahig, isang tuka!” Ngunit kalimitan, may maraming taong “kahig ng kahig, wala pa ring matuka!” This means to say that human life has been so de-humanized and de-meaned to the level of a beastly existence. Ito ang antas ng pamumuhay ng taong nakita namin sa bangkita ng Pedro Gil Street na kumakain ng galing sa basura. Siya, at ang libu-libong tulad niya sa mga malalaking siyudad ng ating bansa, ay namumuhay ng isang makahayop na pag-iral. Ito’y isang mapanganib na pag-iral. Ang mga tulad nila ay laging nagigipit at kinakapus. Ganito rin ang antas ng buhay kung saan ang mga bata at mga matatanda ay halos hindi makatawid at makaligtas sa bingit ng kamatayan. Sila’y umaasa sa mga pagkaing karapat-dapat lamang para sa mga baboy at aso!.

Ang buhay sa antas ng bios ay gaya halimbawa ng buhay ng isang “fetus” o bagong iniluwal na sanggol. Ito’y umaasa lamang sa sustansiya na nanggagaling sa kanyang ina. O kaya, tulad din ng sitwasyon ng mga matatandang may sakit na nag-aagaw buhay, silang humantong sa “vegetable stage” sa termino ng mga medico.

Isang kaisipan na umiiral sa ating makabagong panahon ay ang di-pagkilala at di-paggawad ng respeto sa mga taong kulang pa ng kakayahang maging ganap na tao. Ang buhay ng tao sa modernong kultura at panahon ay may katangiang tinaguriang “cycle of production==> consumption==>exploitation=>domination==>destruction syndrome.” Sa antas ng bios-dimension, may panganib ang buhay ng tao dahil sa isang kaisipan na hindi nagbibigay halaga sa buhay ng tao. Ito ay isang pananaw na nagaalis sa kabanalan at dangal ng buhay, at ito’y labag sa kalooban ng Diyos. Dahil dito, napakadaling magkaroon ng “salvaging” tulad sa mga krimeng ginawa ni Mayor Antonio Sanchez ng Calauan, at ng mga pulis sa pagpatay sa mga miembro ng Kuratong Baleleng. Sa mga pangyayaring ito, hindi nila isinaalang-alang ang karapatang pantao.

Maliwanag na sa larangan ng psuche ay nangangahulugan ng higit pa sa pag-iisip sa kabuhayan at kaligtasasn. Ito ay may kinalaman sa panandaliang pangangailangan na may mababaw na katugunan. Tinutukoy nito ang buhay na tigib ng pighati at pagkabalisa, buhay na puspos ng mga kumplikadong suliranin gaya ng kakulangan sa pinansya, mahinang pangangatawan, kalungkutan, kawalan ng kakayahan at pag-asa. Ito ang dimension ng buhay na naghahangad ng ganap na pagkatao at dignidad, nagnanais na maging kumpleto. Isang buhay na naghahangad na magkaroon ng malayang pagpapasya at makahulugang pakikilahok sa mga nagaganap sa lipunan. Sa Bagong Tipan maliwanag na ang buhay sa dimensyon ng psuche ay naghahangad ng kabuuan at kaganapan, bagamat hindi pa nito natatarok ang ganitong mithiin sa kasalukuyang panahon. Ang mithiing ito ay ipinahayag ni San Juan: “Ang taong labis na nagpapahalaga sa kanyang buhay [psuche] ay siyang mawawalan nito, ngunit ang mapopoot sa kanyang psuche sa daigdig na ito ay magkakaroon ng buhay [zoe] na walang hanggan.”

Ang buhay sa dimension ng zoe, ayon sa pag-unawa ni San Juan, ay buhay na puno ng Espiritu sapagkat ito ay nasa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ng Espiritu. Ito ay kumpleto, puspos ng kaganapan; isang buhay na makahulugan at makabuluhan. Ito ang ibig sabihin ng Banal na Kasulatan sa katagang “buhay na walang hanggan”. Ang buhay na ito ay bukas sa kalooban at kapangyarihan ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ni Cristo. Ito ang tinutukoy ni Jose de Mesa sa kanyang aklat na Kapag Namayani ang Kalooban ng Diyos.[13]

Kung sa gayon, maliwanag na ang buhay sa dimensyon ng bios at psuche ay magkakaroon ng buong kaganapan sa dimensyon ng zoe--”ang buhay na siyang ilaw ng sankatauhan” [Jn. 1:4]. Kung paanong pinagkalooban ng buhay [zoe] ng Ama ang mga patay, gayon din naman bubuhayin [o pagkalooban ng zoe] ang sinumang nais niyang mabuhay” [Jn. 5:21]. “Ito ang buhay [zoe] na lumipat mula sa kamatayan” [I Jn. 3:14]. Ang paanyayang ito ni Jesus ay para sa lahat, lalo na sa lahat na nababagabag, nababalisa, nabibigatan, dumaranas ng takot at walang direksyon sa kanilang buhay. Ang zoe ay libreng kaloob at biyayang galing kay Jesus. Datapuwat kinakailangan na magkaroon tayo ng matatag na pananam-palataya, ganap na pananalig at lubos na pagtatalaga ng ating buhay sa paglilingkod sa Diyos. Ang pagiging tagasunod ni Cristo ay nangangahulugang pakikibahagi sa buhay at gawain niya dito sa sanlibutan. “Sapagkat ang pagkaing bigay ng Diyos ay yaong bumababa mula sa langit at nagbibigay buhay sa sanlibutan.” [Jn. 6:33].

Samakatuwid, hindi maaring mawala ang pangatlong antas ng buhay, ang zoe-dimension. Ito ang tinutukoy sa Ebangelio ni San Juan na “walang hanggang buhay.” Ito ang uri ng buhay na naayon sa kalooban ng Diyos, buhay na puno ng diwang banal at ganap na nakatalaga sa kapangyarihan at patnubay ng Banal na Espiritu. Kaya, ito’y makabuluhan at makahulugan. Ganito ang buhay na ipinangako, ipinagkaloob, at isinabuhay ni Jesus dito sa lupa. Ito ang buhay na naging “ilaw ng sanlibutan” [Jn. 1:4]. Ang buhay sa antas ng zoe-dimension ay kusang kaloob ng Diyos sa tao sa pamamagitan ni Jesu-Cristo. Makakamit natin ang kaloob na ito kung tayo’y may matatag na pananalig sa Diyos. Kapag namayani ang kaloob na ito ng Diyos sa ating buhay, handa tayong maglingkod sa Diyos, at gawin ang nararapat sa kapwa at sa lahat na nilikha ng Diyos. Samakatuwid, tayo ay kabahagi sa buhay at ministerio ni Jesus, sa gawain ng simbahan na siyang katawan ni Cristo.

V. Pakikibahagi sa Katawan ni Cristo:
Ang Teolohiya ng Bituka at Pagkain.

Sa Bagong Tipan, ang pinaka-sentrong konsepto tungkol sa simbahan ay ang “katawan ni Cristo”. Sa kaisipang Filipino ito ay may kongkreto at malarawang kahulugan. Ang wika, pananalita’t kamalayan ng Filipino ay tiyak na mas dinamiko, kongkreto at malarawan kung ihahambing ito sa kaisipan ng mga taga kanluran. Halimbawa, ang taong walang hiya ay makapal ang mukha; ang taong walang paninindigan ay walang bayag!

Sa wikang Filipino [lalo na ang Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol, Bisaya, at Tagalog], ang mga konsepto ay tuwirang kongkreto at umiikot ito sa mga bahagi ng katawan.[14] Walang ganitong pananaw sa kanluraning kaisipan: ang katagang “brother/sister” ay talagang abstrakto. Kapag isinalin ito sa wikang Filipino [tulad sa Bisaya/Ilokano/Tagalog] nagiging kongkreto at naka-ugnay sa bahagi ng katawan: igsoon, kabsat, kapatid. Ang mga salitang ito ay may kahulugang pang-relasyon. Sa literal na kahulugan, ang kapatid ay isang kontraksyon ng “patid ng bituka” [Bisaya: igsumpay sa tinai, Ilokano: kapugsat iti bagis]; someone who is “cut off from my intestine”. Samakatuwid, ang mga magkakapatid ay nagmula sa iisang bituka. Ito’y nangangahulugan na mayroon silang malapit [intimate] at matatag [firm] na buklod, at ugnayan.

Batay sa linggwistikong pagsusuri, lumalabas na ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng ating katawan ay ang bituka. Ang bituka ay pinakasentro sa ating pag-iral at pagkatao. Ito ang dahilan na kung mayroong nasugatan, bata man o matanda, lagi nating maririnig ang katagang “huwag kang mabahala, malayo yan sa bituka”! [“No need to worry, the wound is far from the intestine”]! Kaya, sa mga Filipino, iba talaga ang may malapit at matatag na pinagsamahan dahil magkakadugtong ang bituka.

Batay naman sa penomenolohiya sa ugaling Filipino, kapag tayo’y dumalaw sa bahay ng kaibigan o kamag-anak, ang unang tanong sa atin ay: “O, kumain ka na ba?” Sa mga taga-kanluran, ang tanong ay: “How are you?” At kahit inabutan mo sila sa panahon ng kainan, hindi ka nila aanyayahang makisalo sa kanila. Isa sa mga pinakamasayang karanasan ko bilang isang pastor sa barrio ay iyong ipaghain ng pagkain basta nagbibisita sa mga miembro. Dahil konti ang mga bahay sa barrio, natatanaw na nila ako kahit malayo pa. Madalas kong marinig, kahit may kalayuan pa, ang mga katagang: “Maglung-ag na kamo kay naa na si Pastor!” [“Magsaing na’t dumarating na si Pastor”].

Isa pang mabuting ugali ng mga Filipino ay ang padigo. Kung ikaw ay nakapagluto ng masarap na putahe, mayroon kang ibabahagi sa iyong kapit-bahay. Para sa akin, ito ay pagpapatunay at simbolo na magkadugtong nga ang ating mga bituka: kaya ang masarap na pagkain na ipapasok ko sa aking bibig na bababa sa aking bituka, ay papasok din sa inyong mga bibig at pupunta sa inyong mga bituka!

Ano ang mga implikasyon ng mga kultura at ugaling Filipino sa pagbubuo ng teolohiyang likas sa Filipino? Anong kaugnayan ng kaalaman at praktis sa kulturang Filipino kung iuugnay ito sa paniniwalang ang simbahan ay katawan ni Cristo? Ito ay nangangahulugan na ang lahat ng mga kasapi ng simbahan ay magkakapatid kay Cristo at mayroong iisang bituka kay Cristo. Kaya, kung pinapahalagahan ang “incarnational theology”, dapat ding itaguyod at pahalagahan ang “intestinal theology”-- ang teolohiya ng pagkain at bituka!

Isang simple ngunit malalim na katotohanan sa buhay ng mga magkakapatid ay kung ano ang ipinapasok nila sa kanilang bituka. Ang bituka at ang pagkain ay laging magkaugnay-- upang ang tao’y mabuhay. Kaya, may katotohanan sa sinasabing: Ang kinakain ng isang tao ay siyang nagsasaad ng kanyang pagkatao. Ang kalidad ng pagkain na ating kinakain ang siyang sukatan ng kalidad ng ating buhay. Kaya, naala-ala ko ang awit na itinuro sa grade school: “O people of the mountain, what kind of food do you eat?” Ano nga, talaga, ang uri ng pagkain na ating kinakain?

Ang teolohiya ng bituka at pagkain ay nakabatay sa pilosopikal na dictum: “Comedo Ergo Sum.” “Ako’y kumakain, samakatuwid ako’y umiiral.” [“I eat, therefore, I am.”]. Kaya, hindi dapat pagtakhan ang tagumpay ni Mrs. Corazon Aquino, isang housewife lamang, laban kay Mr. Marcos, noong 1986 Snap Presidential Election. Isa sa mga dahilan ng kanyang tagumpay ay ang hamak na isdang galunggong, simbolo ng pagkain ng mga milyun-milyong Filipino, dahil ito lamang ang abot ng kanilang kakayahan.

Noong 1990, isang aklat ang inilathala, Lasa: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces, nila Doreen Fernandez at Edgardo N. Alegre.[15] Ayon sa kanilang puna “food is the most concrete definition of what or who the Filipino is.” Dagdag pa, pinuna nila ang ating kultura, kung saan ang pakiramdaman [sensing the feelings of others] sa halip na harapang konfrontasyon, lumilitaw na sa pamamagitan ng pagkain nakapagpapahayag ng tunay na damdamin, hangarin at niloloob ang Filipino. Ito ang pangunahing tesis ng aklat. Sa pagbabasa ng aklat na ito, malalasahan ang pira-pirasong katangian o karakter ng Filipino [“morsels of Filipino character”].

May tatlong mahalagang kaalaman mula sa aklat na ito. Una, ang Filipino daw ay kumakain ng kahit ano: aso, pusa, palaka, ahas, beetles, earthworms, crocodiles, etc. Pangalawa, ang dietary habit ng Filipino ay siyang nagpapasya o nagtatakda ng panahon: kaya ang panahon ng pagkain ay agahan [breakfast], tanghalian [lunch], at hapunan [supper]. Pangatlo, tulad ng pagkain, ang ugaling moral ng Filipino ay flexible or adjustable. The Filipino eats, or acts, depending on the situation. The Filipino’s manner of food consumption depends on the circumstance: in times of abundant harvest, there is feasting; but in times of famine, the Filipino learns to eat austerely. May kasibihang: “Kung maikli ang kumot, matutong mamaluktot.” Gayon pa man, ang pagsasalu-salo sa hapag-kainan ay mahalagang praktis ng mga Filipino.

Batay sa pananaw ng teolohiyang Filipino, ang pagkahati-hati ng mga tao, ang pagkakaroon ng iba’t ibang uri, mayaman at mahirap, ay isang paglabag sa tunay na pagkakapatiran. Dahil dito, ang simbahan ay mayroong malaking papel: dapat maging tulay upang mapalapit ang lumalaking hidwaan sa lipunan. Sabi ng Panginoong Jesus: “Ang pagkaing bumababa mula sa langit ay nagbibigay buhay sa sanlibutan.” [Jn. 6:33]. Si Jesus ang pagkaing bumaba mula sa langit, ang tinapay ng buhay. Ang lahat bilang bahagi ng simbahan, ang katawan ni Cristo, ay dapat nagkakaisa, nagsasama-sama at nagsasalo sa hapag-kainan, bawat isa ay nakikibahagi sa katawan at dugo ni Cristo. Ito ang pangunahing simbolo at misteryo ng ating pananampalatayang Kristiyano.

VI. Batayang Biblikal ng
Teolohiya ng Bituka.

Isa sa ma-intrigang pangyayari sa Lumang Tipan ay kong papaano dinaya ni Jacob si Isau ng dalawang beses. Una, naipagbili ni Isau ang kanyang birthright [Gen. 25:28-33]. Pangalawa, ninakaw ni Jacob ang rightful blessing [Gen. 27:1-45]. Kaugnay sa dalawang pang-yayari ay ang kahalagahan ng pagkain. Makikita din natin ang pagsa-samantala sa kahinaan ng isang tao. Kalunos-lunos na isipin ang pagsasamantala ng mag-ina [si Jacob at si Rebecca] laban kay Isaac na halos bulag at malapit ng mamatay. Gayon pa man, ang pandaraya ay sa pamamagitan ng paghain ng masarap na pagkain bilang pagpa-paunlak sa huling kahilingan ni Isaac bago siya mamatay. [Gen. 27:1-45].

Sa Bagong Tipan, ang pagsasalo-salo sa hapagkainan ay mahalagang bahagi sa ministerio ni Jesus. Bago siya namatay, nagpahayag siya ng masidhing pagnanasang makisalo sa kanyang mga alagad [Lk.22:15-16]. Magugunita natin na sa pagsimula ng kanyang ministeryo, itinaya niya ang kanyang reputasyon at karangalan dahil sa pakiki-salo at pakikisama sa mga makasalanan. Dahil dito, pinaratangan siyang “matakaw at maglalasing, kaibigan ng mga publikano at mga maka-salanan” [Mt. 11:19].

Ang pagpapakain sa Limang Libo ay naisulat ng tatlong Synoptic Gospels, “Nang dapit-hapon na’y lumapit sa kanya ang mga alagad. Sinabi nila: ‘Ilang ang pook na ito at malapit nang lumubog ang araw. Papuntahin na po ninyo sa mga nayon ang mga tao upang makabili ng kanilang makakain.’ Sinabi ni Jesus: ‘Hindi na sila kailangang umalis pa. Kayo ang magbigay sa kanila ng makakain.’” [Matt 14:16]. Matapos siyang muling mabuhay, si Jesus ay nagpakita at nakipagsalo sa hapag-kainan kasama ang kanyang mga alagad.

Sa ganitong konteksto, ipinahayag niya ang kanyang kapangyarihan. Halimbawa, nakilala siya ng dalawang alagad na naglakbay tungo sa Emmaus habang siya’y sumama sa kanila. “Nang siya’y kasalo na nila sa hapag, dumampot siya ng tinapay at nagpasalamat sa Diyos, saka pinaghati-hati at ibinigay sa kanila. Nabuksan ang kanilang paningin at nakilala nila si Jesus...“ [Lk. 24: 28-31]. Ang pangatlong pagpapakita niya sa baybayin ng Tiberias ay sa pamamagitan ng kanyang anyaya sa mga alagad upang mag-agahan [Jn 21:12-14]. Matapos silang kumain, hinarap niya si Pedro at tinanong siya ng tatlong beses: “Simon, anak ni Juan, iniibig mo ba ako ng higit kaysa sa mga ito?.... Pakanin mo ang aking mga tupa” [Jn 21: 15-17].

Habang ang simbahan ay lumaganap at lumawak ang pananaw ng mga kasapi nito, si Pedro mismo ang nagkaroon ng pagbabagong-isip. Sa pamamagitan ng isang pangitain sa tanghaling tapat, nakita niya ang parang isang malaking kumot na may lamang lahat na uri ng hayop. Dahil siya’y gutom na gutom, narinig niya ang isang tinig: “Magpatay ka’t kumain.... Huwag mong ituring na marumi ang nilinis ng Diyos” [Mga Gawa 10: 9-15].

Ang mga piling teksto sa Kasulatan ay nagbibigay ng tiyak na patotoo hinggil sa kahalagahan ng pagkain sa mapagpalayang gawa ng Diyos sa kasaysayan. Ang pagkain ay isa sa tatlong mahahalagang bagay na nagbibigay ng kabuluhan sa buhay ng tao. Ang dalawa ay ang pana-nampalataya at kalayaan.

VII. Kongklusyon.

Balikan natin ang unang istorya sa introduksyion. Ang nagliliyab na poot ng padre de pamilya sa Pangasinan ay dahilan sa kawalan ng pagkain para sa kanyang mga anak. Wala siyang maihain sa kanyang mga gutom at umiiyak ng mga supling. “Kung alam ko ang tirahan ng Diyos, pupuntahan ko siya’t aawayin!” Ang mga katagang ito ay mabibigkas lamang ng isang taong salat hindi lamang sa pagkain kundi taong nawalan na ng pag-asa.

Sa pananaw ng isang batang musmos, batang nahubog sa pamilyang may takot sa Diyos, ang mga katagang iyon ay talagang kasindak-sindak: mga salitang mapaglapas-tangan! Parang ninais kong ipagtanggol ang Diyos sa kamay ng masamang tao. Ito ang pumasok sa aking isipan, palibhasa ako’y wala pang kamuwang-muwang sa mundo.

Datapuwat sa pagbabalik-tanaw, ang namumulang mukha na tanda ng matinding galit ng padre de pamilya ay malinaw paring naka-ukit sa aking kaisipan. Manapa’y ang mga salitang iyon ay nagsilbing simula ng malalim na pag-unawa sa teolohikal na realidad na aking nakasagupa. Sa loob ng mahigit na apatnapung taon mula noon, at sa tulong ng kaalaman tungkol sa psychology of human suffering as well as the Gospels’ preferential option for the poor, masasabi ko na ang nag-aapoy na galit ng taong iyon ang siyang kauna-unahang aral sa aking pang-unawa sa pakikibaka upang makamit ang tunay na kabanalan. Kaya, kinikilala ko ito na bahagi ng isang significant revelatory event sa aking buhay bilang isang pastor at propesor ng teolohiya.

Sinabi ni Jesus, “Ako ang pagkaing nagbibigay-buhay na bumaba mula sa langit. Mabubuhay magpakailan man ang sinumang kumain nito. At ang pagkaing ibibigay ko sa ikabubuhay ng sanlibutan ay ang aking laman” [Jn 6: 51]. Bilang kasapi sa simbahan, tayo ay bahagi ng katawan ni Cristo. Ang ating mga bituka ay magkaka-ugnay at magkaka-dugtong sapagkat tayo’y nakikibahagi sa iisang pagkain: ang katawan ni Cristo.

Dahil dito, mayroon tayong natatangi at matatag na pagkakapatiran [sisterhood/ brotherhood] sa isa’t-isa. Ating ipinagdiriwang ang pagkakaisa at pakikibahagi sa katawan ni Cristo sa tuwing ginaganap natin ang Banal na Hapunan. Ito ang mahalagang simbolo at hiwaga ng ating pananampalatayang Kristiyano. Dagdag pa, ang prominenteng simbolo sa turo ni Jesus tungkol sa kaharian ng Diyos ay ang palagiang piging sa kasalan kung saan ang mga tao ay masaya at nagkakaisang nagsasalo-salo [Matt 22: 1-10; Lk 14: 15-24]. Hindi ba’t ito ang katuparan at kaganapan ng ating mga mithi tungo sa kapayapaan at kasaganaan, katarungan at pagkapantay-pantay ng lahat ng mga tao anuman ang kanilang lahi, kasarian, sosyo-ekonomikong katatayuan!

Bilang panapos, nais kong gawing halimbawa ang makabuluhang tula ni Cirilo F. Bautista na pinamagatang “Pananangis ng Huling Tao sa Daigdig”:

Pagkatapos ng anim na aklat ng tula na pinuri hanggang
langit [ha!]
Isang kahig, isang tuka pa rin siya, isang gulanit
Na multo na pasilip-silip sa mamahaling restawran,
Hungkag ang bituka at hilo ang isipan
Upang gumapang pauwi sa barong-barong at doon palipasin
Ang pait ng kadiliman. Ay Cirilo ng Balic-balic!
Sampay-bakod ng panitikang di pinapansin![16]

Ang mukhang ito ng karukhaan na inilarawan ni Cirilo F. Bautista ay nagpapatunay sa patuloy na kontradiksyon sa lipunang Pilipino. Ang mga manggagawa, magsasaka, guro’t namamasukan sa opisina, ay sumasahod ng ubod ng baba. Mabuti pa ang mga basketbolista ng PBA at mga artista, sila’y kumikita ng milyun-milyon. Sunod lahat ang kanilang luho at karangyaan. Sa kanyang pagsusumikap at pagpupunyaging matalastas ang ugat ng problema at maipahayag ito, tinukoy ni Cirilo Bautista, tulad ng Propeta Ezekiel, na hindi pinakinggan ang kanyang tinig, bagkus gaya ng isang ibong kanyang “pinalipad tungo sa sambayanang puso” ay “inabangan ng mga palalo, pinaulanan ng sibat, at nang bumagsak, tinapakan hanggang magkaluray-luray.”

Tulad ng milyun-milyong Filipino, pinilit ng tauhan sa tula na mangibang-bansa upang makalimot “sa dusa’t pagkabigo” ngunit doon hindi pa rin nakadama ng katahi-mikan. Hindi nalimutan na “ang kanyang puso, sugatan, pumipiglas / laban sa gayuma ng salapi...” Walang magagawa ang tao kundi magpalabas ng malakas na buntong hininga:

“Ay Filipinas na walang katapusang hikahos!
Filipinas ng mga pangakong di natubos!
Habang siya’y lumilipad lampas dagat, lampas bundok.
Asin ang bumalot sa kanyang sugat, nagpahapdi
Ang kanyang utak, lumikha ng isang huling tula
Sa langit bago sumirok sa bughaw na tubig at nawala.”

Ang pagpupunyagi ng taong matamo ang makataong pamumuhay ay humantong sa kamatayan: “...nakitang palutanglutang ang kanyang katawan sa karagatang Pasipiko...” Ang kanyang huling kahilingan ay: “Lupa, bigyan mo ng init ang kanyang buto.” Hari nawa na gaya ni Propetang Ezekiel, magkaroon ng kakaibang bisa ang pagpapatalastas upang ang mga “tuyong buto,” labi ng marahas na pakikibaka sa kasaysayan ay magkaroong muli ng panibagong buhay at magbigay diwa’t lakas sa pagbubuo ng teolohiyang pumipiglas!

Ang pagbubuo ng teolohiyang Filipino, lalo na tayong kabahagi ng Evangelikong tradisyon, ay humantong na sa akmang panahon. Huwag na nating ipagpatuloy ang pagkakagapos ng ating kamalayan sa kaisipang dayuhan. Sama-sama tayong pumiglas sa tanikala ng koloniyalistang kultura at karanasan. Tuklasin, pahalagahan at itaguyod ang mga katagang teolohikal na likha sa ating kultura at karanasang Filipino. Masagana tayo sa “hidden treasures” na nakabaon sa ating mga bakuran. Ang mga ito ay bahagi ng ating wika, idyoma at kultura. Ito ang mga mahalagang sangkap sa paghahanda ng masarap na putahe ng teolohiyang Filipino -- ang teolohiya ng pagkain at bituka!

REFERENCES

Alejo, Albert E. S.J., TAO PO! TULOY! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1991.

Baustista, Cirilo F. “Pananangis ng Huling Tao sa Daigdig,” Philippine Graphic Magazine, February 11, 1991.

Bennagen, Poncinao. “Cultural Analysis for Social Transformation,” United Church Letter, XXXII, [1988].

Cruz, Isagani R. “Teoriya at Wika: Kung Bakit Malabo Ang Ingles Pero Hindi Dapat Malabo Ang Ating Paningin,” PANTAS: A Journal of Higher Education, Vol. III, No. 1 [November 1989].

De Mesa, Jose. Kapag Namayani Ang Kalooban Ng Diyos. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990.

Fernandez, Doreen & Alegre, Edgardo N. LASA: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces. Manila: National Book Store, 1990.

Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 6, 2005.

Rosario, Romeo L. del, “What is the Place of the Indigenous Language in Contextualization?” in Papers and Presentations from the Congress of Asian Theologians. Feliciano V. Carino, ed., CCA Bulletin Vol. XV, No. 1 (June 1998), pp. 150-153.

Schwenck, Robert L. Riding the Third Wave into the Third Millenium. Manila: Philippine Christian University SEED Center, 1991.

Sunday Inquirer Magazine, November 11, 1990.

Torre, Edicio dela. “Toward A Just Reconciliation: The Philippines’ Post-Marcos Challenge,” Sojourner Magazine, September 1986.

[1] Tignan ang kanyang sanaysay “What is the Place of the Indigenous Language in Contextualization?” in Papers and Presentations from the Congress of Asian Theologians. Feliciano V. Carino, ed., CCA Bulletin Vol. XV, No. 1 (June 1998), pp. 150-153.
[2] Isagani R. Cruz, “Teorya at Wika: Kung Bakit Malabo ang Ingles pero Hindi Dapat Lumabo ang Ating Paningin,” PANTAS: A Journal for Higher Education, November 1989, p. 11.
[3] Ibid., p. 12.
[4] Alberto E. Alejo, S.J., TAO PO! TULOY! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1990, p. ix.
[5] Ibid. p. x.
[6] Hinango ko ang pananaw na ito sa sanaysay ni Ponciano Bennagen, “Cultural Analysis for Social Transformation,” United Church Letter, XXXII, 1 [1988], pp. 1; 6-9.
[7] Ang awiting ito ay katha ni Jose Corazon de Jesus noong 1928, sa panahon ng makabayang pakikibaka laban sa mga Amerikano.
[8] Howard I. Towne, “The Impending Ecological Nightmare: Can We Prevent It?” in Riding the Third Wave into the Third Millenium. Ed. By Richard L. Schwenk. Manila: SEED Center, 1991, p. 41-52.
[9] Dioscoro L. Umali, “Be Heroes We Never Were and Live,” in Schwenk, ibid., pp. 27-32,
[10] Tignan ang Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 6, 2005, p. A-9. Tila hindi matanggap ni Legaspi ang paniniwala ng mga demographers na ang Philippines population growth rate ay 2.36%, sa halip, ang kanyang palagay ay 1.44% lamang.
[11] Denis Arroyo, “Hard Times Ahead for the Economy,” Sunday Inquirer Magazine, November 11, 1990.
[12] Edicio de la Torre, “Toward A Just Reconciliation: The Philippines’ Post-Marcos Challenge,” Sojourner Magazine, Aug.-Sept. 1986, pp. 20-24.
[13] Jose de Mesa, Kapag Namayani ang Kalooban ng Diyos. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990.
[14] Tingnan ang aklat ni Padre Leonardo N. Mercado, Elements of Filipino Philosophy. Tacloban: Divine Word Publications, 1974.
[15] Doreen G. Fernandez and Edgardo N. Alegre, Lasa: A Guide to Eating Out in the Provinces. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1990.
[16] Cirilo F. Bautista, “Ang Pananangis ng Huling Tao sa Daigdig,” Philippine Graphic Magazine, February 11, 1991.