Wanak, Lee. Ed. Theological Education in the Philippine Context. Manila: Philippine Association of Bible and Theological Schools and Mandaluyong: OMF Literature Inc. 1993.
The first essay was written by
Rodrigo Tano, one of the leading theologians in the field of Filipino theology.
He presented in the article the necessity of contextualization and its recent
trends and issues. Tano responded to the critics of contextual theology by
arguing that even systematic theologies of the West are contextual in nature.
For him, true theologians are not those who master “packaged theology” that
came from the West, but those who creatively reflect on the text in light of
the context of the Filipino church (p.1-3). The fascination to Western theology
is one of the main reasons why the Filipino church was not able to produce
original theological works. Among Protestant mainline churches, this was caused
by their mother churches in America which do not see the need to indigenize the
gospel. Fortunately, among the Catholics some substantial works are produced by
the likes of Leonardo Mercado, Vitaliano Gorospe, Catalino Arevalo, Edicio dela
Torre, Carlos Abesamis, Jose de Mesa, and Jaime Belita (p.3-5).
According to Tano, there are many
themes in the Filipino culture which must be theologically addressed by putting
them in dialogue with their counterpart Biblical motifs. First is the animistic
and fatalistic worldview of the Filipinos (p.5-7), to which the Christus Victor
motif and the Biblical presentation of man as a responsible being and master
over creation must speak (p.7-8). Second, the popular understanding of Christ
as that of a child (Sto. Niño) and dead (Santo Entierro) suits very well in the
Filipino experience of colonial exploitation. But this must be balanced by
emphasizing the Christ who rose from the dead during the Easter Sunday, thus
victorious over death (p.8-9). Third, Filipinos looks at sin more in the
context of shame than guilt. The Filipino is more careful not to lose face to
his fellow human beings than to offend God. This must be corrected by teaching
the Biblical doctrine of the wrath of a holy God (p.9-10). Fourth is the
Filipino view of God as distant, which entails the need for many intermediaries
such as Mary and the saints. To this, we must point towards Christ, whose
incarnation made him the only intermediary between us and God who is called
Immanuel, God with us (p.11). Fifth is the Filipino perception of salvation.
Jose de Mesa proposed ginhawa as the
equivalent of the English salvation. According to him, it holistically pervades
all aspect of human existence, not just the spiritual but also the physical,
emotional and psychological. Yet Tano noticed that De Mesa’s exposition of ginhawa almost always focus on the
physical, emotional and psychological to the detriment of the spiritual. For
instance, De Mesa’s ginhawa has
little to say to say about the guilt of man before God and the necessity of
Christ’s atoning sacrifice. As an alternative, Tano put forward the concept of kalayaan as more precise equivalent of
salvation (p.12-13).
Aside from these, there are also
some sociological and political concerns in the Philippine context which must
be addressed by the project of contextualization. First among the two main
issues is the question of the church-state relationship. Tano expressed that
there are things which must be considered whenever we think about this topic:
1. All authorities came from God, 2. Governments are established by God to
preserve order, punish evil, reward good, and promote social justice, 3. When
the government is not anymore functioning according to these responsibilities,
the people has the right to call for its replacement, 4. The power of the
government is not absolute, and 5. We must be cautious of radical revolutions,
for it may bring about worse kinds of society. It is the responsibility of
Christians to join people of good will in exposing exploitation and promoting
reforms (p.14-15). Second is the issue of social justice. We are aware of the
fact that the major reason for poverty is the unjust social structures which
are perpetuated by the local elite, local government, and the developed
countries. This necessitates the formation of a theology of development and
liberation. This theology of development and liberation is premised upon the
Biblical doctrine of imago Dei (image
of God) which implies the inherent worth and dignity of human beings. It is
also based upon the many Scriptural passages which presents a just God who
oppose any form of oppression of the poor by the powerful (p.15-17). In light
of all these, it is an urgent task of the Filipino church to make the text
(Bible) relevant to our context (Filipino culture) (p.17). All of these discussions
have bearing on rethinking our idea of theological education. It necessitates
the revision of our curriculums, to include courses on contextualization and
not just courses that contain Western theological reflections (p.18).
Tano’s article is followed by the
essay of Lee Wanak entitled Emancipatory
Theological Education: Preparing Leaders for the 21st Century.
Wanak divided his essay into two main parts. The first surveys the development
of Philippine social structures and educational system from the precolonial
times down to the period of the independent Republic (p.21-36). This first part
which shows the oppressive structure of the Philippine society in general and
educational system in particular set the stage for the necessity of
emancipatory theological education, which was discussed by the author in the
second part of the article (p.36-48).
When one skims through the history
of the Philippines, one thing that is consistent is the marginality of the
common tao at the bottom of the
social strata (p.21-25). This has
direct connection with the development of the educational system in the country. During the Spanish
period, education was used in order to set in motion the Christianization of
the Filipinos, the Hispanization of the elite class, and the subjugation of the
common people. The educational opportunity of the common people was very
limited. It is only after the passing of the Educational Decree of 1863 (due to
the pressure coming from the educated class) that it improved a little bit (p.25-27).
With regards to the theological education during this time, although Rome
deemed it necessary for the health of the church to create a substantial
population of native clergy, it did not occur in the Philippines under Spain.
Partly due to the racial prejudice of Spanish priests to the capacity of the
natives, the latter’s theological training became very limited. When the
Vicentians, who are expert in seminary education, came in the colony, change
began to occur. But long term transformation did not materialize due to the
overthrow of the Spanish government by the united force of the Philippine
Revolution and the Americans (p.27-30).
After the transfer of the colony to
the United States, the Americans began to utilize education to further the
pacification process of the Philippines. Though they announced that education
would civilize, democratize and prepare Filipinos towards self-governance,
their capitalist agenda perpetuated the power of the local oligarchy (p.30-32).
Under the independent Republic, Philippine educational system was ahead
compared to other Asian countries in terms of literacy rate and ratio of
enrolled students to the total population. Yet its quality is considerably low,
considering the low public expenditure for education. It is felt also in the
area of theological education, which continued to depend on American curricula
and subsidies (p.32-34). Another problem that haunts Philippine society is the
crisis of national identity. To this, the educational system, particularly the
theological and Bible schools, can be of much help. For instance, some
Christian thinkers suggest that the re-orientation of Filipino values from its
focus to the family towards focus to nation-building would bring about better
change (p.34). All of these discussions show the need for the development of an
emancipatory approach to theological education (p.35-36).
Theological schools and churches
must have an emancipatory approach in education, which would help prepare
leaders in the church and society, whose aim is to combat oppressive structures
(p.36-37). Emancipatory theological education has its basis on the gospel
itself. A holistic view of salvation would show that the gospel wants to free
us not only from sin but also from structural evils and oppressive consciousness.
Jesus’ reference to Isaiah 61:1-2 (in Luke 4:18-19) to characterize his earthly
ministry is very instructive. Isaiah 61:1-2 speaks of the coming of the “year
of the Lord” or the Jubilee, which refers to every 50th year in
Israel when all of the slaves are set free and all debts are cancelled. By
characterizing his ministry using the imagery of the Jubilee, Jesus is
announcing that as the Messiah, his redemptive work will bring about freedom
from oppression. This Jubilee theme must be contextualized in the Philippine
society, particularly in the context of our theological education. It could be
done through the development of qualities needed to be nourished among the
theological teachers and students such as efficacy, creativity, conscientization,
and skills related to problem solving, decision making, human relations, and
leadership (p.37-39).
First among these is efficacy,
which refers to the perceived capacity of the individual or the group to
execute actions towards a desired end. The need for self and group efficacy is
based on inherent worth as God’s image bearers and benefactors of Christ’s
redemptive work (p.39-41). Second is conscientization. As popularized by Paulo
Freire, it refers to the ability to think and act critically in relation to
one’s world. Here, we can follow the example of the prophets who provided
criticisms against the unjust structures perpetuated by the powerful in Israel.
But before giving critiques of the society, the church must cultivate the
virtue of self-criticism, which thinks of ways in which it contributed to the
perpetuation of these structures (p.41-43). Third is creativity which is needed
to be nourished in order to enable the students to think of new paradigms and
not just to conform to traditional structures (p.43-44). Fourth is problem
solving and decision making skills, both of which are rooted in the cultural
mandate of Genesis 1:26-30, where God gave us dominion over all creation. These
two are necessary to overcome the oppressor-oppressed dependency (p.44-46).
Fifth is human relation skills which must help in developing a kind of
communication that transcends social class. It must transform Filipino values (hiya, utang na loob, pakikisama) that
perpetuates unequal relations between the powerful and the masses (p.46). Sixth
and last is the leadership skills. Theologizing cannot bring societal change if
it will not lead to the production of leaders. These leaders are neither
“socialist man” of communism, nor the “rugged individualist” of capitalism, but
a servant-leader of Christianity (p.47-48).
The third article is The Indigenous Religious Consciousness: Some
Implications for Theological Education by Melba Padilla Maggay. The article
discusses the communication problems which arise from the process of communicating
the Hebrew gospel by Western-oriented theology to the Filipino context. In
traditional communication theories, culture is seen as noise that obstructs the
smooth communication of the message from the sender to the receiver via the
channel. But more recently, the role of
culture is communication is taken more seriously. The communication became much
more complicated when the cultural context of the sender, receiver and even the
message is different from one another (p.53). This is the situation when the
American missionaries brought Protestantism in the Philippines. For a long
time, they were unconscious of these differences in culture, believing that
they are objectively communicating to us the universal message of the gospel.
But Third World churches are beginning to point out that Western theology is
just as contextual as the indigenous theological formulations such as the Latin
American liberation theology, the African focus on “signs and wonders,” and the
Asian sensitivity to neighboring religions. Some pointed out that the
Reformation emphases on justification and assurance of salvation reflect the
guilt-oriented culture of the West (p.54-55). It has direct implication on the
question of how can we identify the universal “core” or “essense” of the
gospel, for every culture has the tendency to have different focus on the
gospel. This essentialist tendency to find the “core” of the gospel might come
from the Greek way of thinking, which is different from the holistic way of
Hebrew thinking (p.56).
Some observed that in cultures
which have great religious traditions such as India and China, Christianity was
hardly accepted. Conversely, Christianity was easily received by those cultures
which are basically animistic like the Philippines. But this seemed to be
simplistic if we consider how indigenous religious elements persist even after
the entrenchment of Christianity for many generations. It would seem that what
really happened is really not conversion but only replacement of symbols. Under
the Roman Catholic Spaniards, God remained distant like Bathala, which
necessitates the intermediary of Mary and the saints, the role that is
previously held by the anitos (p.57-59). The incongruience between the
indigenous religious consciousness of Filipinos and the American shape of
Protestantism might be the reason why this branch of Christianity was not
received well by the majority of Filipinos. The Puritan simplicity and
rationalistic, anti-supernatural spirituality of the Protestants (facilitated in
the English language) only appeal to the educated middle class. Part and parcel
of conversion to Protestantism are the alienation from Filipino culture, and
the assimilation to American culture, with its political tendencies such as
anti-communist bias (p.59-63). As Maggay stated, Filipino evangelicals “learn
facility in discussing imported theological questions that have little to do
with their own context” (p.61).
There is a clash between the
religion of guilt (Western Christianity) and religion of power (Filipino
indigenous spirituality). For the West, Christianity functions to relieve the
guilty conscious of the individual and to assure him/her of entrance to heaven.
This is not an urgent concern for Filipinos. They are more focus on how to
connect to the powerful energy that can help them arrange their lives. It is
power that is the focus of Filipino spirituality, not the search for the nature
of reality in the case of the Greeks and Indians, or the search for ethical
standards in the case of Jews and Chinese. It is this search for potency in the
spiritual realm that religious rituals such as self-flagellation, carrying of
Black Nazarene, panata, among others
must be seen, instead of in the context of wanting to atone for one’s sins.
What has been called “split-level” spirituality of the Filipinos can be
accounted to this clash (p.63-65). This
has direct implications to our theologizing. First, we must recognize that the
gospel is not just a set of propositional truths to be argued as positivist and
naturalist Protestants believe. On the contrary, the gospel also entails power.
No wonder why Charismatic Christianity spreads easily in the Philippines.
Second, we must define sin not just in the Western context of individual guilt
and responsibility, but also in its social and cosmic contexts. Third, the
theme of God as all-powerful and Christ as perpetually suffering must
continuously be emphasized. The first will empower and powerless masses, while
the second will be able to reflect the oppression experienced by them. But
Christ as perpetually suffering with us must be balanced with the Christus
Victor motif that can also empower the Filipino people (p.65-69).
But the discontinuity between the
American and Filipino culture is not just in theological emphases but also in
cognitive patterns, or their general way of thinking. Western way of thinking
tends to compartmentalize reality, to have an either/or way of thinking that
separates sacred from profane, spirit from body, grace and nature, public and
private. The Filipino holistic way of thinking resists these dichotomies
(p.69-70). This Western tendency to compartmentalize reality is the reason why
Protestantism has the tendency to view religion as limited to personal piety,
and the general attitude of suspicion to calls for social justice. This is
contrary to the indigenous religious movements’ emphases on nationalism and
social transformation (p.70-71). Another discontinuity between the two is that
the literate culture of the West is linear, abstract, and detached, while the
oral culture of the Filipinos is highly symbolic, concrete, and personal
(p.72-74). Time is also an aspect where the two differs. While the Western view
of time is linear, future-oriented and mechanical (measuring time objectively
according to minutes and seconds), the Filipino views time as more of cyclical,
present-oriented, and organic (measuring time based on events and the rhythm of
nature) (p.74-77).
Maggay concluded by pointing out
that the failure to cross the cultural divide between the Western theology and
indigenous religious consciousness is the reason why Protestantism was not
welcomed very well by the Filipinos. As a response, present Evangelicals must
be more sensitive to Filipino culture if we want to do a more fruitful
evangelistic work (p.78).
The last article in this volume is
Rodrigo Tano’s Developing Filipino/Asian
Leaders for Theological Schools. For a long time, theological schools in
the Third World have been in the hands of foreign missionaries sent by mission
boards and denominations from the West. The passing of key positions to
nationals has been slow due to varied reasons (e.g. desire to maintain
authority, reluctance to work under the nationals, lack of trained national
leaders, and suspicion on the leadership capabilities of the nationals). But
more recently, both the churches in the Third World and mother denominations in
the West are gradually realizing the urgent need of cooperating in training
national theological leaders (p.83-85).
Tano then provided some steps which
would help in developing Third World, particularly Filipino, theological
leaders. Before presenting these steps, he said that what must be done first of
all is to change the attitude of both mission boards and churches towards each
other. Instead of suspicion and distrust, they must develop mutual respect and
cooperation. This cooperation can be improved by drafting a document that
presents concrete lines of cooperation between the two. One of the main
provisions of this document must be the goal of developing national leaders. Of
course, it should include the training of potential leaders in higher education
(p.85-86).
He then goes on to enumerate the
steps he deemed necessary for the development of national theological leaders.
It includes first of all the development of excellent Filipino theological
faculty which can be done through the following steps: 1. Select individuals
with great potential, 2. After undergraduate or graduate studies, potential
teachers must be put to preparatory church ministry for a certain period of
time, 3. Faculty members must attain one grade higher the degree they are about
to teach, 4. After admission, young faculty members must be put under the
mentorship of older colleagues, and 5. Plan faculty development programs that
has long term goals (p.86-87). This faculty development program must include
plan in sending faculty members to other institutions for further study. It is
advisable that they pursue further study in different institutions which has various
denominational/theological distinctives (p.88).
Drawing from Anselmo Lupdag’s
study, Tano listed down some ideal qualities which must characterize leaders
for theological schools such as influence, goal-seeking, friendliness, concern,
morality, verbal fluency, educational attainment, democratic attitude,
creativity and situational orientation (p.88-89). Aside from these, it is also
good for both the foreign missionaries and Filipino leaders to know the
strengths and weaknesses of Filipinos (p.90-94), and also for the Filipinos to
be more familiar with the culture of the missionaries, in order to build a more
harmonious cooperative relationship (p.94-95).
No comments:
Post a Comment