Power and Ecumenical Mass Movements in the Philippines

George O. Buenaventura1

A Brief Historical Note

Theology could either be liberating or dominating. The Christian churches in the Philippines were both instruments of subjugating and liberating people. In the middle of the 16th century, Roman Catholic missions started in the Philippines simultaneously with the Spanish colonization of the islands. The Spanish missionaries were instrumental in subjugating the natives and poisoning the minds of those they Christianized against the Muslims. Recollect Friar Salvador Font, for instance, exhorted the Christians to join the Spanish war against the Muslims when he said, “War and war without quarter or rest for the wicked sons of the Quoran; war to the death with blood and fire. Go brave Spanish soldier to the combat in the fiery arena without fear because you are supported by the fury of the God of the armies”. Dominican missionary Juan Villaverde proposed the transfer of the Igorots from the highlands of the Cordillera to the plains of Cagayan, in order for the Spaniards to better control them and effectively instill the culture of the west. The Spanish conquistadores never totally controlled the Muslims in Mindanao and the Igorots in the Cordilleras. They helped design and build forts, supply information using the confessionary, and supply food and logistics for war. The missionaries called the natives ‘pagans’.

The Spanish and American missionaries even suppressed the development of native leadership of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. During the first three hundred years of Spanish rule in the Philippines, no native priest was ordained in the Dominican order. This explains why native priests joined the resistance movement against the Spaniards so late. Both the Spanish and American governments imprisoned, exiled and executed native priests who got involved in the resistance movements. There were also native priests who joined the armed resistance against the colonizers and died in battle. During the foreign occupation of the islands, bishops and parish priests were either Spanish or American. Native priests and pastors were relegated as assistants to foreign priests.

Missionary efforts in the Philippines were bathed in war and blood. American missionaries supported American colonialism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s through ideological means, which have long lasting effect. They approved the exile, imprisonment and murder of nationalist native priests who supported the Filipino rebels’ fight against the Spaniards and the Americans. They prohibited the native priests from supporting the Philippine revolution. American bishops condemned the Katipunan (nationalist liberation movement). The Americans instructed the Christians and the churches not to get involved in social issues on the premise that the church must only be concerned with things that are ‘spiritual’ and never intervene with the ‘material, temporal or political’ affairs. However, despite their suppression, native priests and pastors led the Filipinization of the churches. Exposures to the plight of the poor masses, and experiences of discrimination changed the native Filipino’s view and commitment. A huge portion of the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Roman Church through the leadership of Fr. Gregorio Aglipay, thereby creating the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) in the early 1900’s. Aglipay was appointed ‘chaplain’ of the resistance movement during the Spanish period, but later became a guerilla combatant against the Americans. In that same decade, the Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas (Evangelical Methodist Church) was established through the leadership of Rev. Nicolas Zamora, the first ordained Filipino Methodist pastor.

The church and the foreign imperialist government shared power and wealth. In 1901, the Evangelical Union led by American Protestant missionaries, except Bishop Brent of the Episcopal Church, signed the Comity Agreement. This was done to divide the Philippine islands among various mission boards and societies, so that “the evangelization of these people will be more speedily accomplished by a division of the territory, thus avoiding waste of labor, time and money arising from the occupation of the same districts” by the same societies. The Episcopalians, through Bishop Brent’s statement that it was not the duty of the church to establish mission work to places where there were Roman Catholics, limited their work to the Americans, Chinese and other foreigners in Manila, Muslims and other non-Christian communities in Mindanao and the Igorots of the Mountain Province. The act of dividing the country for mission was a military strategy to effectively conquer the land. Later on, these same missionaries and mission boards violated the agreement. Dr. David Hibbard, founder and president of Silliman Institute then (now Silliman University) opined, “The whole scheme of division of territory does not amount to anything at all and… within two years we will find the missionaries going wherever they find an opening. It is nice on paper and an interesting plan, but that is all”. Then territorial conflicts happened, such as the Presbyterian-Baptist conflict in the island of Panay.

However, aside from the establishment of Filipino churches, such as the IFI and IEMELIF, there were other positive results in the struggle of native leadership. Through the union of various protestant denominations, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) was established in 1948. Later, the Protestant churches organized the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP).

In 1907, five protestant mission boards [Methodist Board, American Board, Presbyterian Board, United Christian Missionary Society (Disciples), and United Brethren] established the Union Theological Seminary (UTS). This has become a major ecumenical theological school in the Philippines, which is now jointly sponsored and operated by the UCCP and United Methodist Church. In 1978, UTS merged with the Philippine Christian University, which is also jointly owned and managed by UCCP and UMC. In spite of difficulties in operating an ecumenical institution, the churches and institutional leaders and constituents continue to struggle in redefining its power structures and systems.

Our Own Stories of the Ministry

After graduating from UTS in 1990, I was appointed to pastor my home church for three consecutive years. During my first two years there, I established connections and rapport with other Christian churches and people's organizations. On two occasions I was invited to preach during our town thanksgiving day, which we call fiesta. Filipinos are fond of fiestas (Spanish term for feasts or festivals). Fiestas used to be celebrations confined to the Roman Catholics, as they were special days to honor their respective patron saints. Later, fiestas became community celebrations where all sectors – government, private, and religious – participate. The celebration always starts with an ecumenical worship service. Parish priests of the Roman Catholic church and pastors of Protestant churches join in the opening liturgy. Church members and choirs also gather for the joint worship service.

I exchanged pulpit with the parish priest once a year during Simbang Gabi (evening or early morning services before Christmas). Our church choir sang in other churches, including Roman Catholic churches. I often co-celebrated with other church workers in weddings, and thanksgiving services. Our church hosted province-wide gathering of evangelical churches. It has become a favorite venue for seminars and workshops of both the government and non-government organizations. This way, the church has become a visible and active participant in many community affairs.

On my third year, the churches did not only gather for fellowship and thanksgiving celebrations; we organized ourselves for common community services and advocacy programs. We organized the Provincial Coalition of Churches for Environmental Protection, of which I was co-chairperson. We held dialogues with government agencies and private logging and mining firms. The Province of Aurora is the only place in Luzon where there still exists a rain forest where our Philippine eagle breeds. We worked for the closure of two sawmills and logging companies, which operate in watershed. We also visited schools and institutions to educate people and make them ecologically conscious. We learned that much could be done when churches work together.

The ecumenical movement also launched a crusade against gambling. Today we are proud to be one of very few provinces in the country that do not have jueteng, an illegal numbers game where bet collectors roam around the community to gather bets (money and numbers). While illegal, the government has not done much to control it because according to reliable information, both police and political hierarchy receive huge amount of 'bribe money' from jueteng lords. This is game collects the poor people's money, which is then siphoned to the rich people's pockets like any other gambling operation.

Our town mayor, whose wife is an active member of our church, started jueteng simultaneously in four towns. He had the protection of our provincial and local police. The wife of the chief of police is a sister of our mayor's wife. Their families are active members of the church. Two days after jueteng started, I visited the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I shared with him my views against gambling. He confessed that the ‘jueteng lords’ promised to give an enormous amount to the church if the church would not oppose jueteng operations in the province. Since this particular priest was also against it, we agreed to preach and teach our people against jueteng during our worship services on the ensuing Sunday. Then I went to the pastors of a Pentecostal Church and International Baptist Church, who I found out were also opposed to jueteng. I shared with them our agreement with the Roman Catholic priest and we agreed to meet our members to plan for a protest march to the mayor's office as soon as possible. I went to the police camp that Saturday night and talked with one of the officers who also happened to be a member of our church. He told me that they could not act against it because it had the 'blessing' (protection) of the 'top' (the Provincial Police chief). When I asked him about his personal conviction, he confessed that he was also against gambling. I invited him to the church meeting on Sunday.

Sunday came. I preached on the social evil of jueteng, the immorality of draining whatever little resource the poor people had, and the evil of instant wealth. I met with the congregation after worship and asked everyone to speak out their views. To my surprise, not a single person spoke in favor of gambling! Even the mayor's wife and in-laws strongly opposed it! They suggested that we make a position letter as a church calling for an immediate end to it. Two lawyer members and the president of the municipal association of barangay captains were elected to help me compose the letter. We also agreed to join the march against jueteng the following day. The heads of our own church high school and that of the Roman Catholic Church promised to rally with us.

Early Monday morning, we marched towards the municipal hall. School principals, teachers and students also joined the march. Two members of the municipal council were also with us. Upon reaching the municipal hall, the priest and I were ushered into the mayor’s office. The mayor welcomed us and immediately confessed that his wife troubled him the whole night and that he was “outside the kulambo kagabi”. Literally this means ‘I was outside the mosquito net last night’, which means not being allowed to sleep beside his wife, a Filipino term to indicate that there was a problem between the couple due to the jueteng issue. His wife was in church during the Sunday worship and meeting. So the mayor already knew our position. Without much discussion, the mayor honestly accepted that it was he who started jueteng. He told us that he just wanted to see if it would prosper. I handed him our position paper and told him that the people were against it, and that we came to tell him so. There and then, he promised us that he would stop jueteng that same day. I requested him to tell the news to the people. Everybody was happy and we went home satisfied. We learned that much could be accomplished if we cooperate, instead of focusing on matters of differences that divide the church of Jesus Christ. In our hunger and thirst for justice and righteousness, we discovered ways towards practicing real ecumenism! Our ecumenism has become God's instrument in creating a more just society – a new heaven on earth.

However, the provincial governor suspended the mayor for ninety days. He was so furious with me and planned to get even with me. But thanks to God, after visiting him for many times, he understood our actions and accepted his destiny.

Filipinos and Mass Movements: Power from Below

Much has been said and written about the famous People Power Revolution in the Philippines in 1986. After twenty years in power, most of which were under military rule, Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown from office through a peaceful revolution known as EDSA 1. EDSA stands for Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue, the road where multitudes gathered for four days to protest the unjust, dictatorial rule of Marcos. In 2001, another people power revolution (EDSA 2) was launched to challenge the corrupt government of Joseph Estrada. Although Estrada was a popular president, a well-loved actor and long-time politician, the Filipino people who elected him rallied to oust him from office. Both revolutions then were done to remove the highest elected officials of the country. Both were done peacefully, not by the might of weapons of war, but by multitudes of people. The courageous and organized movements of people challenged the mighty, dreadful, and destructive power of guns and wealth. Both revolutions were ecumenical. Christian churches, schools and institutions, as well as Muslim communities joined the rally for the ouster of two popular presidents of the country. In our common desire for justice and peace, our ecumenicity was exercised. In the people’s search for freedom and fullness of life, power from below which I consider as ‘the foundation power’ shakes the whole structure and subverts conventional ways of seeing and living. “God drags strong rulers from their thrones and puts humble people in places of power” (Luke 1:52, CEV).

Ecumenical Theological Education and Theology from Below

Union Theological Seminary (UTS) was a product of joint efforts by Protestant foreign missionaries, boards and leaders. The merger of UTS and Philippine Christian University (PCU) was another step towards union but it was done hastily and undemocratically. All Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church voted against the merger so the UMC bishop then did not sign the agreement. UTS student body, faculty and staff were also against it that they held demonstrations and rallies to register their opposition and the seminary president did not sign the agreement. As a result of the merger, UTS now has to share its vast land property, including its buildings and facilities, with PCU, which has just a tiny parcel of land. Until now, the process is being questioned. Throughout the years, the UTS community sticks to its original stand—i.e. against the merger. And for 25 years, UTS feels how the huge university is taking control of the seminary’s programs and resources.

In 2000, the relationship between the sponsoring churches was threatened. The UCCP leadership recommended abrogation of the merger in 1988. The UMC counterpart interpreted abrogation of the merger to mean dissolution of the institutions. They decided to divide the properties among the sponsoring churches and dissolve the institutions. How could the churches divide the seminary properties, which were donated for a definite purpose, without consulting the seminary community and the donors? In 2000, the UCCP took control of the university, ousting the UMC university president. It was a chaotic situation, which others viewed as a problem with the UCCP-UMC relationship. The issue was more than a conflict between the two sponsoring churches. The merger relationship has something to do with the crisis. Individual personal interest of leaders could be part of the reason.

For a while, PCU and UTS were administered by UCCP presidents. But in the middle of 2003, UTS administration came under fire, following internal and external audit findings. Students, faculty, staff and other seminary stakeholders launched dialogues and rallies calling for the resignation of the top leadership of the seminary. The Commission on Theological Education, tasked to oversee the seminary operation, recommended a revamp to the Board of Trustees. The President decided to take a year of sabbatical leave, the registrar’s appointment was revoked, and the academic dean voluntarily resigned. The university Board of Trustees appointed their replacements effective December 1, 2003. We have just passed through a very tumultuous situation. The unity of the whole community was threatened. Outsiders interpreted it as another power struggle between the sponsoring churches. But the seminary community looked at it as part of the internal transformation process. The only existing and oldest jointly sponsored ecumenical theological school was threatened once more by top-level power struggles. But the whole community refused to allow this to happen. The power from below sustained the life of the seminary. People from below were more ecumenical in perspective, and liberative in action.

Biblico-Theological Reflections

1. Liberation initiatives and actions come from below, because God starts and works from below. The Pharaoh of Egypt had to do everything to stay in power. He had to maintain slaves to continue in power. Being in positions of power without slaves means nothing. In the people’s struggle for freedom, the masters would do everything to keep them. They could not afford to lose the slaves. But God took side with the powerless and exploited people. God saw how the slaves suffered in Egypt. God heard their cry for help. And God said, “I feel sorry for them, and I have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians. (Exodus 3:7b-8, CEV). Lazarus, the poorest but the only named character of all of Jesus’ stories found a spokesperson in Abraham. Lazarus never said a word, but when he was too weak to speak, Abraham spoke for him and protected him from further exploitation of the wealthy. Jesus ate with Zacchaeus on behalf of the poor. While eating with Zacchaeus, Jesus might have told him, “What a sumptuous meal. We are eating such a luxurious meal because a lot of people out there are dying of hunger. Zacchaeus, how could you eat too much, while others suffer from want?” “Lord, I will give half of my property to the poor. And I will now pay back four times as much to everyone I have ever cheated”, Zacchaeus responded (Luke 19:8). Jesus made friends with the rich for the sake of the poor. He climbed up to make friends with those at the top for the benefit of those who were at the bottom.

2. Contrary to what we traditionally know, the powerful Pharaohs, kings and wealthy people need the poor and powerless! Pharaohs and kings could not imagine a slaveless kingdom. The rich man could not conceive a life without Lazarus. He needed Lazarus very badly. His five brothers, who were also undeniably rich and powerful, needed Lazarus, too. Lazarus asked nothing from the rich man. He did not even ask anything from Abraham. Could you imagine life in the first world without the third world? Will there be life in Hong Kong, Singapore and New York minus the domestic helpers and nurses from poor Asian countries? The poor servants make life and lifestyle possible for the rich. Those who are in power should always be responsible and be held accountable in their exercise of power. Power must be liberating, not dominating.

3. Liberation must be ecumenical and start from below. It was the slaves’ strong desire and determination to get out from their difficult condition that brought them to freedom. They overcame their fear from the consequences of their decision, from Pharaoh’s fury or the harshness of the wilderness. They had nothing, but amazingly, they lacked nothing! (Exodus 16:16). There were complaints and murmurings in the wilderness. But everybody decided to move forward in the midst of uncertainty, scarcity and difficulty, instead of going back to slavery. They chose freedom over material security. Freedom is the essence of humanness. The poor slaves, wanderers, disinherited, landless and powerless have something in common – liberation. The people who escaped from Egypt were a ‘mixed multitude’ of slaves. Poor, sick and exploited people are ecumenical in perspective. Jesus healed 10 lepers of different races. They were together not because of race or sex, but of their common need for healing. They were all healed regardless of race, sex or theological orientation. They were all healed because they were all sick. The one who came back to thank Jesus was a Samaritan (foreigner).

Liberation from below was very clear from our stories. The mayor, two popular presidents of the Philippine Republic, the university and seminary presidents who were ousted and later replaced not by violent or bloody upheaval but by peaceful ‘people power’ movements. Changes were done through the masses or ‘mixed multitudes’ of people. This is a fact, proven by experiences and explained by biblical theology that everybody should reckon with.