cover l editorial l chapter 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l 8 l 9 l 10 l

I.  Churches And Peace In The Philippines

     The joint effort undertaken by the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) and the Catholic Bishops Conference in the Philippines (CBCP) in regard to the current peace effort in the Philippines is historically unprecedented and considered crucial in the possible success of the peace process. War has been going on internally in the Philippines for at least forty years. Historians of guerrilla war, in fact, point out that some form of guerrilla warfare has been going on continuously in the Philippines for the last one hundred years, giving the Philippines the dubious distinction of having one of the longest history of internal armed conflict in the world. The present stage of this internal armed conflict has been going on for twenty five years. Since 1972, the government has spent up to 199 billion pesos in trying to put down this war. In the same period, 83,000 people have died. When one adds to this the undocumented stories of broken homes, unfulfilled dreams, wounded and maimed people, many of whom are non-combatants, many children, women and disabled persons, careers and professional plans that have had to be abandoned, it has become clear that whatever “justice” there might be in the pursuit of these wars  may  have  been,  if they have not already, overtaken by their costs. If as some have claimed, there is some justice to war, there seems to be no remaining justice to a war that has become too long, too burdensome and too costly amidst an economic, social and political condition that remains so difficult for country and people.

     There was therefore a general sigh of relief and approval when the present government announced a policy of peace and negotiations rather than military victory to try to come to a settlement of the various armed conflicts. The fact that when this effort was launched the Churches were tapped to give assistance to it may have been dictated by practical political considerations. Of the various institutions of Philippine society, we were told, the Churches remain the most credible; it is important therefore to tap ecclesial moral influence in order to place the effort on viable and sustainable grounds. Moreover, the Churches have people, in fact, organized people and constituencies, so that their networks are important in providing a popular base for the peace effort. Finally, it has been recognized that the Churches, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, have been pioneers in pushing the “peace agenda,” have had in fact various “peace programs,” and have been involved in a wide variety of peace efforts so that they constituted a vast reservoir of insight and wisdom in regard to the issue of peace and how it might be historically attained.

      Thus when the National Unification Commission (NUC) was set up to propose and draft a “process that would lead a comprehensive, lasting and just peace,” two persons from the Church, one Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant, were asked to serve in it. Thus, also, when the commission began to do its work in earnest, one of the key points made by this ecclesial presence was to insure that the peace process be rooted in clear moral grounds and be open to popular sentiment and prescriptions. A principled and popular peace process constituted the two brackets, as it were, within which the ecclesial presence in the peace effort operated.

     The result is now history. Using the organizational and institutional network of the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, one of the most extensive consultative process was put in motion from December of last year until May of this year, with the view in mind of eliciting the broadest popular contribution to what might be a “peace agenda” in the Philippine context, what the “root causes” of war are perceived to be, and what might be done to lay the foundations of a possible “peaceful settlement.”

      Co-convened by people from the CBCP and the NCCP, 14 regional consultations, 76 provincial consultations, and hundreds of town consultations were organized across the whole country that put together people from Church groups, governmental and non-governmental organizations and people’s organizations in a common effort at welding a viable peace process. Behind this effort is the notion that peace is not a matter of negotiating the ongoing “armed conflicts” but must more importantly be rooted in a “social compact” through which people can commonly identify the critical issues that cause suffering and injustice and resolve to work together to deal with these issues without resorting to the use of arms against each other.

      Whether or not the effort will bear the fruit it is hoped to bear remains to be seen. On the ecclesiastical and ecumenical plane however the common involvement has already brought about a concrete result. Both the CBCP and NCCP have decided to engage in serious exploration of the possibility of setting up a “Joint Peace Secretariat” in order to put a continuing structure to the joint effort that both bodies have been engaged in together and in which both bodies have invested much time and effort. The pressure of a common concern, or perhaps of a common “calling” that is buttressed by a common commitment to be a vehicle for people’s sentiment and aspirations has led to a situation where the effort towards a “joint structure” is set in motion. Presumably, as the joint effort continues and the joint structure becomes more firmly established, broader issues of ecclesiastical relations will begin to be talked about. Presumably also a more serious and deeper sharing of “life with life” will insinuate itself into the joint effort so that the question of “those things that divide” and “those things that unite” are placed in a more vibrant and active theological and missiological context.

II.  Seek Peace And Pursue It

      The efforts towards peace in the Philippines illustrate the profound challenge that the search for peace, the task of concilia­tion and the peaceful settlement of conflict pose to the Church and to the ecumenical movement in our time. The involvement of Churches in the effort towards reunification and conciliation in Korea, the peace efforts being exerted in Sri Lanka, and the ecumenical concern towards reconciliation and understanding between people in mainland China and in Taiwan illustrate some of the critical areas in which the search for and pursuit of peace are presently in motion. They also illustrate the fact that while the “end of the 'cold war' may have brought some solace and hope to our divided world, the full “peace dividend” of that historical event remains in fact unfulfilled and indeed has brought us to a more realistic and less “ideological” perception of the “roots of war.” It should also bring us to a more conscious effort at understanding that it means for us, as we have so affirmed at the last Assembly of the Christian Conference of Asia, to declare that “Christ is our Peace,” and whether or not we are prepared to put the full weight of ecumenical witness to bear upon one of the final affirmations of the Seoul Convocation on “Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation” for the Church and the ecumenical movement to work towards the renunciation of war as an instrument of social and political policy and of the relations between nations and peoples.

      The moral and theological imperative of peace faces us starkly in the face in a region where the remnants of old wars remain, and the roots of new wars continue to persist, and in a still simmering political situation where resort to violence is all too easily made as an instrument of social and political strategy. It might be instructive at this point to note the theological bases on which the Churches in the Philippines laid their efforts at peacemaking. “We are committed to peace,” wrote the Officers of the NCCP in 1987. This is a commitment, they continued, “that is not borne out of the practicalities of political adjustment, or of the vagaries of military strategy. It is a commitment, on the contrary, that is rooted in our being as Christians and in our calling as Churches. Peace is what the ministry of Christ is all about. It is for peace that Christ came and gave His life for the life of the world... ‘He shall,” writes the Prophet Isaiah, “...judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into prunning hooks; and nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.’  We are inheritors of this work of peace. We believe in the vision it projects of a society and a world in which people need no longer learn or teach the ways of war.” Earlier, the NCCP in a joint letter with the National Christian Council of Japan, also noted that “Peace is the imperative of our times... Genuine peace, (however), is one that is founded upon justice, righteousness, solidarity and love. It is not only the absence of war, but the dismantling of root causes and the restoration of shared life in which no one oppresses the neighbor.”

      The CBCP sound the same notes in their various pronouncements on peace. Issuing a Pastoral Letter under the title “Seek Peace and Pursue It,” the Catholic Bishops laid down a ten point program for peace in which they call not only for a cessation of hostilities but for reforms and the political will to address “root causes” and the injustices that infect Philippine society. Noting a key point in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the centennial of which was only recently celebrated, the Catholic Bishops call for a restoration of peace. They call in short for an end to violence, but beyond that a restoration of the refinement of human relations so that people do not act as “wolves” against each other even when they are in pursuit of presumed justifiable ends. As the recent Encyclical Centesimus Annus has so sharply pointed out, the restoration of “peace is built on the foundation of justice,” so that what was essential in the work of peace is the “proclamation of the fundamental conditions for justice in the economic and social situation of the time” (Centesimus Annus, p.10).

III.  Some Regional Realities And Issues

      Looking now more broadly but also generally at the Asian region through the prism of “peace with justice,” an amazing but also challenging world of change and contrasts confront us starkly in the face. From the political turmoils that dominated our region in the sixties and the seventies, what marks off our part of the world as we come to the end of the 20th century falls more dramatically in the economic realm. John Naisbitt and Patricia Aburdene in their Megatrends 2000 describe what is referred to as the Asia Pacific Rim in nearly incredulous but factual terms. Asia, they note, is a $3 trillion market that is growing at a rate of $3 billion a week. We are, in short, at the center of the fastest growing economies of the world. The most dramatic in this fantastic area of economic growth is the People’s Republic of China, not so long ago the country of Red Guards, Mao caps, and the Cultural Revolution. China grew by a phenomenal 12.8% in its Gross National Product (GNP) in 1992, and in the first quarter of 1993, the same GNP grew by 14.1%, which caused some consternation among economic planners who have decided to “cool down” the economy lest it “overheats” too much. The province of Gunagdong, which is just across the border from the New Territories where the new headquarters of the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) is located, grew in 1992 by 22% in GNP, clearly the highest in the world.

      The triangular area bounded by Los Angeles, Tokyo and Sydney will soon edge out as the trading center of the world the Atlantic triangle bounded by the old cities of New York, London and Paris. This possible shift is more monumental in importance and impact than the shift that took place five hundred years ago when the economic center of the world moved from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. The reason for this is that in addition to its growing economic power, Asia is also the home of half of the world’s population. By the year 2000, Asia will have two thirds of the world’s population while Europe will have only six per cent. Moreover, Naisbitt and Aburdene note, this large population is largely “non-Christian,” although the equally amazing thing in this regard is that while Asia remains culturally “non-Christian” it is also the region of the world where there is the fastest growth of Christian Churches, although the growth does not necessarily belong to the so-called “mainline” Churches. To put it briefly, the Asia Pacific region is undergoing the fastest period of economic expansion in history, growing five times the growth rate during the Industrial Revolution, but its economic growth will be accompanied by major cultural and religious implications.

      Asia, in short, is in one of the more dramatic periods in its history. A new Asia literally is emerging, where its traditional religious pluralism now provides the religious and cultural back­drop for an amazing fast pace of economic growth and the rise of a commercial, financial and industrial society. Questions related to new political and social formations will emerge, as will questions about new patterns of relationship among the nations of the region and collectively of the relationships the Asian nations will have with the rest of the world. Obviously, questions about the meaning of “evangelization” and of the pastoral responsibility of the Church in such a context will also emerge. New forms of spirituality are emerging, and will touch upon the traditional religious cultures of the region as they will touch upon the traditional modes of Christian expressions. The theme that the CCA has chosen for its forthcoming Asia Mission Conference, “Witnesses Together Amidst Asian Pluralism,” tries to catch something of the challenge of this emerging and dynamic religious, economic, social and political pluralism.

      Some of the specific ecumenical concerns we have drawn up in the CCA fall within the periscopic view of these regional realities. Here only a selective and cursory listing can be noted: 

A.      The question of “the economy as a matter of faith” – an issue that of late has become a major focus of attention in ecumenical discussion – must be seen in Asia in the context of two countervailing and contrasting realities. On the one hand, Asia is still the place where some of the poorest and least developed societies in the world are found. It is home, in this sense, of a very large number of people who continue to live under conditions of “absolute poverty.” While statistically the percentages of those who live in “absolute poverty” in relation to the whole population has dropped, the hard numbers remain very high. Amidst a period of high economic growth in various areas of the region, the question of the “poor” and of “absolute poverty” begins to be looked upon as a matter of “technical” or “cultural” deficiency. Its social and political character is lost, and indifference to it begins to settle in and become endemic. The “poor,” in other words, become even more invisible, inaudible, and negligible, because by the indicators of economic and social engineering, their predicament is marginal if not inconsequential. The issue of “justice” as over against the issue of “growth” must in this context be a primal issue of concern. The issue of the empowerment of the poor whether in social, political or cultural terms must continue to be prominent in the ecumenical agenda.

          On the other hand, as the growth towards greater affluence intensifies new questions must engage the ecumenical mind as well, and with a greater sense of urgency. Questions of sustainability and just distribution, of the quality of life and of emerging new life styles, of new quantities and demands of consumer goods, of new contacts among peoples and nations hitherto unexperienced as in the case of the new wave of tourism, of new areas of diplomacy among nations, and of new relationships among peoples who have not been in contact with each other before, and many others must be given attention. Will the economic growth give rise to greater injustice and loss of the quality of life? Will it lead to a cultural decay or provide the opportunity for a cultural renaissance? Much of the answers to this question will depend upon the response of cultural and religious communities, of which the Christian community is one ingredient.

B.      Crucial economic factors will inject themselves in the political relations among nations and peoples. The worsening debt crisis, for example, will strain international relations more seriously in the coming years ahead. Within no more than twenty years, which is quite sudden in global historical terms, many of the poorer nations of the world – and many of these are in Asia and the Pacific – have found themselves trapped in a permanently crippling vice of financial debt from which there is no prospect of release anywhere in sight. What insight and action we can direct towards this issue of international economic relations will become more crucial in the coming years ahead. Amidst glowing reports of regional economic growth, the debt crisis is considered the “black hole” of economic life today. It raises ques­tions of by whom and for whom is economic growth taking place. What does it mean that in the Christian and Biblical tradition we pray “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors?” Without doubt, this is one of the critical areas in which faith must raise questions concerning the state of the economy and of the economic system within which we all live. In our time, the debt crisis has become in fact a regional issue of crucial magnitude.

C.      The issue concerning the state of the “working class,” about which the Encyclical Rerum Novarum was concerned at the turn of the century and at the dawn of the Industrial Age must be looked at with added dimensions in our time and place. Beyond the state of the working class itself in its native habitat in factory and industry, we are confronted in Asia with the phenomenon of migrant labor. The statistics concerning Filipino migrant workers alone are staggering: millions in the Middle East; over 80,000 in Hong Kong; up to 60,000 in Singapore; thousands more in Korea, Taiwan and Japan. The statistics concerning other countries must be equally astounding. The questions which this raises go beyond the questions of the conditions of work; they involve the nature of the work itself and of the chastity of the worker, questions of inter-cultural and family life, legal standards in a multi­national context and other human problems that are way beyond the initial considerations of “capital” and the “working class.” In the life and work of the Christian Conference of Asia, this issue has begun to attain a position of great significance. It seems clear that as the uneven and competitive economic growth intensifies in the coming years ahead, the issue of migrant labor will become equally more intense. A number of major programmatic events in the calendar of the CCA are attempts to begin to bring this issue to the attention of Asian Churches.

D.      The growing affluence of the region poses more sharply the question of “gender equality.” The issue is increasingly beyond the question of the equality between women and men but about the new roles that persons of both sexes are increasingly being called to play in social and ecclesiastical life. The demands of the increasing professional roles of women and men and of the involvement of both in the common arenas of commerce and industry pose questions about the relationship and expected modicum of behavior of one in regard to the other. It is for this reason that the question of gender representation has become in the life of the CCA an issue of justice and therefore a matter of social and religious imperative. A revision in the proposed new Constitution of the CCA enshrines this principle and this issue in the center of the CCA’s structure. It becomes a “statement of principle” of ecumenical life and participation. It is equally clear that this issue will press itself more strongly on ecclesiastical life and organization in the coming years ahead. To the degree that the Church deals with this issue critically and judiciously, to that degree also it can give a foretaste of what the transformation of this very basic ingredient of social life can be.

E.       Finally, amidst the issues of economic, social and political policy and practice, we have become much more cognizant of the enormous threats to the environment and the ecological health of our world. Creation, we have begun to realize in increasingly alarming proportions, “groans in agony.” The symptoms are clear and foreboding. The cumulative threats of global warming, the destruction of the protective ozone layer, land degradation through deforestation, erosion, desertification, salinization and pollution of water, air and land have reached a point where our planet is coming close to being unable to give the natural environment and protection for human life and survival. In various countries of Asia, environmental and ecological destruction is severe. The assessment of the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra is telling:

          It is shocking and frightening for us that the human species on this earth, which came on the scene somewhere around 80,000 years ago, in the 4.5 billion year-long history of this earth, has been able to threaten the very foundations of life on our planet in only about two hundred years of industrialization.

          The issue is not a technical issue only. It is also a highly political, economic and cultural and religious issue as well. For some, for example, it is an issue of who is responsible for the degradation and destruction of the environment and who should pay for its restoration and rehabilitation. In whatever way the issue is posed, it is a common issue of “survival” of creation. It has to be recognized as an issue of great theological and missiological significance.

IV.  Some Concluding Remarks

      I started by suggesting that the pressure of a common engagement and calling might be the proper context within which the issue of ecclesiastical relations might be located. Let me end by pursuing this point in two related areas of reflection:

A.      Those of us who have worked in ecumenical organizations have always affirmed that the Church should not only be a part of the ecumenical movement but is and must be an ecumenical movement. Its life in this sense must encompass the oikoumene, the whole inhabited world. There is nothing, in this sense, in the whole inhabited world that is outside the pale of its concern and the ambit of its life. It is in fact to the degree that it recognizes this that it also recognizes and recovers more fully its being One, Holy, Catholic Church. For this reason, the question of Christian unity is both a theological and missiological question. The unity of the Church must be seen in terms of its missionary task, in terms, in short, of its relationship with and sense of obligation to the “oikoumene” in which it is called to be the Church. For this reason, too, the sense of ecumenical relationship must start with a sense of a common agenda of concerns.

B.      The sense of dramatic change I have noted above is specially important because we are on the threshold not only of the end of a decade, and of a century, but also of a millennium. As we approach the year 2000, the millennium is reemerging as a powerful metaphor for the future. The word millennium comes from the Latin “mille” which means “1000.” The Biblical millennium refers to the 1000 year period after Christ’s Second Coming, when the Kingdom of God is believed to be established on earth after a final, apocalyptic battle between Christ and the anti-Christ. On the secular plane, the millennium has come to symbolize a golden age of human history, a time to close the door on the past, embark upon a new era, and open a new door to the future.

      Like the ancient drama, the end of the millennium is beginning to ignite visions of a better world, alongside nightmares of the cataclysmic  and  apocalyptic  end of the world.  Already, one expectation that the world would come to an end had come and gone in Manila, much to the embarrassment of some Korean missionaries. Another one ended in a “hell of fire” in Waco, Texas. On the secular plane, President Fidel V. Ramos of the Philippines has made “Philippines 2000” the slogan of his administration and of his plans for economic recovery and for the country to become a New Industrialized Country (NIC) . More internationally, as we note with gratitude the signing of a nuclear arms agreement and of a Middle East Peace Agreement, we come face to face with what scientists call the threatening “greenhouse effect.”

      This is part of the millennial atmosphere and of the millennial challenge. What, we might ask, of Christianity and the ecumenical movement in Asia? Are we going to plan boldly for the year 2000, or are we going to drift with business as usual? Are we going to open new doors or are we going to be stuck with the old doors of the past? It is propitious that this meeting takes place at this time and in such an atmosphere. Hopefully, it will in fact begin to open new doors and be a point of embarkation to a new and more vibrant era of Christian life and movement.

cover l editorial l chapter 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l 8 l 9 l 10 l