|
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 TRANSFORMING CHRISTOLOGY IN More than fifty years ago, a man inside a lonely prison cell wrote the following words: “What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us” [LPP, 279; Kelly, 1984:29]. The question of who Christ really is seems to be a persistent preoccupation not only among pastors and theologians but even among public entertainers. As a matter of fact, Timothy Rice and Charles Weber, authors of the now famous rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar,” have succeeded in raising a fundamental theological question for our time. The now familiar chorus of their song goes this way:
Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ. The question “Who Jesus Christ is?”, is a basic question that every Christian has to wrestle with. The New Testament had dealt with this question in a direct way. It was Jesus Christ himself who raised with his disciples the question of his identity: “Who do you say I am?” [Mt. 16:15; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20]. Simon Peter who was the more articulate among the disciples, had a classic answer. He said: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” This became Peter’s declaration about Jesus Christ. It became a classic declaration, remembered and repeated by every Christian for almost twenty centuries. We must point out, following the work of feminist biblical scholars, that Martha’s declaration is as profound and as full of conviction as that of Peter’s. With all the weight of a woman’s conviction, Martha declared: “I do believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” [John 11:27]. These early declarations about Jesus Christ had been abbreviated into a creedal acronym as ICTHUS which means “Jesus Christ, God’s Son and Saviour.” The acronym, by the way, happens to form the Greek letters for the word FISH. That is why FISH was the symbol of early Christianity. This paper aims to present an understanding of Jesus Christ which is at the center of the forces and processes of transformation in church and society. “Transforming” is used here as an adjective that modifies the noun “Christology”. Simply put, what is presented and described in this paper is a Christology that brings about transformation in church and society in the Philippines. The experience of Filipinos [as well as other Asians] who are suffering and struggling are never interested in discussing Christology in its orthodox, classical and academic formulation. Academic discussion on the doctrine of Christ is not the concern of people whose survival is constantly threatened, those who make do with isang-kahig-isang-tuka existence [like a chicken’s “one scratch, one pick” existence]. What is needed is a Christology that is focussed on the story of the pasyon [life and suffering] of Jesus. It is a Christology that is related with experiences and aspirations of the people. It is a Christology, says a young Filipino theologian [Eleazar S. Fernandez], “that helps to illuminate the people’s struggle for true humanity and peoplehood”. [Fernandez, 1994:98]. Inspired by the trail-blaizing work of Fernandez, let me present a Christology that speaks of the struggle of the Filipino people for personal and social transformation. It is, first of all, an understanding of the life and work of Jesus “gleaned from the Filipino religious tradition and especially from the people’s popular culture and religiosity.” This is an understanding of Christ which is drawn from a particular view of Jesus of the gospels. Secondly, this particular view of Jesus cannot but recognize the diverse portraits or images of Jesus. These varied images help enrich our attempt at constructing a Filipino Christology. This constructive approach to Christology attempts at “a synthesis of the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus that has become part of the lives of the struggling Filipinos.” In this synthesis, I would reiterate the common themes found in the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus portrayed in Filipino popular religiousity.
The first part of the paper describes the different portrayals of Jesus
Christ in different historical situations in the Philippines. The second
part deals with the challenge of Jesus Christ to the new Filipino.
Thirdly, the paper attempts to present a Filipino Christology that seems
as an impetus in bringing about a liberationist transformation in church
and society. 2. Different Portraits Of Christ In Filipino Religious Literature In a pioneering study by Fr. Jose M. Francisco, S.J. using Filipino literature, three different portrayals of Christ, each arising from different historical situations [Francisco, 1977:186-214]. Using Filipino religious and secular literature from the period of Spanish colonization up to the post-World War II, Francisco has drawn three changing images of Jesus Christ. The first image projects Jesus Christ as a model or exemplar for humankind. This image arose during the era of Spanish colonization. This Christ-image was the foundational structure in the establishment of the Filipino Catholic society. After a century of Hispanization, the poblacion in a typical Philippine municipality is comprised with the following: one would find a church made of stone at the center of the town; facing the church across the main street is the presidencia or municipal hall; down the road are the residencia of the elites. This established catholic society in the Philippines during the 18th century shaped the types of Filipino literature. Francisco uses the analogy of a religious procession to describe the shape of Filipino literature. It started inside the church which shows writings related with ritual and doctrinal matters. From the church it comes out to the main street with writings that are used in homes like pasyon, songs, and koridos, until they reached the public plaza where zarzuelas [plays and drama] were staged. When the 19th century came, continues Francisco, Catholic society was well-established and worn like a lady’s dress that covers even the sole of the feet which, according to a play [Urbana at Feliza], should not be exposed to the public [Francisco, 1977:191]. With this Catholic society, the predominant image of Christ that emerged as reflected in religious and secular literature, is a Christ who is an exemplar to humankind. Christ as a model of what? Christ as an exemplar of what? Christ was portrayed in many literature as “model of humankind” because of his life and death which should be followed or imitated by Filipinos. There are four variations, according to Francisco, in the image of Christ as an exemplar to humanity. First, a Christ who is exemplar in his self-surrender to God’s will as well as a Christ who is intimately linked with his followers that they owe him a profound debt of gratitude. Second, an image of Christ who challenges his followers to be obedient to parents and to the requirements of the church. This is part of what it means to surrender oneself to God. In this variation, Christ is portrayed as one who is “meek, humble, and good-natured.” People should follow him because of these traits [Francisco, 1977:194]. The third variation in the image of Christ as exemplar of humankind is more inclusive in scope Christ is portrayed as having an over-all trait of being calm, composed and long-suffering. As such, Christ must be the model in all aspects of human life. Unfortunately for Filipinos, this dominant variation of Christ-image was a convenient and effective way of silencing and controlling the indios [a pejorative term used by the Spaniards to the Filipino natives]. Obviously, the Spaniards used this image to the hilt in perpetuating the extent of their imperial power. But there is yet a fourth variation. It is still Christ as an exemplar of humankind but it is a portrayal of Christ who demands humanity’s solidarity with God and with fellow human beings. It is an image of Christ who disliked division and conflict because these are contrary to the irritation of God. It was this image of Christ that emerged from the teachings of Apolinario dela Cruz or Hermano Pule. He organized a confraternity named Confradia de San Jose in 1832 which led a people’s revolt against Spain in 1841 [Ileto, 1979:37f].
According to the teachings of Hermano Pule, the Christ who should be
exemplar for our life is One whom we could have an intimate and personal
relationship with. The official Catholic church established by the
Spaniards portrayed a Christ who is so detached from daily life. The second image of Christ found in Filipino literature and history is one that portrayed Christ as the foundation or basis of moral order in society. This Christ-image emerged during the period of the American occupation. What does it mean for a Christ-image to be moral foundation in society? The literature of this era presents the Christ-image as “the basis of moral order” and as “the rationality behind the universe,” because Jesus is the judge of people’s life and destiny [Francisco, 1977:199]. Toward the turn of the twentieth century, a little known Filipino playwright wrote a play with Christ or a Christ-image as its central character. This was Aurelio Tolentino. His play presents an image of Christ “thoroughly thought through; seen walking among Filipinos in their daily struggle, and expressed in the uniquely Filipino way from the beginning to end” [Yatco, 1983:15]. Tolentino, like the more famous Andres Bonifacio, was born and reared in Tondo, an old district of Manila. After finishing his Bachiller en Artes from San Juan de Letran, he worked as a clerk in the Court of First Instance. His nationalistic inclination drew him into the circles of Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, and was involved in the work of the KATIPUNAN, a secret revolutionary society founded by Bonifacio on July 7, 1892. Soon after the Filipino revolution against Spain broke out, Tolentino was arrested by the Spanish authorities. From his recollection of the incident, Tolentino writes: “In September 1896, two weeks after the outbreak of the revolution, they took me out of my house, arrested me and put chains upon my feet” [E Arsenic Manuel, Dictionary of Philippine Biography. Vol. 2. Q.C. Filipinas Publications, 1970:373]. Fortunately, Tolentino made use of his time in jail for his literary outputs. One of the several plays he penned is a three-act socialist play, Bagong Christo [New Christ] in 1907. In this play, he articulated his belief on the “right relationship between labor and capital and on the bright future that was in store for the Filipino laborers” [Yatco, 1983:20]. The central character in the play is named JESUS GATBIAYA. Gatbiaya’s concern was to conscienticize the wealthy factory owners to the conditions of the poor laborers as well as to unite the laborers and provide them the hope for a bright future. The play begins [Act I] with a shattering confrontation between the factory owners [Don Berto and Don Magdangal] and the laborers led by Cabosang Andoy. Magdangal accuses Andoy of his blunder why he let the fool [Jesus Gatbiaya] talk to the people. Andoy defends Gatbiaya for helping the laborers with their problems. Because of these favors from Gatbiaya, the laborers call him as the “New Christ,” a fact that further enraged Magdangal even more. At this point, Gatbiaya arrived and the workers cheered him. Magdangal, who wants to prove his power, started to push some of the workers. Gatbiaya calmly challenged Magdangal and started to tell the workers to sit down and started to speak these words: “The greed of the wealthy is the cause of your misery. Hence, you must unite against the selfish capitalists; you have a bright future. Even the poor can enjoy prosperity if the rich pay them with what is really theirs.” Gatbiaya’s words enraged Magdangal even more that he slapped Gatbiaya. Fortunately, the Governor who was sympathetic with Gatbiaya heard about the incident. The Governor called for a dialogue between Gatbiaya and Magdangal. The meeting became an occasion for an exchange of invectives between the two protagonists. Realizing the operation of the factory had been paralyzed by the striking laborers, Magdangal and his cohorts plotted to kidnap and kill Gatbiaya. Act II starts with a tensed situation with Jesus Gatbiaya nowhere to be found. The Mother of Gatbiaya, Dolores [together with other women] started to search for Gatbiaya. Meanwhile, in the forest where the kidnappers brought Gatbiaya were forcing him to carry the post where he will be executed. But Gatbiaya refused to cooperate and just remained silent. The leader of the kidnappers hit Gatbiaya and he fell down unconscious. Soon Gatbiaya’s followers [along with his mother] arrived. Upon seeing her unconscious son, Dolores screamed to high heavens. Amid the confusion, Andoy’s two daughters were being abused by the bandits. Andoy tried to defend them but was over-powered by the bunch of criminals with a stab at his back. When Gatbiaya regained consciousness, he sees the three women [Dolores, Neneng and Biheng] with the slain Andoy. Meanwhile, Magdangal and cohorts were about to tie the two women to the trees when the Governor [together with the Judge and policemen] arrived. Magdangal and cohorts were arrested, while Gatbiaya was freed to return to the town. The third part [Act III] begins with another form of oppression. Inside a barrio chapel was a Spanish friar welcoming worshippers saying: “Buy candles and wax figures, make an offering to the miraculous graces and give to the alms box... God will favor you listen to your problems, and you will be in good health.” Among the people in the crowd are Gatbiaya, Neneng and the laborers. The friar was attracted by the chain dangling on Neneng’s breast and puts his hand on it. Neneng was shocked, and instinctively slapped the friar, an incident that caused a little commotion. Gatbiaya took the advantage to unmask the real character of the friar as a pretender like “the Scribes and Pharisees who killed Jesus.” “Don’t believe this man’s miracles; they are his ways of taking advantage of the ignorant... Open your eyes to the realities of the present life... Wake up to your value as human beings” [Yatco, 1983:29]. While Gatbiaya was speaking, two men stabbed him at the back then flee immediately. The crowd was shocked with unbelief and could only sigh: “JESUS!” With this, the curtain falls. This is how Aurelio Tolentino portrayed the Christ-image – Jesus Gatbiaya, the man who unselfishly lived and fought for the working Filipino people. His life was a concrete proof that justice in society is the same as the commands of God. Or where justice reigns, there reigns Christ. The theme in the writing of Tolentino was reinforced by other nationalist writers such as Jose Corazon de Jesus [Bavan Ko], Lope K. Santos [Banaag at Sikat], and Crisanto Evangelista. From their pens we see the perennial pair: the quest for justice is the quest for love. In these writings, the theme about Christ being the model in the world was replaced by the theme in which Christ is portrayed as the foundation of moral order in society. What is stressed is the conviction that the moral order is based on the person of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we can see the Christ-image whether in realist literature or in romantic one, these literary works are consistent critique to the self-seeking and decadent lifestyle in Philippine society. The third portrait of Jesus Christ in Philippine literature is that Christ as the “Messiah of society”. This Christ-image emerged in the literature of the post-World War II era. Among those who attempted a portrayal of Jesus as Messiah of society is Alejandro G. Abadilla who insists that the road toward moral order is no longer found in romantic love nor in realistic analysis of society. Rather, it is found in the liberation of individual emotion. This seems to be the message of Abadilla’s novel [Pagkamulat ni Magdalena] where in the Christ-image proclaimed “I am the world”. While the moral order is still important, the fundamental basis for this is in a free spirit – the Messiah of society. In the work of Teo S. Baylen, the importance of Jesus Christ as the basis for the moral order in society emphasizes the need for resistance, that is, transforming struggle of the Christ-image who accepts responsibility in society and as the coming of the “voice of the future.” This literature became thoroughly nationalist and radical due to the intense political contradiction in the Philippines since 1964 up to the proclamation of Martial Law in 1972. Among the famous literary figure during this time was Amado V. Hernandez who wrote Isang Dipang Langit [A Stretch of Heaven] and Luha ng Buaya [Crocodile’s Tears]. Through his works and political involvement, Ka Amado was imprisoned with the charge of “rebellion complexed with other crimes”. His poems, especially those written in jail, tell us of his deep searching for religious meaning. [Cf. Andres Cristobal Cruz, “Ka Amado: Bartolina at Barikada,” Philippine Studies 19 (1971), 268]. In his “Ang Aking Panauhin” [My Visitor], Ka Amado portrays Christ as “the visitor” who expressed the wish that
“before I return again What is portrayed in this simple verse is a new understanding of Christ who strives to bring about transformation for the good of society. This Christ-image who works for change in society was given a more forceful and convincing portrayal in Kay Amado’s novel Luha ng Buaya. The Christ-image is the character of Andres, the leader of the urban poor who is willing to sacrifice for his fellow squatters. Through his sincere and committed struggle, the lives of others became more humane and meaningful. To him, this is the meaning and the measure of true religion, that is, true religion promotes a humane and humanizing existence. In short, with this clear portrayal of Christ as the Messiah of society, it is not impossible to succeed in our struggle towards humane life. It is also clear that religion plays a significant part in the struggle. What is common among the literary figures of this period is not only their courage to visualize a humane society but also their passion and rage in carrying out their vision to actual reality. Francisco concludes his pioneering study on the changing portrait of Christ in Filipino literature with this words: “Now the poor and the oppressed who struggle for a humane existence are the Christ-image in our society. Their experience is the same as that of Christ’s crucifixion. The Christ-image ended in cruel death, they became victim of a monstrous system that is established in our society” [Francisco, 1977:208].
Despite the fate of the Christ-image in these literary works, hope is
never lost in the struggle because to struggle is to hope. It is through
the struggle that one becomes not only enlightened but emboldened to work
for freedom and abundant life. This is the message of Jesus as the Messiah
of society. 3. The Challenge Of Jesus Christ To The New Filipino Generation Now that we have discussed the changing images of Jesus Christ in Filipino literature and history, let us go back to the original question of Jesus “Who do you say that I am?” In doing this, we hope to answer the question whether or not our faith in Jesus Christ is important and necessary in our search for our true Filipino identity. We need to understand the context in Matthew 16:13-16. We need to be clarified about why Jesus raised the question concerning his identity to is disciples. It was a time towards the end of Jesus’ public ministry. It was a time of impending crisis for him and for the disciples. Likewise, for us, wrestling with the same fundamental question would bring a time of crisis for us who are considered modern day disciples. It is critical because to answer his question is to respond to his challenge and his call for genuine discipleship. In other words, it is a moment of decision for us. Furthermore, to declare that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah] is critical because we have to take seriously the meaning behind our declaration: our words must be validated by our works; our creed must be verified by our deeds. Among the original disciples, it was Simon Peter who articulated an answer to the question. His declaration: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” Yet, Peter himself seemed to misunderstand the meaning of his statement; he did not fully understand what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah. Certainly, the same is true with other disciples. If it was difficult for those who lived, talked and walked with Jesus to fully understand his being a Messiah, how much more difficult for us who are separated by him by TIME [almost 2000 years] and by SPACE [more than 2000 miles]” However, we should not despair by the diversity of answers; neither should we be satisfied by simply repeating Peter’s declaration, or even Martha’s confession. Jesus Christ, who is the living Lord and Master of our life, cannot be confined to any theological and doctrinal formulation. Therefore, we need to personally encounter Jesus as our own Master and Lord” In the process of encountering the risen Christ, we will realize that the “I” who answers the question [“Who do you say that I am?”] needs to be transformed both by the encounter with others who are also answering the same question. Each day will be a meaningful encounter with Jesus who persists in asking “Who do YOU say I am?” In encountering other answers, our beings, our backgrounds and beliefs, our problems and doubts, our hopes and aspirations in life, will be changed. To some of us, this experience may be threatening. But, ultimately, we hope that our personal encounter with Jesus will be a liberating experience. It will bring to us new conviction and commitment to Christ, a proof of the joy of Christian discipleship. During the 1975 World Council of Churches General Assembly at Nairobi [Kenya], the theme was “Jesus Christ Frees and Unites.” In a way, the theme was the WCC’s response or answer to the question of Jesus. Jesus is the LIBERATOR and UNIFIER of humanity. Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian theologian from the USA, expounded on the meaning of the theme. Following Robert M. Brown, let me expound on the meaning of Jesus as our LIBERATOR and UNIFIER and relate these concepts to our contemporary experience in church and society. On the outset, to say that Jesus is our liberator would mean two things. First, Jesus liberates us FROM many things: from sin and the burden of sin; from sickness, death and the fear of death; from slavery and suffering; from hunger and poverty; from all our emotional and spiritual infirmities. Jesus also liberates us from the enslaving love of power, prestige, position and wealth, which are the sources of our false securities. In short, Jesus as liberator frees us FROM sin and death and the false centers of our security. Also, Jesus liberates us FOR many things: to love and to care for others; to have hope and courage in the midst of despair; to have joy and peace in the midst of adversities. In short, Jesus as liberator frees us FOR the “possibility of seeing the world through eyes other than our own.” This is what the theological concept “conversion” means: a radical or fundamental change of outlook and direction. Today, says R. M. Brown, there is a convergence between the biblical belief in Jesus as the liberator and the cry of the oppressed people for liberation. To see the world through the eyes other than our own should mean seeing the world through the eyes of the poor. What would the world look like to half-naked children who go around and scavenge for something to fill in their empty but bulging stomach? We can no longer shut our ears to the overwhelming human suffering of people in our continent. The claim of Jesus to bring freedom and the overwhelming cries of people for freedom converged and cannot be separated. They constitute the antiphonal chorus of the same song. It is imperative, therefore, that as disciples of the Christ we must proclaim the gospel of liberation. To fulfill this task, Brown concretely suggest that we should reachout not only to the “non-believers” but also to the “non-persons” as well. A non-person is the one whom the world ignores, or uses and after using, she/he is crushed and discarded. The non-person is marginalized because her/his cry not only for bread but also from freedom and meaning is simply not heard, and whose personhood is simply violated and denied. Therefore, we cannot talk about the Lordship of Jesus and the reconciling love of God unless the cries of those who are victimized as non-persons become the persistent sound that we hear. We have no right to talk about the redeeming work of Jesus through the cross unless we can see the world through the eyes of the poor and oppressed. We need to be reminded that while Jesus insisted that we cannot live by bread alone, he never pretended that we can live without bread. In fact Jesus portrays the coming of God’s reign with the use of powerful images like abundant feasts and banquets especially prepared for the poor and the dispossessed. He left us a symbol of his loving presence which is concretized through eating and drinking together in the Lord’s Supper. That is why St. Paul admonishes us that we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves if we share the meal with Jesus at the same time we deny meals to millions of God’s people because of our built-in oppressive and exploitative social structures.
It is clear from the biblical accounts that Jesus is not satisfied with
what we know and what we see. We have to act upon what we know and what we
see. There were two men who approach Jesus and asked him the basic
question: “What shall I do to inherit the kingdom of God?” This is the
same question which all of us ask but in a different way. We would say:
“How do I discover the secret of a joyful and happy life? To the two men,
Jesus gave two different answers. To one, he told a story of the Good
Samaritan and concluded it with the challenge: “Go and do likewise!” To
the other, he gave a radical command: “Go, sell your possessions; give to
the poor, then come, and follow me!” 4. Towards A Filipino Christology: Impetus For Transformation In Society Let me now present a Filipino Christology that serves as an impetus in the ministry of bringing about transformation in church and society. In 1987, Benigno Beltran, a Filipino SVD priest published his benchmark study on Filipino Christology. Fittingly, the title is The Christology of the Inarticulate: An Inquiry into the Filipino Understanding of Jesus the Christ. Beltran’s book is a excellent example of doing theology with a deep “faith seeking understanding” and with a committed love for the poor. The study presupposes that the Catholic faith had been mediated to the Filipino culture ever since the Spaniards introduced it in 1521. The study has a two-fold purpose: So find out first what people actually believe about Jesus, and then reflect critically and systematically on the findings to see whether they correlate with what the church wants to teach. [Beltrart, 1987:24]. Furthermore, this study makes use of Lonergan’s theological methodology and asserts that the task of evangelization is basically a “process of communication.” Lonergan speaks of eight functional specialties of doing theology and insists that without the last, i.e., communications, “the fruits of the first seven are in vain for they fail to mature.” Thus, the primarily concern of Beltran in this study is the “inculturation of Christianity in the Philippines on the intellectual dimension of the Christian religion. He raises the question of “effectiveness” of the church’s transmission of her doctrines about Christ to Filipino believers. The question whether Christian doctrines are adequately and appropriately communicated must push theologians to “look for more effective means of communicating and handing down the doctrines of the church.” Let me share with you very briefly the salient findings of the survey. First of all, on the knowledge about the person of Jesus Christ, 98.81% of the respondents believe that Jesus is fully the Son of God; 70.55% agreed with the statement that Christ was created by God the Father. On the knowledge about the functions of Christ, Beltran’s survey indicates that there is a close connection of Jesus’ redemptive, revelative, and creative functions with belief in his divinity. It is also significant that 92% claim that salvation is only possible through Christ; however some 64.31% believe that he could still save human-kind even if he were only a man. It is also interesting to note that while Christian faith maintains the definitiveness and finality of God’s self-revelation in Jesus, 44.38% of the respondents believe that God the Father also revealed himself fully to Buddha and Muhammad [Beltran, 1987:54]. Secondly, aside from the pervasive influence of western theological traditions on the Philippine church, the socio-economic inequity has something to do with the misunderstanding of church teaching about Jesus Christ. There is a direct relation between our understanding [or lack of it] of Christ and the fact that only 3% of the population control 65% of the total wealth in the Philippines. Says Beltran: “One cannot proclaim Jesus as Lord and defend with force a corrupt social order; one cannot declare that Jesus is consubstantial with the God the Father and live casually with injustice, shouting “communists!” whenever anyone suggests a better distribution of wealth” [1987:261]. Another insight from Beltran’s study is that there is a need for a continuing real dialogue and conversation between the people and professional theologians. The task of theological reflection, asserts Beltran, is for every believer; but not everyone should be a professional theologian. “Even if the Church is not a Church of theology professors, the Church needs professors of theology. Professional theologians serve the community by investigating, criticizing, and pointing out the orientations for communal reflections” [264-265]. The dialectical view of the theological task necessitates that the “fruits of the reflection on the Christian faith from the [basic Christian communities must] filter back to the professional theologians [just as] the works of professional theologians have to be communicated back to the people [265]. Fourthly, scientific surveys on the content of the faith like that of Beltran enable us to formulate a comprehensive theoretical framework that makes intelligible and meaningful the ultimate significance of Jesus Christ in the Philippine context. Says Beltran: “Filipino Christology must attempt an exhaustive conceptual construction that answers who God is and what human beings can expect of him in the light of the belief that Jesus is the human being who is the embodiment of God’s eternal, saving, gracious and loving presence. Belief in the Lordship of Jesus has implications not only for the understanding of the human person but also for the ... whole of reality, because in Jesus “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily’ (I Cor. 2:9)” [205]. Fifth, Beltran clarifies the methodological approach of doing Christology in the Philippines. Traditional theology uses the approach of descending Christology or what is now called “Christology from above.” “This approach focuses on the incarnation of the Logos, whose divinity, pre-existence and distinction from the Father and the Holy Spirit are taken for granted as manifestly belonging to the eternal Son of God who took on a human nature.” The contemporary approach, on the other hand, is an ascending Christology or what is now called “Christology from below”. This approach starts with the man Jesus and the experience of the Resurrection. The former approach is criticized for diminishing the humanity of Jesus. Be that as it may, Beltran believes that Filipino Christology must take the approach from below. Why is this so? Because this is the biblical approach: “the New Testament did not begin with the Incarnation but with the events of the Good Friday and the Easter Sunday” [217].
The traditional Christology which had been prevalent in Philippine
Catholicism seemed to have fostered the belief that “everything is already
foreordained” and predisposed the Filipino towards “passivity and
acceptance of things as they are.” The Christology from below, however,
attempts to “come to terms with the new directions which the dynamic
conception of reality has set... [It] puts the stress on the humanity of
Jesus [which] is a more feasible approach towards articulating a rationale
for the struggle for peace and justice in combating all forms of
inhumanity” [219]. In the seventh place, we have noted earlier the very low score [10.3%] of Beltran’s respondents in recognizing the image of the Risen Christ. Why is this so? What seems to be the reasons behind the lack of importance given to the centrality of the resurrection of Christ in Roman Catholic belief and piety? Here are some possible explanations. First, the Easter symbol does not become a charged symbol in the Filipino consciousness because Easter celebration in the Philippines usually coincides with hot season. The summer months in the Philippines do not symbolize the new life that the event resurrection pledges. Second, the celebrations of the Holy Week usually drain the energies of the participants. Third, cultural values are further reinforced by the type of celebration stressed in folk devotions. In fact, the celebration is not really focused on the victory of Christ but more on the joy of Mary. Fourth, the Filipino view of history, argues Beltran further, which does not “expect the new heaven and the new earth minimizes the appreciation of Christ’s resurrection as heralding and guaranteeing the coming of the eschatological kingdom.” [139].
In the eighth place, Beltran correctly raises the implications of
Christology for understanding how life is to be lived, or the meaning of
Filipino spirituality [243-248]. In short, in asking who Jesus is for us,
we also ask the questions of who we are, who is God, and how we should
live if Jesus is the Son of God. The crucial point in Christology is: “If
God acted in Jesus to save the whole human race, then to imitate him is to
participate in the very life of God.” Since a human being is essentially a
related being, one who lives exclusively for oneself is blind to his/her
state of inner oneness with the rest of humanity. If one is to be human,
one must live a life of interrelatedness by caring for those in need.
Being is coming into communion with others. There is no being apart from
relatedness. [244]. Here Beltran points to the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity as a model of a “life-in- relation”. “The Triune God is a
relationship of endless, perfect, mutual self-gift... The Father gives
himself totally to the Son who gives himself in turn to the Father. The
Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son is the bond of their
perfect self-giving love.” The Holy Trinity constitutes a community of
persons involved in the history of women and men. Expounding further on
the Trinity, Beltran writes: “The Father is God-before-us in history, giving life to things that do not yet exist and making ever new beginnings; the Son is Emmanuel, God-with-us, sharing our humanity and our destiny; and the Spirit is God-within-us as the continuing presence of Jesus to human history in a creative and more concrete way in the community of believers” [244].
5. Concluding Statement The struggle to respond to the fundamental question raised by Jesus to all his disciples can be truly achieved in the community of the Triune God. Understood in the Trinitarian model of human existence, i.e., being-in-relation-with-others in history, our identity as Filipino Christians is of necessity an ongoing process of becoming until, in God’s one time, the kingdom of justice and peace is finally established. Meanwhile, the struggle to be Christ-like becomes the primordial pre-occupation of each of us who bears the name of Christ. In the Philippine context, writes a young Filipino theologian and creative artist, “a liberating Christology requires the re-introduction of the Biblical Christ as the ultimate paradigm of being truly human” [Garibay, 1995:46]. But more than this, Garibay firmly recommends, Christianity in the Philippines has to “reaffirm its own history, such that any Christology that evolves should also weave stories of liberation struggles of the Filipino people as a legitimate part of God’s participation in our history. We have to learn how to divined our own martyrs.” Because of this, Garibay made a portrait of Christ who exactly resembles the face of Andres Bonifacio, the founder of the Katipunan. He justifies this bold act with these words: “God’s incarnation if we take it seriously as an event that took place in history should transcend the confines of that one time in human history. God’s incarnation should now be taken as a continuing event that is always taking place whenever people struggle against forces of greed and destruction. God is always within people who fight to restore God’s order in the world. Christology therefore in Philippine context affirms the incarnate presence of God in people who fight for justice and for the dignity of life. Christology is the energizing hope that gave courage to martyrs like Andres Bonifacio and Frank Navarro.” [ibid]
For us who are followers of Jesus Christ in a changing Filipino society,
we have a symbol that accompanies us in the vicissitudes of our struggles.
A permanent companion yet transcending us in our struggle. This symbol is
the LOGOS who, in the beginning, was the Word that became flesh and dwelt
with us[John 1:1,14]. Jesus Christ freely loves us and lives for us so
that we can also freely love and live for the service of others. Jesus
Christ is the concrete manifestation of God’s love who, being in the form
of God, changed his nature to be one with us [Phil. 2:6-7]. Jesus has
shown us what it means to live a life of active concern and commitment for
the well-being of others. This is the life described by St. Paul which has
three characteristics: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest is love [I
Cor. 13:13]. Selected References Beltran, Benigno SVD – 1987 Manila: Divine Word Pub. Cruz, Andres Cristobal – 1971 Francisco, Jose Mario. – 1977 Garibay, Emmanuel.– 1995 University Press. Manuel, E. Arsenio – 1970
by Ms. Laura Somebang-Ocampo This response to Dr. Aoanan’s paper is made from the viewpoint of a layperson whose theological views were formed by experiences in the life and reflections of the ecumenical movement and having once walked in the parliament of the streets. It is also a modest exploration of how Filipinos appreciate the meaning of Jesus Christ. Dr. Aoanan’s presentation provides historical perspective into the Filipino’s understanding of Jesus Christ. Some people have jokingly and, perhaps, simplistically referred to Philippine history as “330 years in the monastery followed by 33 years in Hollywood”. The Spaniards’ conquest of the Philippines was made thru the use of force and Christianity. One of the first acts of Ferdinand Magellan and his crew after they landed on Philippine soil was the celebration of the Mass and the conversion of the local chieftain to Christianity. Christianity, therefore, was the instrument of the conqueror. Succeeding stories of the period of Spanish rule show how the Filipinos embraced a Christ who silently bore suffering in the hope of everlasting life. Likewise, the belief was that people were sinful and that suffering was the only way to atone for one’s sinfulness. Thus, with this introduction to Jesus Christ as one who welcomed suffering as a means to achieve eternal life, the Spaniards were able to gain a stronghold over the country and its people. I agree that this was the common perception of Jesus Christ during those times. However, it must be noted that during the latter part of Spanish rule, numerous revolts were waged, particularly by peasants, against the abuses of Spanish officials and the friars. If the attacks on the authority of the friars was in fact symptomatic of the people’s changing perception of Christ, it may be something of curious importance. I would add two other images introduced during the Spanish period and significant to an understanding of Filipino Christology and religious practices. The Santo Nino or the Child Jesus, whose image, perhaps, is present in most Catholic Filipino homes. The Santo Nino is usually a fair-colored baby garbed in a magnificent gown bedecked with jewels. The face of the Santo Nino is that of innocence; it is that of the Baby Jesus who was born on Christmas day and worshipped by shepherds and kings. Rituals are held where images of the Santo Nino of all sizes are paraded thru the streets on carriages well-lighted and adorned. My memory of these images is certainly not of the Baby dressed in swaddling clothes. I have yet to fully understand this worship of the Santo Nino. The Crucified Christ, the Christ who died and was buried, is the image personifying, in most cases, the suffering Christ. The crucified Christ shows the pain and agony in His face. In other instances, He is portrayed either carrying His cross, or lying dead in a glass casket. Pious faithful walk on their knees and touch their handkerchiefs on the Christ’s suffering face. In one occasion, the menfolk push thru the throng of worshippers and volunteer to carry His cross. Of course, one other ritual that attracts even tourists from other parts of the world, is the reenactment of the crucifixion. Some devotees including women have been crucified repeatedly for several years now and this has become an act of atonement for sins they have committed in the past.
As I was reading Dr. Aoanan’s paper, I recalled that in the summer of
1975, a celebration of the Via Crucis or the Way of the Cross was led by
Christian protesters to Ferdinand Marcos’s martial law regime. Among the
highlights of this celebration was to portray the sufferings of Jesus
Christ thru the sufferings of the oppressed and marginalized sectors in
Philippine society. For instance, at one “station of the cross”, there
would be a presentation of the situation of the indigenous peoples of the
Cordillera who were (at that time) being asked to sacrifice their homes,
fields, burial grounds (their very culture) so that the rest of the island
of Luzon could have electricity. The government had planned to construct
several dams along the Chico River, inundating the homelands of our
brother and sister Igorots. At the next station, the prayers would be for
the urban poor who, in the name of tourism and development, were being
evicted from their homes as demolition teams stood poised to bring down
their communities. The use of these images and of personalities (e.g.,
Herod, the despotic Ruler) in the life story of Jesus Christ made faith
and religion real to the lives of Filipino Christians in those days.
Reliving the sufferings of Christ, in fact, served as an inspiration and
brought hope that Easter or the Resurrection could happen in their lives. The Challenge Of Jesus Christ
To The New Generation
Is there a new generation? Is there a generation that has a different
understanding of Jesus Christ? In my view, there are two perceptions that
have been added to those brought in history.
There is, however, another facet to this new understanding of Jesus Christ
that is slowly being introduced and encouraged. That is of the loving and
caring Christ, the Christ who challenged us to the least of sisters and
brothers”. Here we see a coping with the breakdown in human relations as
well as a revival of human relation thru being mindful of the other. I see
this happening in the Roman Catholic charismatic group “El Shaddai” where
the leader, Bro. Mike Velarde, allows individuals to expound on their
specific hardships, and then he gives them counsel and prays for them.
Worship is celebratory with singing and swaying and shouts of affirmation.
The danger, I would think, is in the employ of “showbiz” machinery that
encourage what could become a personality cult as well as in the urgings
for devotees to offer all their material possessions to the organization. Among the evangelical charismatics, it must be recalled that at the height of the protests over Flor Contemplacion’s pending execution, the Jesus is Lord Movement joined the 24-hour vigil in front of the Singapore Embassy and pleaded that President Ramos exert all effort at obtaining a stay of execution. They now have a weekly television talk show discussing issues affecting the lives of ordinary Filipino.
Jesus Christ as Peacemaker. The war in the Philippine countrysides has
been going on for almost three decades already. In fact one could say the
war never ended. After the second world war, the guerrilla Hukbong
Mapagpalaya ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (People’s Liberation Army Against
Japan) continued an armed revolution. It is only during the administration
of the present President Ramos that peacemaking has been pursued in
earnest. Three concurrent peace talks are now being conducted by the
Government with the National Democratic Front (NDF), the Muslim National
Liberation Front (MNLF), and the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM).
Among the supporters of the peace process is the Joint Peace Committee of
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the National Council of Churches. In
the regions and in the provinces, similar ecumenical groups have also been
organized to monitor the peace process and to participate in efforts to
promote the peace process, such as in lobbying for social reforms that
would address the root causes of the conflict. The search for peace has
indeed become a prime mover for wider ecumenical cooperation. During the
martial law years, protest actions for justice and human rights brought
together Roman Catholic religious (nuns and priests) and some bishops and
NCI member-churches’ churchworkers. Cooperation at that time was more
among the rank and file. This time, the cooperation on the level of
official structures has been achieved and, hopefully, will lead to more
joint action and prophetic witness. Filipino Christology:
Impetus For Transformation In Society The seeming inability of Filipinos surveyed by Beltran to relate with the image of the Risen Christ as seen in the apparent lackluster celebrations of Easter is not because the event takes place during the hot summer months nor because their energies have been drained by the Holy Week celebrations. To me, it is probably because Filipinos have yet to really experience Easter in their lives, the passing from suffering to freedom. A majority of our people continue to live below the poverty line. It is therefore not surprising that we still relate much more with the image of the suffering Christ. But the Protestants, one would ask, hold Easter Sunrise Services all over the country! They place more significance on the celebration of Easter than that of the Holy Week. I am reminded of another attempt to rationalize this seeming contradiction thru history. The Spaniards introduced an authoritarian system of government with power in the hands of the government officials (representatives of the King) and of the friars (representatives of the Pope). Meanwhile, they say, Protestantism came with the Americans who taught democracy and brought about a more participatory form of government as well as introduced a church where the members exercised some authority over their clergy and participated in decision-making. Therefore, some semblance of an Easter event or a freedom from a state of powerlessness to a state of power-sharing. The Risen Christ, nevertheless, serves as an “impetus for transformation”, as Dr. Aoanan puts it. Being like Jesus Christ has been and remains to be a strong inspiration in the movement for transformation of Philippine church and society. “That We may Remember”, a book published by the Promotion for Church People’s Rights in 1989 which records the sacrifices of present-day martyrs: bishops, priests, nuns, pastors, deaconesses, seminarians and laypersons, provides incontrovertible evidence. Bishop Julio Labayen, says in his foreword, “Their love for, and commitment to our people, particularly the downtrodden, is measured by the fullest expression of their devotion: the offering of their lives in death and in ignominy. They prove to us that the power of the risen Lord is operative in them and among Christians today.”
Many more have made sacrifices since the book was published. The struggle
towards
Easter and the fruition of God’s Kingdom continues. The Filipino exercises
his/her faith by following Jesus – in the demonstration of that image of
Christ that is in us all – being like him who chose to be among the poor;
being like Him who preached and healed; taught and counseled; denounced
evil and upheld justice. 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 |
ABOUT CCA | CCA NEWS | PRESS | RESOURCES | HOME
Christian
Conference of Asia
96 Pak Tin Village Area 2
Mei Tin Road, Shatin NT
Hong Kong SAR, CHINA
Tel: [852] 26911068 Fax: [852] 26923805
eMail: [email protected]
HomePage: www.cca.org.hk