68

 

THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION I

 

It is interesting that faith and social justice are juxtaposed to each other; i.e., we ask faith within the horizon of social justice, because in the earlier history of Christianity, and even later, this was not the issue at all. It was a natural aspect of their understand­ing that faith has something to do with social justice. After all, Rudolf Bultmann has said that the type of existence of the Chris­tians in the earliest Christian community was one of radical obedience. They stood at the brink of time, and, therefore there was no time to ask a question like this: They simply obeyed and acted out.

At that time, the questions they asked were those regarding the relations between God and man. God was a very dominant reality! For instance, we face the question of St. Paul, "How can sinful man face a holy and righteous God?" Their answer was the doctrine of justification by faith. It is interesting that this question existed up to the time of Martin Luther, because he had to answer exactly the same kind of question. These were the questions they were asked: A juxtaposition of the relation of theology and metaphysics. Man and God.

Our question is different — it seems to be on the extreme. What is the relation between faith and social justice? In other words, we are asking what is the meaning of being a Christian in today's world? Armstrong has just come up with a very magnificent book entitled, On Being a Christian. I've started reading it and the feeling is that man is probably moving over into the Protestant world. It seems that we are caught up in defining the horizons of man. The ancients defined man in terms of the divine. It is a very valid question; perhaps this is the only valid theological question now. After all, according to some theologians, and some of them are my colleagues, God has died. Although someone has said, "Well he did not really die; he simply changed his address from the avenue of metaphysics to the streets of man!"

Let me raise some of the danger signals before I proceed in order to be able to avoid some pitfalls. There is a danger of a new legalism when we raise the question of faith and social justice.

Why do I say so? It would seem that when you speak of faith, you speak of it in a vacuum. As if, there is no context and there­fore you would want to contextualize it by putting man within his social sphere. Now, faith of course was never understood in that sense in the Bible. Faith was always some­thing engaged in. We seem to be asking, "What must a Christian do in today's world?" "He must be socially involved," seems to be the answer we want to elicit. It is this that scares me!

I say this scares me because if there is any difference between Christianity and the ideologies in the world it is this: That the Christian faith does not really demand any­thing of them. In other words, it is not a per­formance-oriented ideology. Christian faith does not ask anything. It simply demands or appeals that man be himself as he faces the ultimate realities now. This is precisely the error of the Old Testament when it tried to use the Covenant into a series of law, or codes of law, that could regulate man's life.

This is the culture of the world. We live in an achievement-oriented culture; you perform something and then you get recognized! But, if you now say to a Christian, what about the relation of your faith to society around you? It appears to me that the implication is that one is a useless Christian if he is not in one way or another involved! So, one is measured by the achievements he does in the social order and in the fact that the whole Christian world is involved in such a scheme. You want to succeed!

If you are in a discipline of divinity, it is not sufficient just to be a pastor anymore. One has to be something else. Perhaps one wants to become a theological teacher and from there a seminary president and on to move up the ecumenical ladder. We measure our-

 

69

 

selves by our achievements. This is one of the dangers that I would like to raise here, simply because faith in the Bible refers to faithful men. A man of faith who is already socially involved is one who has this radical obedience.

The other danger that I see here is the danger of Nihilism. Why do I say this? There is a knowing temptation, an un­easiness, about our lower metaphysical horizons. Why is this so? It is not just the metaphysics, that is involved but the realm in which the metaphysics resided in the realm of the transcendent. We are now trying to locate our horizons simply in terms of our humanism, in terms of our humanity. If you push the conclusion to its furthest end, you will find that you are going to end up in some form of Christian existentialism.

During the meeting of the Faith & Social Justice Commission, a brother from one of the movements told us that one of their problems is the role of the "C" in the SCM. He said that they keep the "C" (Christian) because it is a convenient protective umbrella in their relationship with society. I think partly, they are uneasy about the godly connotation of this "C" because it has too much "baggage". If the question is asked. Why are you here? The answer will be, "Well, I am here because I do not like injustice, I hate oppression, and because I want to help create a new day. This is the reason why I am here!

And so, we ask a Christian the same question, "Why are you here?" The answer will per­haps be, "Because of the grace of God in Jesus Christ!" This seems to be a very re­levant answer. Therefore, when one is engaged in revolutionary transformation of society, one excises all irrelevances, one takes them off! Get rid of all the unneces­sary baggage so that you can proceed with the struggle!

And so, if you empty the SCM of the "C", if this happens, it will be an illogical faith with authentic being. This will mean that man is totally free. There will then be no "musts" in his existence. He is free of "musts", or "oughts". He will be a man who does not live under imperatives, because his being itself is that imperative. And, his being can be expressed only in a concrete historical context. He is a being who does not need anything except the very being that he has. According to Tillich, such a person lives in a situation where there is an open relationship between God and man and the traffic between the two of them constantly moves back and forth between humanity and religion.

This is one of the reasons for engaging in theology. It is not merely to know what to do in a world of society. Man engages in theology in order to preserve the freedom that we have in Jesus Christ.

The other question is, "Why do we have the biblical faith?" Why not some other faith? It is either a biological or historical accident that most of us are Christians. It is a biologi­cal accident for me. It is a parental pre­determination that I am a Christian. But, there are other faiths. Like the Buddhist faith. Or the Islamic faith, etc., Well, the answer to this, as far as I am concerned, is simply to invoke upon our belief that the Bible is a record of the achievements of man. In fact, this is our story, and we as Christians take time not as a series of instances but as an embracing arc where there is a past, a present, and a future.

Now, we who stand in the present raise the past in the hope that such past has possi­bilities which have been achieved by the leaders of the faith and which would be a possible force now and in the future. The future also is defined by another horizon where everything in time flows inexorably.

I say that this is the power of human liberat­ion — the true power too be human. It is there in our faith. It verifies the existence of a man now. The power of human liberation and fulfillment, according to Kierkegaard, is an act of faith…………

Today, there seems to be an uneasiness among the young to engage in theological

 

70

 

discussion, or in a very serious study of the Bible. When they read the Bible they want to understand it in a very immediate way. They put the Bible side by side with actual situations. They simply read the Bible in the light of the situation with nothing else, be­cause after all they say that what it really important is practice. Well, I'm not to take issue with that judgment. I would admit that faith is often realized in praxis. But, there is such a thing as man's understanding of involvement in this praxis. The behavior and practice of a person are indications of the way he understands the world and his own self. The action of a man is revelatory of what he is; it is man coming into self-expression. It is generally the authentic language of man. It is not simply what comes out of his mouth but it is how he defines his being, and the way he defines his being is by his action.

Now, let me do something very basic here, almost elementary theology. I want to lift out those things, which I consider to be basic to our understanding of faith as it engages in social justice issues. I am going to put to words some propositions here. These are not intended for debate. I am not very sure that judgments made here are accurate. I just got them from out of my system. Let me say that Faith is based on an understanding of God's acts in history and where man faces his own self. He shapes his own future by a Permissive yet sovereign life that has some expression of who that God is who acts history.

It is by faith that we assume that God is acting in history and if we read the biblical story with seriousness and real understanding then we will know that this is not simply human action, that divinity is very much involved here. In the realm of history, not in some metaphysical realm, theologians say that faith moves or operates in two words. Augustine spoke of God's kingdom coming into the city of man and the city of God and these two do not coincide with each other. They kind of run in parallel structure. The kingdom of God gives illuminating judg­ment, from time to time, upon the city of man.

Martin Luther did not escape that direction, He tried to preserve it for our present malaise. Who asks the relation of faith to social justice? God acts in history. The Book of books is God's book defining to the full what God is. In the Old Testament, we are given a definition of Moses who was con­fronted by God and asked questions. He asked, for example, "But whom will I tell them? You are telling me to liberate your people from the land of bondage - Egypt. Who will I tell your people who you are?"

The Lord answered, "I am that I am". Now, that was not an answer at all. That is not a sensible and rational answer. If someone gives you that kind of reply you will pro­bably say that he is insane, totally crazy. But God simply says, "I am". He is One who defines his being by his action. I am that I am. I am he who is at the borders, boundar­ies, of human history. He is at the center & things happen there by his action.

But, also, he dares say in the Bible that we are saved because of faith. That if time is anything, it is where man can realize his authentic being. Time is a hodge-podge now; each day is a test of faith. And it is only because we are Christians that we are not terrified by the passage of time, but in ancient Israelite religion and even in the time of Jesus Christ or the early Christians, they were all terrified by time: the past, the present and the future. The past can kill with the feeling of things you cannot re­cognize in this world, the present with a sense of guilt for things you leave undone and the future with the anxiety of the possibility of death. The possibility of failure, the possibility of   defeat, comes in history and we are given the assurance that God is of us.

It is difficult now to make a distinction be­tween God and man although the Germans say that God is God and man is man. It seems to me that the Bible says the same thing, at least in some parts, but when it

 

71

 

comes to Jesus Christ, the distinction is not very clear anymore; it is not logical. Jesus came out of the ranks of humanity and yet the witness is that he was the very incarnat­ion of God; so that our catechism tells that he is very man and very God. True man — true God. So the distinction has become a little bit confused. So that God's action is our own action and our action is God's own action.

The next question will be: How is man shaped, energized, verified and directed by this faith?

There are descriptions that have come to us from the theologians and from the Bible itself. From Paul, "the man who lives by the spirits", from our fundamentalist brethren we hear, "born again Christians", or from more contemporary theologians we get, "man for others" or "new man". Bultmann uses "eschatological existence". He talked about the eschatological community to refer to the Christian community — the community that builds the consciousness that the kingdom of God is about to come. There is here a dualistic kind of ethics. In the sense that this can be understood that something is historically followed but in another sense, it is something being eternally present. The far – off ness of the perception makes more the possibility of cultural relations with history while the immediacy of eschaton restructures man in such a way that he becomes radically obedient. In any case if one is going to give some seriousness to the study of the life of the early Christian community, what one will find is that they stood in readiness for the coming kingdom. Naturally if one is quite ready, one elimin­ates all un – essentials and faces the coming future as authoritically as one can. It is existence blocking out from one's vision all else except that which is ahead.

I wonder if you have heard the story of an English cat. There was this cat in London who really wanted to see the queen. One day the queen was going on to a royal proces­sion, so the cat decided to go without his usual mice-chasing activities in order to be able to see the queen. He saw that in both sides of the street men were standing. So he climbed up on a tree and was able to find the branch which hangs directly over there where the queen was going to pass. So he sat there and waited for the queen to pass by. The carriage was slow but sure in coming. And he continued to wait. Unfortunately, the people have started to disperse.

Well, this is precisely the picture of how Christians are today. They are burdened with a lot of things; there are so many un – ­essentials and they are a curious people. They look this way and that way and forget that there is a goal ahead of them. In other words, the Christian life is a frontless move­ment between the present and the future. The future extends in that it is that which determines what the present is going to be and the present descends where the action is going to be new. So that Christian life is characterized by what Bultmann says as radical obedience.

It is no surprise that the earliest Christian community, uneducated as they were, with­out any kind of ideology, was able to make a radical transformation of human history at that particular point. Of course, there was a terrible mistake also because when they met Emperor Constantine, he decided that this new religious community could be the most convenient banner with which he was going to march his army. And although over­whelmed in terms of number, he won and from then on decided that the new religion, Christianity shall be the religion of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, the church took on the characteristics of the Roman Empire and therefore lost its power to save.

It was said that when St. Francis of Assissi became quite famous in the whole church realm, he was invited by the Pope to visit Rome. St. Francis was a saint devoted to serving the poor and accepted the vow of poverty for himself. In Rome he was shown

 

72

 

the riches and power of the Church, and the pope said to him, "Now, do you think the church can no longer say, 'silver and gold have I none'. To which the saint meekly answered, "but neither can it say, 'Rise up and walk'.

This is worth recalling here because I am afraid that in the new struggle that we are facing, we can easily be misled by another ideology. I am not saying that nothing good can come out of ideologies. I simply want to retain distinctive Christian elements in the struggle. We should not lose it lest we become captives of any power, which is the very issue of the struggle that we now have. So that Christian existence is not only resolute existence because of its orientation in the future, but because it has a futural direction. Christian existence is existence in the beyond.

It is perhaps part of our insanity to build huge mausoleums, cathedrals, seminaries and universities. Because after all the time will move and this is all going to be left behind. And what was once the height of our human activity shall simply be empty shells in the future when we move to the new day.

The Christian existence has a futural direc­tion because within the Christian vision is a radical contradiction between the present and the future. Marxism speaks of con­tradictions in the sense that the means of Production is individualized while the labor that is involved in it is socialized. It is a contradiction in the sense that the masses who are really the source of authority and Power within the state are the slaves of a Jew. In Christianity there is also the element of contradiction. The contradiction is in the sense that Christians very seriously now are citizens of the Kingdom of God, therefore they should embody the marks of that citizenship which are never consistent with the values of the culture of any present age. When Christians insist on the resolution of the contradiction it leaves to conflict either of reformation or revolution or our crucifixion. If you are going to look at the picture of Christ during his time there were a number of ideologies that were popular. There were the Sadducees, the establish­ment, those who ruled the cultural and, religious life of the Jews. Jesus was not one of them. There were also the Zealots who were the revolutionary party. In fact, there was no shortage of Messiahs who were agitating for some great war of liberation against the Romans. There were even the priests who wanted to be so pure that the only way they could do was to hide some­where in the cliffs looking over the Dead Sea. It was suspected for a while by some biblical scholars that Jesus Christ must have be­longed to this community. But then it is becoming obvious to us now that he could not have been one of them. For he was a man who celebrated amidst poverty, who commensurated amidst abundance, someone who just could not fit.  Then there were the Pharisees. I have told the Union Theological Seminary students that we are the Pharisees today! Well, the Pharisees tried to manage the faith and tried to make it livable so that they would be able to enjoy the blessings of the earth as well as belong to the kingdom of God. But even with the Pharisees, Jesus did not belong. For Jesus was a total non­conformist; he would not fit in any of the values, in any ideologies of his time because he had revealed In himself the ethics of the kingdom — the ethics of contradiction which is always struggling against the pretensions, evils, and injustices in his time. If you are going to make changes in the world, I would suggest that you look at Jesus very seriously. Whether in our very own existence as individuals and as communities, there are indeed these contradictions that we see in our society. And if there is none then we have to question whether we are faithful to the crucified and risen Lord.

It becomes a difficult problem when faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is placed in social context. We remember as indeed we are asked to remember by Dr. Carino: the world power USA with its great military might on the one side, and the Soviet Union on the other side, and a number of other political

 

73

 

entities, which are also claiming hegemony in their own sphere, then we ask: What now does Christ have to say to this situation? But you see Christ was not one who believed according to the reason of the situation. It was always some irrational action brought about by man's selfishness and insincerely and now they are confronted by the basic humanity in which they were created and which they have to fulfill themselves. Jesus did not draw the line between capitalism and socialism; of course, he had condemnation for the rich and words of compassion for the oppressed. Jesus comes out as a beautiful person because of this internal contradiction between himself. He is a combination of weeping and being angry, of laughter and of tear. With his being he was able to condemn human hypocrisy and injustice. And it is that being which promises the redeeming element in all of the contradictions and conflicts of human existence. Of course, it takes in himself all the pain and violence that we can inflict. And, therefore, we see ourselves and we come to our sense. Is there some place like that in world politics? Where is it?

 Perhaps tomorrow, we should try to re-explore and see where we can find ourselves as Christians in the new configuration of world politics. I became aware of that when I read Dr. Carino’s lecture and not before. Because I am a very parochial man and I operate only in Cavite and Manila. There is the element of courage. If you are beset with fears and anxieties, there is an indication that you are far away from Christianity. There should be courage, though not fool-hardy. It is not the courage of a fool who rushes into a situation where angels need not tread. But it is the courage of wise man who assesses the situation quite fully before he enters it and takes full responsibility. Why is the Christian brave? Because of his having a Christian faith. It is the self-denial – the death of self. I do not know any other ethics like this. It denies one’s self and at the same time affirms it. There is a dialectical relationship with the whole of creation. Ti is affirmed, it is denied and re-affirmed. It is affirmed as God’s creation, denied as the source of powerful human life, but affirmed again as a place where a man is to be. The self is denied first and therefore the Christian says, I am no longer afraid of you because I have already died and when you count in death as the ultimate end of man, then you see that the Christian has been liberated from all that. This is why the man who really understands the cross and the resurrection is a truly courageous man, a truly powerful man. The man who is not afraid to die. The man of courage. Resurrection tells us that it is not quite possible to have real tragedy in a Christian sense. Because the tragedy before it happens is already transcended, because there is the resurrection beyond.

This really puzzled me when I entered theology, because I always thought that tragedy was one of the glories in literature. Take the great Prometheus who was bound on the rock condemned to die daily from the onslaught of the great bird on his entrails and liver. But Prometheus, by sheer power of the human will would simply let his liver grow again. If only to defy the judgment of the God. But that is the message of the Gospel. A refusal to be terrorized even by God himself. And the Gospel stands to that because God's terrifying power and entity has shown himself, a God who can be cruci­fied and resurrected for the sake of men. He has the courage, then he has the obedience.

Alongside with this, is a clarity of vision, which happens to a Christian. Death is the ultimate end of man, but the problem of man is that he does not want to face the music. He will always say, tomorrow I die, Not today. Some even say that death hap­pens to some other people, never to me. At least it does not happen yet. But when some­one dies, it is always someone else. And, therefore, since it happens only to other people, we make projects that are not authentic because they are not clarified by the radical finitude of our existence. We forget that. And so the great dictators embark on projects that are calculated

 

74

 

towards goals by themselves which in turn oppress their fellowmen.

But for a man who knows that he is going to die, something happens. He faces the truth, he tells the truth and understand it. This is why in our courts of justice, if a man is going to die, and he is going to be a witness against you, you have to be careful. For whatever he says would be taken by law as the final thing. It is not discussable nor debatable. It will be simply taken as that. If that can do, what more about the coming judgment. What more about the eschatological, which now is imminent before use. Is that not something that would reveal our possibilities to ourselves so that there will be clarity of vision so that Christians would be what they should and what they ought to, be. And should not be scurrying around ask­ing the question: What is God's will for me? The moment you start asking questions like that you have drifted very far. This I think is the Christian style of life.

What are the implications? We would want man to say that liberation is not only personal but also extends to the social realm. For when Jesus reaches a man, liberation takes place at two levels: the onthological or existential and the socio-political-economic level. The first happens at the very center of yourself. When the self is no longer engaged in self-deceptions, when self begins to understand its true basis and its true mission, then the person is on the way to being an authentic being. There is a great expulsive power in the Christ event — man suddenly realized who he is and what is the possibility of life. It happens before the incarnate, crucified and risen Lord. So that it is possible to be saved, to enjoy salvation, to be an authentic being and to be really free. Even in a situation where there is total unfreedom. In fact to tell you the truth, there are some people now in the Philippines who felt they are never freer before than they are now. Because in the context of Martial Law, there is no anxiety, there is no threat. The truth if sincerely spoken by a sincere and authentic being must always expect decision. Do not pity Mr. Aquino for I think he has never reached a most glorious aspect of his existence than now. He has never enjoyed freedom as intention than he enjoys it now. That is if he believes the vision of the head. Why is it that Rizal could write the "Ultimo Adios" at the eve of his execution? It was because he knew that he was free. That this who were trying to execute power over him were the miser­able picture of people involved in deception and greed. Likewise, in the case of Mr. Aquino, when I heard and read the judgment of the Military Tribunal, my first reaction was pity for Mr. Aquino. On closer scrutiny, this turned into more pity for the Military Tribunal for they were passing judgment on themselves. It seems to me that they were exposing the moral bankruptcy of the society we are trying to build. This is one of the implications of freedom, that on the onthological level, we should not fear. I am not saying that we should remain this way. What I am saying is that true liberation in the Christian sense is not experienced just at the end of time when everything gets consummated in total liberation. But it is ex­perienced here and now, so that the true Christian revolutionary, the liberator is one who moves from stages to stages without really getting tired, because at those various stages there they are not useless rituals. But they are the glorification and celebration of the freedom that has been given to us.

The problem is when it leaves the ontholo­gical-existential level and must press on to the social, political and economic level. This is the place where the Christian is involved in the question of social justice. The pro­blem of the church in the modern period and even as far back as the reformation has been the power of the state. When the state has controlled the military and the techno­cracy, it is assured of having full control of every level of power, at least for the time being. And so, states are powerful, and there are advocations and constellations of states: the democratic block, the eastern block, and so many kinds of blocks. But you cannot

 

75

 

speak of the Christian block. Even within the Protestant fold, for there are as many Christologies as there are Christians. And there are many Christian ethics and ethicists as there are those who protest against them. And so where is the source of our various unity? Can Christianity even really be a political power? I am afraid that under the present circumstances, the answer is probab­ly NO. Thus, has the church ever been true to its cause?

The problem of a Christian culture is the problem of man. Because the problem of man is that he can prostitute and mani­pulate the very grace that he has been given. This is why there has been a reversal in the modern period of what it means to be a Christian. Before there was a contrast be­tween the small band of Christian believers operating in the ancient world on the one hand and the Visigoths, the Orthogoths and other kinds of "goths" on the other hand, arrayed against the Roman Empire. These were the dominant leaders at the time the Roman civilization had reached the height of its decadence and corruption and it was about to fall part. The new band of believers centered on the pen of St. Augustine who at that time was writing about the City of God and the City of Man. This was the time when the new ethos was beginning to penetrate into the psyche or consciousness of the peoples of Europe. Later in the Middle Ages, we see a new Christian country emerging. So we speak of this as Christian country which was transported into the United States of America which became a Christian culture. Spain brought it to us and so now, we in the Philippines speak of ourselves as a Christian nation.

What are the elements of Christianity that we have in our society? Law and order? Justice? One speaks of social welfare, of harmony, of obedience and not disturbing the given order. This for the establishment is the mark of Christianity. One should see row it has been prostituted, for the Christian ethos should never become an instrument of human domination.

Thus, we are now called upon to make another reversal. To press on so that there would arise a new consciousness. I really do not think that they issue, theologically, is between capitalism and socialism. But the issue for Christians is to once again create the new consciousness that would make for the possibility of the new world. But I do not see how it could be possible for a com­plete acceptance of the instruments of secular revolution. Because I still could not equate it with the crucified Lord. I still do not see where redemption is going to be in this road, I do not see how this is still obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. For this new kind of courage, this new kind of resolution will radically explode any kind of situation and I see greater danger indeed. I can see however that with this kind of vision and this kind of courage during this time of decadence, human history has been given a new lease. I think it is about time that we give Christianity a chance. It is about time that we give it a fair trial and experiment. For to be a Christian is no joke. In many ways, it is unfortunate that the Philippines live in a Christian society. Because we begin to assume that the culture we have is some­thing that is not questionable anymore. It is beyond the reach of the criticism of the Gospel and our identity is immersed in the consciousness of our culture. At least this is how the establishment thinks. This is a Christian culture and therefore every law – the very structure of the government, the very structure of the economy is Christian. Well, that is not quite so.

What I fear is that there might be another Crucifixion. And this time, it will not be the crucifixion of the Son of God; it is going to be the crucifixion of humanity. By the masses and hundreds of thousands; the face of the earth raped and vanished. I fervently hope it will not happen to us. I hope that the first crucifixion was all that was needed for the liberation of mankind.