theocultura

Hans Kung. Does God Exist?: GOD’S EXISTENCE

2007-01-09T22:11:00.000-08:00

A Review: Hans Kung. Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. Trans. Edward Quinn. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. pp. 529-702.

PROVING GOD?

The arguments of the proof for and against the existence of God have a long “impressive tradition”. Several attempts have been applied already in the early history. Plato was the first one to use term “theologia” which refers to the supreme idea of the “Good”; Aristotle used scientific proofs to prove the existence of God, the Unmoved Mover. Based upon the concepts of unchanging truths in mind, Augustine used it for proving God’s existence. Aquinas used cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral proofs of God. Among others who used “pure thought” as basis for God’s existence are Anselm, Descartes, Liebniz, and Wolff. Finally, Kant “postulates” the existence of God based on moral grounds.

On the other hand, Kung admits: “Belief in God cannot be proved to a person if the existential constituents are neglected, with the result that this person is dispensed from belief instead of being summoned to belief. In the light of our previous experience, there is no purely rational demonstration of God’s existence that could carry universal conviction. Proofs of God turn out in fact not to be coercive for everyone, whatever may be thought of the ‘possibility’ of knowledge of God as taught by Vatican I. There is not a single proof that is universally accepted.”(533) This does not mean, however, that he takes for granted the proofs of God offered by others like Aquinas and Kant. Only, he posits question to its sufficiency of arguments.

More than Pure Reason: Immanuel Kant

Concerning the main discussion of this section, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was considered to be asserting God’s existence between dogmatic and rational proof. His new approach, that earned him the title Alleszermalmer (the man who crushes everything), is “a solution that no one can ignore, not even the person who finally rejects it.”(537) He hypothesized that proving God theoretically can not be for he is not within space and time. Even the argument of God as the main idea is not does not imply reality. Though he rejected theoretical, rational, and psychological arguments, he does not espouse “claims of atheism” or agnosticism. He said that all argumentative claims to prove the existence of God that was made can be the very arguments to disclaim the intended point. Here, human freedom and immortality of the soul support his postulation of “practical reason” for the sake of morality manifested in man’s action. His principle goes that “God’s existence can not be proved but likewise cannot be refuted,”(544); it can only be “believed” in practice. The mystery of God is a “postulation”, never an imperative for him. Towards his death, Kant affirmed: “It is a good thing that we do not know, but believe, that there is God.”(542)

GOD EXISTS

The struggle of proving God’s existence led to new openness, instead of elimination, of religion since it is the foundation of ethics and “ethics is the presupposition of life”. Kung, after assessing the trends of treatment to religion, affirmed that “at any rate, sociologists of religion are agreed that religion—like art—will always exist. At the same time, religion is no more to be identified with the ecclesiastical, institutional, sacral, irrational aspects than is secularization with unchurching, desacralization, rational disenchantment.” (560).

God as hypothesis. Since Kung is interested with the knowledge of related to the existence of man, he posits three major questions that can never be separated to the question of God: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? If God exists, there must be a meaningful answer to all these three existential inquiry for he can be the ultimate ground, source and goal of all reality. If God exists, then he can be the ground, support, and goal of human existence, despite all the menace of fate and death, emptiness and meaninglessness, sin and damnation, and nonbeing. “I can with good reason confidently affirm the being of my human existence: God is then the being itself in particular also of human life.”(568)

God as reality. Kung clearly points out that both denial and affirmation of God are possible for God is a matter of trust. “It has been shown therefore that cannot evade a free, although not arbitrary, decision, not only in regard to reality as such but also in regard to a primal ground, primal support, and primal goal of reality.”(570) Since this primal things and reality are not imposed with definitive evidence, they are the bounce of man’s freedom; thus, both atheism and belief in God are ventures and taking the risks for both must decide without intellectual constraint as well as rational proof. Moreover, “Denial of God implies an ultimately unjustified fundamental trust in reality. Atheism cannot suggest any condition for the possibility of uncertain reality. If someone denies God, he does not know why he ultimately trusts in reality.”(571) On the other hand: “Affirmation of God implies an ultimately justified fundamental trust in reality. As radical fundamental trust, belief in God can suggest the condition of the possibility of uncertain reality. If someone affirms God, he knows why he can trust reality.”(572)

But like trust as fundamental justification, trusting God does not mean irrationality. Rationality is like fundamental trust in a sense that it is not an outward rationality that cannot offer security but like an inward rationality which produce fundamental certainty. As a fundamental trust, belief in God is “a matter not only of human reason but of the whole concrete, living man, with mind and body, reason and instinct, in his quite particular historical situation...therefore superrational: as there is no logically conclusive proof for the reality of reality, neither is one for the reality of God...but not irrational: there is a reflection on the reality of God emerging from human experience and calling for man’s free decision...not, then, a blind decision, devoid of reality, but one that is grounded in and related to reality and rationally justified in concrete life...realized in a concrete relationship with fellow men...not grasped once for all, but constantly to be freshly realized: belief in God is not secured against atheism unassailably and immune from crises by rational arguments.”(576-5) Moreover, belief in God is seen as a gift that must be accepted.

Thus, in relation to Kant’s moral argument, Kung comments that the “norms should illuminate the situation, and the situation should determine the norms.”(582) It means that what is moral and good is not simply right and good in the abstract sense but in concrete terms of appropriation of good and right for a particular person of group.

YES TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD

The God of the non-Christian religions. Etymological study of “God”, i.e., theos (Platonic “Good”), guth (Germanic/Gothic), dues, Dio, Dios, Dieu (Roman “heavenly”), and devas (Indian), has a long history. In China, the name of God is translated in dual tem: Supreme Lord (Shang-ti) and Heaven (T’ien). It could be is used in the dualistic view of Yin-Yang or pantheistic expression of Tao (Lao-tse) or Tai-chi and Li (the ultimate reality and the principle) of neo-Confucian philosophy. From the start of Christian missions in China, two missiological approaches was used in terms of the usage of the Chinese concept of God: assimilation and rejection. The latter approach made Christianity a reproach to Chinese. In Buddhism, God is nameless: Nirvana , Void, and Nothingness where the main idea is that the Absolute is neither being or non-being or any concept.

The Eastern concept of God, therefore, is incomprehensible, indefinable, incomprehensible, and transcends positive and negative statements, world and man and pervades them at the same time.

Two main types of religious experience. Mystical experience is popular among Hindu and Buddhist belief systems. In Christianity, Pseudo-Dionysius (5 ca.) introduced a Neo-Platonic piety in his Mystike Theologia. Mysticism is a form of religiousness where “the senses are closed altogether against the whole external world, so that salvation can be sought in the depths of ones’ own soul.”(604) Precisely, it is “intercourse with God” where the world and self are denied absolutely; human personality is dissolved and is “absorbed in the infinite unity of the Godhead.” This is a reaction to systematization and sophistication of religion. Prophetic religion (religion of revelation/Piety of faith), however, emerged from nomadic tribe’s primitive religion towards the level of monotheistic belief in God like that of Zarathustra, Moses, or Mohammed. Mystical and Prophetic religion’s differences extend in three structures: psychic basic experience (denial of life vs. will to live), basic attitude (passivity vs. activation), and the understanding of God (Hidden God and ecstasy vs. Revealed God and experience of faith). Nonetheless, Kung maintains that in the midst of this theoretical and practical differences “belief in God must certainly be proved in practice, but that the criterion of the truth of belief in God is not simply practice.”(611) In theory and practice, there is certainly a difference.
On the other hand, both intellectualism and pragmatism see the reality of religious reality only in one aspect. But reflection and experience must go together. Without religious reflection, experience is blind; reflection must provide assurance and critical illumination to experience. Moreover, experience lives by reflection and without religious experience, reflection is void. (611-2)

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE

The one, sole God. Without the Jewish God, the Christian God cannot be understood properly or vice versa. The God described in the Old Testament was a touchstone to the Christian, as well as Islam, concept of God as the “one, sole God”. Nonetheless, Kung reasons out that monotheism is never the main criterion of truth as explained in the background of Israel’s religious development, .i.e., Akhenaton, husband of Nefertiti (1 ca. before Moses). Israel’s “one-God faith emerged not as a result of theoretical reflection but from practical behavior: first of all as a ‘practical’ monotheism in the forms of veneration and worship (monolatry).”(616) Decisively, this form of faith reached its peak from the small “Moses troop” (13 ca. BC) out of Egypt. God is seen as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who eventually became Israel. This Israel’s God is a jealous God without rival “whom they there identified with the Canaanite El—the supreme God of a heavenly array of gods—and then defended against the increasing pressure from the god Baal (Lord, heavenly Baal) and the baals (agricultural divinities), rivals of the one God Yahweh.”(617) The development of “Yahweh is God” by Elijah has “a long road by way of the great writing prophets, Isaiah in the eight and Jeremiah at the end of seventh centuries, for whom the gods (elohim) of the great powers (and especially those of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom) are ‘nothings’ (elihim), ‘not-gods’ (lo-elohim) and ‘worthless breath’ (heb-hel).”(617)
In principle, the Sh’ma established Israel’s monotheism in three respects: not other deities,, no feminine partner deity, no evil rival. “He is not only the highest, but the incomparable God. This God is not responsible only for particular spheres of life, like the gods of the pagans (a god for the fertility of the soil, a god for success for war, a god for the moods of the fate, a goddess for the perils of love, and so on). No, this one God is Lord over all. He gives everything, all life, all goodness, he may also expect man’s whole surrender, his whole love.”(618) Thus, this faith in one, sole God (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) has pivotal effects for the individual and society: “cooperation is imperative...Faith in the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob means the fall of both ancient and modern gods. It prevents both the deification of natural powers and the turning of political powers and rulers into idols. The one-God faith of course does not involve a social program, but it has incisive social consequences.”(618-9)

In the society, God is seen as “the God of liberation”—not a slave owner, but the God of freedom. This is manifested in the story of Israel where Yahweh, the God of the Exodus, delivered them out from their Egyptian oppressors. It is expressed in the primordial creed of Israel: profession of faith in the one God, “who brought Israel out of Egypt.” It also serves as the basis for unity of the people. But this God is named. YHWH (the Tetragrammaton) were the pronouns of the name “Adonai” (Lord). The Sinaitic revelation of God’s name “I am who I am” is expressed in the infinitive verb hayah (to be). Generally, it means “to be present, to take place, to turn out, to happen, to come to be.” It can be translated as “I am present as I am in present” or “I am present as I will be present.” In Martin Buber’s translation, it is “I will be present as I will be present.” This enigmatic name may mean: “It is not an explanation of God’s nature” but rather, “a declaration of God’s will”(621) declared mainly in the Exodus account of which Kung considered that the “God of the Bible is indeed a God of historical dynamism.”(622)
By comparison, the God of the philosophers is nameless, a Theos agnotos. It is abstract and indeterminate and does not reveal himself. On the other hand, God of the religions is not nameless; the biblical faith in God is concrete and determinate for Israel’s God has a name revealed in history and demands decision. They are rooted in “the experiential unity of knowing, willing and feeling, which, however, should not be understood as one’s own achievement, but as answer: an answer to an encounter with or an experience of God (or the Absolute), whatever form it may have taken.”(625) Despite all the differences, the God of religions has many names and one main question here is: Which is the true God? With respect to other world religions, reasons for choosing the God of Israel here is based upon the incoherent understanding of other religions where they display many names and natures but each contradicts each other; thus, it is impossible to believe in all of them at one time. On the other hand, the one-God faith is rationally justifiable and has historical significance for many thousand years. The name of this one God is Yahweh. “It cannot be denied that in the other world religions also it is known that the Deity, however close, is remote and hidden and must itself bestow closeness, presence and manifestness.”(626)

Kung argues other religions, however, seeks (Muslims-Allah, Hindus-Brahma, Buddhist-Absolute, Chinese-Tao) to one true God (for Jews and Christians-Yahweh). “The religions of the world can perceive not only the alienation, enslavement and need of redemption on man’s part but also the goodness, mercy and graciousness of the one God. Because of this truth—despite many untruths, despite polytheism, magic, natural forces and superstition—people in the world religions can gain eternal salvation.”(627) He added that the “question of salvation must therefore be distinguished from the question of truth. And if the question of salvation is settled positively, this by no means renders superfluous the questions of truth. For however much truth can be seen in detail in the world religions that can be accepted by Jews and Christians, they do not provide the truth for Jews and Christians. Only the one true God of Israel, known by faith, is the truth for Jews and Christians.”(627)

The idea of God as a person (persona, prosopon, hypostasis) posits one difficulty in understanding the Jewish and Christian God. At present, understanding person is not ontological (nature of being) but psychological (self-consciousness), thus, acquiring various ideas. When applied to Trinity, it has connotations of tritheism, an offense to Muslims. But Kung maintains that “God is not a person as man is a person. The all-embracing and all-penetrating is never an object that man can view from a distance in order to make statements about it. The primal ground, primal support and primal goal of all reality, which determines every individual existence, is not an individual person among other persons, is not a superman or superego. The term ‘person’ also is merely a chiper for God. God is not the supreme person among other persons. God transcends also the concept of person. God is more than a person.”(633) He transcends the personal “Thou” and the impersonal “It”, yet, he is never an “intrapersonal” or “less personal” or a “thing.” “God is not neuter, not an ‘it.’ but a God of men, who provokes the decision for belief or unbelief.” (633) But Kung makes it clear that the terms are not really important, “whether we call God personal or non-personal depends on the statement of the question. It is part of the completely incommensurable nature of God that he is neither personal nor nonpersonal, since he is both at once and therefore transpersonal.”(634) One thing remains, this does not mean that God is below man’s level and even though humanity can speak to God only in analogical terms, images, metaphors, symbols, and chipers, still, God can be spoken of in meaningful human terms. Despite that man cannot precisely define or predicate God in human terms that reality must be accepted. God who is suprapersonal and transpersonal can be addressed.

“The language of the Bible is not a scientific language of facts, but metaphorical language of images.”(639) This is Kung’s final comment to the contemporary discourse concerning God in relation to the world. Science as the right to assume their claims concerning their theories for the Bible did not implicitly claims factual terms of the creation of the world in a scientific manner. Thus, one “should avoid mixing scientific conclusions with religious beliefs.”(648) According to Kung, the Bible’s understanding of reality it not scientific as manifested in the “miracles” as infringement of natural laws of nature for what is more important there is the “reality” behind the story, not the forms of the statements in the content. It is provided to arouse admiration of faith in God’s power, not historical description. Miracles are, therefore, pointers to God’s activity in the world.

THE GOD OF JESUS CHRIST

Death of God theologian’s main thesis has something to do with the Christological theme to atheism in Christianity where the Son of man prevails in contrast to God. E. Bloch says, “God is dead, long live Jesus, the Son of man; yes, long live Man!”

God as Father. While others look at the OT God as tyrannical, indifferent, demoniacally evil, and ambiguous, Jesus clarified the ambiguity. Though he addressed him “father” this does not mean God is masculine and there’s “Great Mother.” The term “Father” is a “patriarchal symbol—but also with matriarchal traits—for transhuman, transsexual, absolutely last/absolutely first reality.”(673) Moreover, he is a Father of the lost.

God through Jesus Christ. Jesus’ title as the Son of God in contrast to God as the Father created controversial (bitheism) misunderstanding. The Christian aspect of God is through Christ himself, the revealed, historical God. The Father can not be taken as the “Crucified God” for it is the historical Christ, the Son, who was crucified. Thus, the NT God has a face and concrete, manifested in love through the cross.

God in the Spirit. This is in main contrast to the “flesh” and no other than God himself. He is never a “third party”, not a thing in between God and man either but “God’s personal closeness to men.”(697) The Holy Spirit according to Kung is never man’s possibility but “always the force, the power and gift of God.”(698) He added that no one possess the Spirit.
In conclusion, Kung closes with the dogma of the triune God. The Trinity has been a mystery from apostolic times where in the account concerning Jesus ascended at the right hand of the Father was considered blasphemous by pious Jews. Yet Kung asserts that “God is revealed by the Son in the Spirit”(701) and “as Son the true man Jesus of Nazareth is the true revelation of the one true God.”(702) Through or in Spirit, God became real to man. “It must not be forgotten that the Trinity originally was an object not of theoretical speculation but of the profession of faith and the act of praise of God’s ‘glory’: ‘doxo-logy.’”

Does God exist? Through the major philosophers (Descartes, Pascal, Kant, Hegel), critique of religions ((Feuerbach, Marx, Frued), Nietzche’s nihilism, and the Eastern alternatives, the question can be answered by a resounding “Yes” justifiable at the bar of critical reason.

Hans Kung on Does God Exist? Part 1

2007-01-09T22:05:00.001-08:00

A Synopsis by Glenn M. Plastina

Hans Kung. Does God Exist?: An Answer for Today. Trans. Edward Quinn. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980.

This book is not a history of philosophy, but a critical analysis on the question of God’s existence and nature (Who is God?) against the advance propositions and arguments of major thinkers and philosophies that failed to embrace humanity in all its complexities; thus, failing to answer the prime question: Does God exist?

REASON OR FAITH?

I. I think; do I therefore exist? Rene Descartes
Cartesuis was an ideal model of mathematical-philosophical certainty on which Rene Descartes is identified with. But it was the later who found his key ideas of new philosophy in understanding the certainty of reality based on mathematics and geometry. The necessity of exact method pushed the ideas of certainty on a higher plane of truth, epistemology not based on empiricism, development of methodical thinking, and the overarching control of mathematics in the order of nature. In contrast to the speculative scholasticism of his time, Descartes’ epistemological objectivity gave the self assured individual a significant stance in knowing how things were known. Here, the fundamental certainty of reason is gained through “methodological (accomplished at a regular pace of thought) and radical (going to the roots) and therefore universal (all-embracing) doubt” (11).

Since sense perception is unreliable and deceptive, one can doubt everything and emerg from it. Knowing therefore the existence of God is entirely and wholly on the reason of the doubting self, the thinking person (I think, I am). The turning point of Medieval way of knowing the certainty of God to self became certainty of the self to certainty of God; reason as basis of faith is a major question hereafter. Though Descartes had no intention to reform religious thinking, his influence reshaped majority of it. But his approach is different to where he was acquainted with; he is neither freethinking traditionalist nor Augustinian and his Thomistic heritage is only simplified where clarity as the ideal of theology is gained though the need of faith to have a solid and rational foundation.

Nonetheless, major questions remained in mathematics as the ideal of truth. The consistency of mathematics did not cover all the complexities and paradoxes of life and reality. The allegedly conclusive proof on God revolves around the vicious cycle of causal and ontological arguments. Kung comments, “it is easier to reach certainty of the self from a certainty of God presupposed by faith than conversely to gain certainty of God from a philosophically proved certainty of self”(34).

II. I believe; do I therefore exist? Blaise Pascal
Without a doubt, Blaise Pascal is a genius in mathematics, physics, literature and engineering. He is a man of letter and of profound thinking, a modern man of the world. While Descartes is a man of method, Pascal is a prodigy in the logic of the “heart” (coeur), the center of man’s persona, reason, and spirituality. Here, “the relativity of purely rational, mathematical certainty”(50) is clearly perceived by Pascal. He is extremely cautious in drawing conclusions from established principles verifiable by human experience.

The fundamental certainty of faith is, therefore, essential in taking “the risk of believing in God”(56) in whom the greatness and wretchedness of man can be expounded. The answer to the discordant existence of humanity is found in the Christian message, not in philosophy, according to Pascal. The God of the Bible is for him the ultimate ground of certitude. Man can only apprehend God by heart (intuition). “Pascal attaches great importance to the observation that certainty is lacking not only in questions of religion but also in most important questions of ordinary life”(61). Thus, the main point is: “One must choose” and not choosing is, in fact, a choice. “What is more important for him is not the path from conceptual certainty of the self to the conceptual certainty of God, but the path from existential certainty of God to existential certainty of the self”(63) by faith, the basis of reason. To this, he is more close to Augustine in terms of conversion, faith, and existential emphasis and rationale in the unity of faith and reason. Theology and philosophy are not to be separated.

III. Against rationalism for rationality
The empirical and the “mystical.” Ludwig Wittgenstein’s two major propositions are: “What can be said at all can be said clearly” and “Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.” His advocacy for clarity of ideas and concepts made repercussions in theology and philosophy. The “mystical” though beyond language, still exist. Other inexpressible are existence, meaning, and value of the world, life, survival, ethical, and God. Thus, “speechlessness” is the only remain of the “problem of life”.

Logic and theory of knowledge against metaphysics? Rudolf Carnap proposes the logical structure of the world deduced in rational form of genealogy constructed by logical - mathematical formulas, e.g. autopsychological, physical, heteropsychological and cultural objects. This proposed all-embracing science affected religion and philosophy especially metaphysics’ theses which are rationally unjustifiable in this term. Non-rational intuition, thus, cannot be called knowledge using their “metatheory.”

The universal claim of scientific thought? Karl Popper started the movement committed to destroy logical positivism, empirical hypotheses, and metaphysics. They are “pseudo statements.” Accordingly, “there are no such ultimate ‘manifest’ certainties either of reason or of the senses”(103) from which one could start for epistemology because they are mere assumptions, theories, conjectures, patterns, etc. Thus his theme of learning by trial and error is central in his critical methodology of “fallibilism.” There is no such thing as logical knowledge, only critical guessing in an infinite possibilities and openness.

Scientific revolutions. Thomas Kuhn introduced new philosophy of science (explanatory model/paradigm change). Kuhn insists that it is never the falsification or verification that solves crisis in science but paradigm change. In the rational-irrational process of scientific progress, no single method, paradigm, theory, or language is indispensable. The effect of this is abandonment of ideological scientism.

Theology and the changes in the world picture. Natural science and theology have remarkable parallels. Knowledge is dynamically attained; difficulties often come from the outside and younger generations; there is resistance in the beginning from those who held the established principles until the obscure idea become the powerful element in changing the mind set that leads to a paradigm shift in search for the truth. There is continuity in discontinuity. But the question of truth in religion is much deeper than in natural science for it could mean reformulation of old tradition.

Interim results I: Theses on modern rationality can be humanly meaningful through “critical-dialogic cooperation between theology and natural science”(115). In modern science, man does not live by reason alone but with feelings, intuition, passions, imaginations, etc. “As long as it does not become an ideology, theory of knowledge can be a help also in philosophy and theology so far as these are meant to be sciences. Criticism, therefore, must be accepted, but not destruction.” (120)

Concerning the relationship of theology to natural science, Kung points out: “In theology, too, the scientific interplay of project, criticism, countercriticism and improvement should be possible.”(122) In this case “science” is not confined to mathematical rigidity (Descartes) but can be flexible an academic discipline. It is advisable that science remains to be on its field of experience, not beyond, to be consistent to its methods. In the midst of the complexity and unity of reality, theology “must stand for critical rationality” and should be aware of the contributions of others, even those antagonist to it. Since genuine rationality is not homo-dimensional, the unity of truth and reality must be discussed openly.

THE NEW UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

God in the world: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Now, focusing the section to a Tubingen theology student, G.W.F. Hegel, the course of Deism has inclined towards panentheism, a radical line of thought (God is in the world and the world is in God) headed by B. Spinoza. In the background of Hegel lies the great influence of Spinoza among the intellectual circles of Germany. God was no more considered as above or outside man, but God in man. Pantheism may be getting great following that time but Hegel’s revolutionary line of thought was considered not pantheism per se, but panen-theism (vital unity of all being in God: a differentiated unity of life, of love, of all-embracing Spirit).

Hegel scrutinized and understood modern atheism closely as postatheistic. But his main concern is his philosophy of the absolute, the real unity of the finite and the infinite. This is more inclined towards Christian theology. “This means a unity in God himself, in the Absolute. This unity in the divine Absolute cannot be attained by rationalistic-deistic juxtaposition of the finite and the infinite but by the preserving ‘pan-en-theistic’ sublation [Aufhebung/transfiguring] of the finite in the infinite.”(140)

Thus, in the death of Christ, “God externalizes himself into the world.”(140-1) Though Hegel never espoused atheism, Death of God theologians appealed to him and his methodology of dialectical universal system where “everything individual was to be understood as moment of the uniform dialectical evolution of the whole, of the divine ‘Absolute Spirit’ itself: the Absolute Spirit which represents a unity of subject and object, being and thought, real and ideal.” (142-3) But Hegel was aware of the extreme dangers of this stance, like alienation of God as expressed by irreligious atheism and fatalistic pantheism. The Absolute must be affirmed as the “common ground of harmony between freedom and intelligent agent”(143)

God in history.
Phenomenology of spirit. This philosophy is gaining grounds in every aspect of life in Germany. Hegel’s genius has, somehow, seen the loophole of the Enlightenment period and spread his brilliant work in his “Phenomenology of the Spirit”. “Hegel describes patiently, stage by stage, how natural consciousness reaches absolute consciousness or—better—how it becomes aware of absolute knowledge, which it is already itself in secret.”(145) This is called “the path of the soul” that must be understood historically and philosophically and where the reciprocity of the Absolute and human consciousness in the path of experience is involved; both are aware of each other.

Therefore, reality is not to be deduced “from above” but derived from historical, philosophical, religious, judicial, theoretical, practical, and ethical consciousness. Here, Hegel’s use of the term “Aufheben” (elevating, canceling, preserving) is significant in his philosophical line of thought. He rarely use “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” but what is meant here is the affirmation of truth turned into a denial and then again turned into a transcending of both affirmation and denial into a higher unity. Here, human consciousness shared in the dynamism of the Absolute itself.

Dialectic in God himself. Hegel’s discovery of this phenomenal “all-embracing process of reconciliation”(147) extends so far in the new dialectical understanding of God. Hegel arrived to this position with great philosophical repercussions. Kung comments that, “By way of development: the world is not simply God, but it is God in his development. This God externalizes himself to the world in development, in history, and leads the world as nature and finally as spirit through all stages up to himself and to his infinity and divinity. All this in a mighty, all-encompassing circular movement,...as Hegel expresses it: outgoing of God and return of God himself.”(147-8)

This is what dialectic of God himself is. But Hegel prefers speaking of God as spirit for it expresses the reality that God is a God who is a dialectical, a self-developing, self-externalizing God, “coming to himself out of alienation”(148). Hegel insists that the Absolute God or Spirit himself should be acknowledged for what he is (nature) and should not simply be finitized, rigidified, materialized like the supra and extramundane God.

God who is beyond finite determinations, in Hegel’s understanding, is not “supreme being,” beyond, above, , alongside, opposite or outside this world but as “the all-pervading infinite in the finite, as the ultimate reality in the world, in the heart of things, in man himself, in world history. God as the inexhaustible ground of all being. God as the here-hereafter, as transcendence in immanence.”(150)

In 1808, he wrote his Science of Logic. This new system in history starts out from the dialectic of being, nothing, and becoming. Three large section of this work deals “with the logic of being, of essence, and of the notion: an order of pure essences or God in his eternal being before the creation of the world.”(150) Developing the new synthesis, he touched reformulations in philosophy of history where the world is governed by “divine providence” for God’s glory. His main philosophy of world history is “God himself is in history.

Throughout all wretchedness, all negations, the divine Spirit unfolds all his riches in time. Since God in his passage through history takes all wretchedness on himself, evil, the negative in world history, is from the outset encompassed by good.”(155) He calls history as the “Golgotha of Absolute Spirit” that transfigures reality (including theodicy) and reconciles it with rational. Hegel’s philosophy of history became the very foundation of the following “historical presentations of art, religion and philosophy.”(156)

Repercussions in theology were also felt in Hegel’s new philosophy of religion. Some of the striking features were:
(1) Hegel’s God is not some outer spirit in the universe but the mind permeating all minds in the innermost depth of human subjectivity.
(2) His concept on the Trinity is not unrealistic arithmetic but trinitarian “economy” in relation to the world and salvation history.
(3) World creation is not an abstract and arbitrary volition but rooted in the nature of God. This is not something like perfect to imperfect emanation but more of a progressive imperfect to perfect evolution.
(4) Providence is not attributed to a dictatorial God or proved in unhistorical sense but observed speculatively in the actual course of history.
(5) The non-Christian religions are assessed not as purely negative or neutral-irrelevant phenomena but as pro-visional, pre-Christian religions approaching the one true God.
(6) The Christ event is not confined as the object of private devotion but is shown as a world event of the Spirit for mankind as a whole.
(7) The negative aspects of reality, i.e. sin, suffering, death, are not trivialized by abstract theodicy but “depicted by a theology of the death of God in a concrete justification of God and man as overcome painfully and victoriously by God himself in history.”(160)

Hegel’s death came suddenly and Germany lost one of their greatest philosopher overnight of 13 November 1831 due to cholera. A few night before his death, he was working on his desk for a publication entitled “Proofs of God’s Existence” which was left unfinished. While Europe was in political and national turmoil, he rest gently in peace without seeing his reputation and popularity fading away.

Secular and historical God
The irremovable differences. Hegel’s famous advice to the Spinozism, as quoted by Jung, goes this way: “True refutation must engage the force of the opponent and must place within the compass of his strength; the task is not advanced if he is attacked outside himself and the case is carried in his absence.”(162) Nonetheless, in his absence to his critics today, both theological and philosophical, Christians and Marxist, there is certain “negative agreement against Hegel’s speculative identity of the finite and the infinite.”(163)

The main criticism is concerning the heart of the system—the Absolute Spirit which is called in turn Absolute Notion, Absolute Idea, Absolute Self-consciousness, the Self or God. But according to Iljin, “Hegel’s philosophy sways unceasingly between dualism in a disguised form and the attempt to ‘expunge’ the empirical-concrete by his own power.”(166) Among others who were related to the concept of God in coming to be are:

Auguste Compte (1798-1857). This French philosopher gave up his Catholic faith at age thirteen. He is one of the main proponent of “positivism” in science and “sociology.” But his concept of progress is without God. Metaphysics for him is fictitious. There was, according to him, no Absolute Spirit developing in the world history to progressively higher forms. Progress is not in God coming to be but in “humanity” which is the great universal being, developing in three stages to positivity. 1) the theological-fictive poetry of myth on the part of a predominantly militarized society. 2) the abstract metaphysics of the juridically oriented society. 3) the positive science of facts would be established in an industrial society. Here man stands in the place of God and his Providence. Man is the one who sees to foresee; foresees to plan; plans in advance to possess the world. Humanity is the main object. Love is the norm to one’s fellow man and the basis is social order. The ultimate goal is human progress.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). This French Jesuit priest formulated his fundamental vision of the God of evolution. He is a great geologist and paleontologist who dealt with the evolution of nature and cosmos exhaustively and tried to reconcile in unity of thought his scientific knowledge and theological concepts. His “theogenesis” and “Christogenesis” are directly linked to “cosmogenesis” and “noogenesis” in dialectical progress. However, his distinct differences to Hegelian theological synthesis are: 1) his Darwinian evolutionary biology in the light of life and matter “from below” rather than the idealistic philosophy of history “from above”. 2) his openness to the future and a consummation still to come rather than the Hegelian consummation which is already in the present. Thus, Teilhard’s evolutionary line of thought is cosmogenic-oriented. Man is not yet finished but becoming human, which is “anthropogenesis” towards the “Pleroma” in the “Omega point. His concept of God is: God is in evolution, a God from within and ahead (Prime Mover).

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). His philosophy is God in process; he is the antecedent ground of the whole process of the world. His nature is “dipolar” and is the “dialectical unity of permanence in flux and flux in permanence”(179).

Interim results II: Theses on the secularity and historicity of God. This is seen in a consistent, methodological thinking, meaningful critical-dialogic collaboration between theology and both modern philosophy and modern thought as a whole. Hegel sought reconciliation of faith and knowledge and of philosophical and biblical God into Absolute Spirit, of which two themes prevailed: 1) the Secularity of God. With Platonism, Aristotelian, Plotinus’ philosophy in light, God is seen not as a supramundane being above or extramundane being beyond but God is in this world and this world is in God. The absolute God relativizes everything. 2) the historicity of God. He is not the Unmoved Mover, the unchangeable being, static being itself but the living God who dynamic in actuality in relation to history. Kung comments in closing: “In the light of the historicity of God, the biblical message of a God who by no means persists unmoving and unchanging in an unhistorical or suprahistorical sphere, but is alive and active in history, can be understood better than in the light of classical Greek or medieval metaphysics.”(188)

Asian Christian Thinking:

2007-01-09T22:04:00.001-08:00

Synopsis of the Book: Cecil Hargreaves. Asian Christian Thinking: Studies in a Metaphor and its Message. New Delhi: Printsman, 1979.

This book is about Christianity as a tree being rooted in a particular soil, but spreading its branches to the winds of the Spirit. This is in response to the prevailing concept, in the very words of Mathai Zachariah, that the “foreignness of the Gospel in Asia has always been its stumbling block and the rock of offence.” (vii) Cecil Hargreaves’s intention for this book is that he is actually attempting to study several aspects of some Asian Christian writers as they speak for themselves on matters related to theology, spirituality, mission, church, social involvement and prayer. Though not a systematic or analytical study, this book aims to trace out some Asian thinking patterns as they are shaped by the symbols and parables especially that of “the living tree” or “the root and the branch.” This symbolism has been a popular concept that recurs in many of Asian writers’ works. Traditional and cultural setting of Asia shows that it is indeed strongly imbued with tree-symbolism.

Introductory

The Significance of Modern Asian Parable

One prominent concept is that of the “Parable of the Vine” in John 15:1-10. The key words for some Asian Christian writers for this passage are “Abide in me and I in you.” To them, this is the ultimate “mahavakya” or “great utterance” in the teaching of Christian teaching. Cecil Hargreaves looks upon the Johannine pattern of thought concerning the pattern, primarily, of “rootedness.” This theme is found in many Asian writers in parable form especially in relation to indigenous theology. Secondly, is the pattern of “growth” and methods of growth. In missions, this thought pattern is associated with evangelism of the sweet potato vine which emphasizes the simple approach of family and group contacts. It also presents the church as a growing tree and not as well-structured building or organization that does not relate to Asian people. The third pattern is that of “relatedness” which implies the Asian value on relatedness, inter-relatedness, and corporateness; on synthesis, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. In worship, especially with the Asian emphasis on the reality of oneness, there is an essence of mystical experience of man and with relatedness between God and humanity with this parable. “This leads Asian thinking into wrestling with the relationship (in any true spirituality) between mysticism and history, between contemplation and prophecy, between detachment and personalism: in other words, into probing of the fullness of the mystery of the divine humanity of Jesus Christ” (4).

The Cultural Background of the Parable. Asian Christian writers were already prepared to think in tree symbolism because of the cultures and backgrounds. Even modern Chinese revolutionary movements are filled with tree symbolism. Mao and Han Suyin wrote their poems that bear tree thinking pattern. This is not just a modern manifestation of thought, but is embedded in ancient traditions on the way they look at life and their opponents. Chinese people think of individual as the group, the family, the village, the cooperative, the association of friends, while Western foreigners think of an individual as a unit. There is an emphasis on relatedness and not Western mentality of individual pursuit of success.

The same symbolism is true in the writings of Sayed Waliullah where he uses the tree symbol as an illustration of the establishment of man’s personal and religious influence over the people in the village. In Hinduism and Buddhism, tree planting is a must. Mahatma Gandhi also used the peepal tree in his non-violence campaign. Hindu scriptures were also filled with tree which depicts life, rootedness, relatedness, and eternity. Rabindranath Tagore’s philosophical and poetic writings use tree symbolism to depict principles of cohesion in life and mystical humanism. It is psychologically, socially, and mystically significant to him. For him, roots are branches in the earth and branches roots in the air. The tree symbolizes the concept of “dharma” or values. Pantheism is also a part of the view on tree symbolism especially in Hinduism. Hargreaves does not attempt, however, to justify it since he is promoting only what is that Christian “radical personalism” rather than monistic naturalism which is basically pantheism (6-16).

Theology and the Telegraph Poles

Indigenization and Localisation. This section deals on the rootedness of theology in Asian soil or indigenous expression of faith and theology. The concept is indigenous is something of rootedness in Christ and related to the soil. Thus, rootedness is closely related to indigenous concept. Likewise, the idea of localization is tied up with contextualization. Hargreaves started with Dr. Kazoh Kitamori’s comment that the Japanese church is more of a “flagpole” rather than a “tree” for it has no roots in the Japanese soil because it resembles western theological systems, not incarnational. Kitamori was looking for indigenous and creative means of Japanese churches to spread the Gospel, if possible through dialogue. His Theology of the Pain of God is born out of the significance of the pain of God in dealing with Israel, of Christ on the Cross, and God’s agony on Hiroshima. It bears a type of Kabuki tragedy where in the play some has to die as a sacrifice to save someone.
Hargreaves points it that indigenization of theology means a theology that is rooted in, relevant to and redeeming for the life and culture of its country (25).

One prime example is Dr. Kosuke Koyama who is a systematic theology professor who worked in Thailand. He developed an indigenous theology that relates to the illiterate Thai farmers and is rooted in a particular soil. Thus his “water buffalo theology” is a grounded work that utilizes the simplest terms that the people could understand like sticky-rice, dogs, cats, pepper, cock-fighting, leaking house, lottery, stomach ache, etc. not only his experience with the Hiroshima tragedy contributed to the shape of his theology but also that of his interactions with the Buddhist monks of Thailand. Their “tranquility-piety” challenged him as it relates to the kind, calm, peaceful, and abundant nature of the land. One of the noted Japanese theologians is Dr. Jisaburo Matsuki who promotes an indigenous training for contemporary students-theologians as they dialogue with the people rather than isolate themselves form cultural realities. Both of these Japanese theologians conceived theology as not to be like programmed television sets but rooted and living trees. The same emphasis is taken by Bishop Dehqani-Tafti in Iran where he perceives the church as in the garden, full of life (21-30).

More about Roots. In Hongkong, Mr. Feng Shang-li once commented on the Chinese church like a “flower in stuck in a vase.” Rootedness is a main issue there. Indigenous theology has been pushed by some leaders like C.Y. Cheng in China way back in 1920s to 30s. He tried to establish relationship between Christianity and certain traditional customs of the Chinese like the commemoration of departed love ones. He practically approached this custom with an indigenous method that honors departed parents in contrast to that of the Westerners who desacralized the ancestors of the Chinese by destroying significant objects that connects them to their ancestors and past. Some notable Asian participant who went to International Missionary Council in Jerusalem in 1928 was C.Y. Cheng and T.C.Cha from China and K.T. Paul and P. Chenchiah from India. Indigenization was discussed in relation to the incorporation of the worthy characteristics of the people in the interpretation of Christ and expression of worship. Indigenization of the Gospel of Christ should influence all phases of life in the locality and actively share its life to the people. It must be alert to the problems of the times and sympathetically help in solving and giving attention to the vernacular knowledge of the Bible in building worship and prayer life in God (33). Using the right language is a main issue in indigenization. The late Canon Lee Shiu Keung in Hong Kong (1966) enthusiastically promoted indigenization especially in borrowing words and local philosophical concepts in Christian language. He and his colleagues were inspired to borrow “Tao,” a mystical entity, in translating “logos.” They used Chinese religious insights to enrich their understanding of the Gospel. It worked.

Though not an easy task, in South India, Justice Chenchiah used Indian words associated with Hindu gods for God simply because there is no equivalent to the word “God” and no words that are not used for Siva or Vishnu. Foreign words were rejected. People could only understand the right language which happens to be their language only. Not only was the presentation a challenge to Asian Christians, but also the actual content of the Gospel. Dr. C.H Hwang and Bishop A.J. Appasamy of India, suggested both Gospel form and content (not Christ, but creed and confessions) will be transformed if the church does not want to dwell in cultural ghettos. Rev. Yisu Das Tiwari thinks otherwise. If possible, Hindu words like avatar, rishi, advaita, etc. are better avoided. Nonetheless, the general concession agrees that Hindu contemplation, yoga, etc. can be Christianized. Some Hindu concepts can be better explained in incarnational Christian concepts (32-41).

A Novelist’s Approach. This chapter is centered upon the historical story published entitled Silence (1966) by Shusaki Endo on the Christian church in Japan in the 17th century. The book’s theme is whether Christianity can ever take root in Japanese culture like a tree. In the midst of severe persecution, the church is pictured as a withering tree in the “Japanese mud-swamp” alien culture. Priests were disillusioned because Hellenistic Christianity is like an alien religion planted in a culture that is totally different in that the ultimate reality is to deny it. This was the story of a certain priest named Sebastian Rodriguez in 1643 and Christovao Ferriera who worked underground but was betrayed by Kichijiro. The persecution was so severe in that the most Christian thing to do is to apostatize for the sake of others who were tortured. Both did leave the faith. God was still silent. Rodriguez lived under the name Okada San’emon. The author implies that if Christianity is to take roots in the mud-swamps of Japan it must (1) radically adapt in any new way, i.e. enforcing the concept of the transcendent God, (2) do away with perfectionism and paternalism, and (3) hope and stand on common ground of humanity (failure) under the cross.

A Root and Branch Spirituality

A Spirituality of Depth. The Parable of the Vine, says Mark Sunder Rao, famous Indian Christian philosopher and writer, is the “Christian yoga par excellence” as suggested in the New Testament. The centrality in writing the biblical tree-symbolism in Asian Christian thinking about prayer is demonstrated only here. Yoga, (lit. “joining” or yug) always implies preparation, psychological or physical through certain postures or controlled breathing, before contemplation or meditation to “quieten” the mind and enter into the stillness of self-awareness and into the stillness of the divine presence. Indian Christian thinkers believed that Christ call them to the goals of yoga: to help free the mind from superficial thinking about life’s temporal circumstances, to help men realize their being’s depthness, to wake men at their being’s deep levels, and to realize God’s presence at their being’s center point, the abode of the Spirit within the man’s spirit. It does not necessarily mean being personally lost in the communion/merging with the divine (53-4).

Many Indian indigenous Christian thinkers believed that the book of John is the heart of the Bible, like A.J. Appasamy, who appreciated the devotional fervor of Indian mystics; amplified moksah of “release of salvation” through abiding in God’s love; treasured bhakti tradition that gave emphases to ethical, personalist, and historical values. He also distinguished mysticism which gave emphasis to devotion (55-7). This was illustrated in the biography of Indian Yisu Das Tiwari who understands and centered his thinking upon John 14-17 that gave impetus to his devotion to Christ despite that he is a Brahmin. Mark Sunder Rao described also his profound yogic type personal experience in his book Ananyatva that mean unotherness or Christian non-dualism. Another religious experience were also cited: poorna yoga (complete yoga) of the Holy Spirit, which contributed many comments from mystical and kerygmatic theologians.

A Spirituality of Hope. This section deals on the realization of Asian’s quest to fulfill a practical vocation in history, in line with dynamic, prophetic spirituality that brought together the relatedness of prayer and history, meditation and action. Spirituality of hope, according to M.M. Thomas, points out the centrality of union with “the essence of Being itself,” and makes “becoming” as only secondary to it. Nonetheless, “becoming” is important for an incarnational and prophetic faith like Christianity for the renewal of creation and man’s existence in history. M.M. Thomas differentiated Hindu from Christian spirituality. Both have different goals of which three points prevailed: (1) Spirituality of hope is prophetic that gives emphasis to community, not individuality, and forgiveness in Christ. (2) This spirituality consists of practical mysticism of love and in deepening understanding of Christ’s divine humanity. (3) This spirituality of hope is also of sacrifice (67-72).

A Mystical Theology. This is focused on Raymond Pannikar synthesis of the Trinity in relation to Christian revelation about God, man, and the world of which the trinity is the “junction” where the genuine dimensions of spirituality of all religions meet. The spiritual essence of his mystical theology is centered upon John’s concept of the trinity (“threefoldness”) of which transcendence (spirituality of the Father), immanence (spirituality of the Holy Spirit), and personalism (spirituality of Christ) is synthesized. This could be the key to deeper understanding of dialogue with other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism especially in their emphases on transcendence and immanence and being (78-91).

Mission and the Sweet Potato Vine

Evangelism. Sweet potato vine approach to evangelism is a method “tailored to suit the existing patterns of Asian life” or collective evangelism (95). This “serious” approach is necessary in Japan, India, etc. for it appeals not to individualistic emphases of the west. Many Asian thinkers refer to this approach using tree-symbolism rather than a train. It is espousing relevance and fair treatment to Asian cultures. This deep-rooted evangelism is more sensible even to Hindus for dialogue is present and it avoids arrogance of which western missionaries were preeminent (96-107).

In the Secular World. Tree-symbolism is again embedded in this focus on Christian evangelism to penetrate to the grounds of secular world. There has been a general consensus now that Christian faith is indeed relevant to the modern Asian cultures especially on the emphasis of indigenous Christian faith and life (109). This has something to do with Christian response to the struggles and sufferings of many Asian people. Unless Christians “cooperatively” deal with Asian communities as God’s providential means, affectivity is just an illusion. If Christianity remains to be identified with western secularization and modernization that threatens Asian lifestyle, it is doomed to self-defeat. Asian tradition is so rooted in that despite of extreme modernization it survives of which Japan is a prime example.

Calcutta Sermon. Referring to Canon Subir Biswas’ sermon in Calcuta (1968), it commented on the tree-symbolism of the church as a leafless tree where clergy is said to be picking the fallen leaves and pinning them on the trunk of the weathered tree. In the midst of industrialism in India, the Indian Christian church remains self-preoccupied. It was a severe criticism of the communist who happens to use tree-symbolism as illustration of their ideals.

Church, Ministry and the Banyan Trees

The Shape of the Church. Asian Christian thinking is not totally sold out to the hierarchical mould of the church of which it is more of building structure rather than a tree. The weakness of an over-organized church in Asia is revealed especially that of the Roman Catholics where exclusivism, busyness, institutionalism, and compartmentalism are flagrant. Asians are more interested in synthesis or general conclusion. They want the church as a living organism rather than as an institution (127-27).

Layman’s Viewpoint. This section emphasized the diversity of ministries in Asian context. One particular group cited is the Society of Priscilla and Aquilla (SAP). This professional couples-tentmakers (laypeople) are compared to fluids that run through plants as they influence their community with their life and work. Theirs was a ministry that avoids the concept of paid-expositors, luxurious missionaries, and pre-planned witness. The presence of obedience to promote Christ, simplicity, spontaneity and diversity is an effective means of evangelism in Asia. Dr Tekenaka suggested four types of diverse ministry: (1) ordinary life and work ministry of laity, (2) theologically-trained minister to equip lay workers, (3) specialized mobile ministry, and (4) voluntary non-professional ministers (138-45).

Worship and the Sprouting of the Tree Stumps

Eastern Worship and Modern Man. Asian Christians press toward an open prayer-centered growth in worship. Prayer, as an exercise of freedom in speech and intimacy, is an experience of God’s fatherhood, grace and forgiveness of Christ, and fullness of the Spirit that provides genuine qualities for human existence. Hunger for mysteries that seeks undeniability of transcendence and the world is important to modern Asian spirituality. Intellectualizing spirituality threatens Asian’s natural inclinations to non-rational and mystical realities. The scope of Asian worship includes a quest for profound synthesis of theological depth and devotion. Silence is also a main concern in Asian spirituality (149-56).

Being and Doing. Asian Christian’s deepest meaning of synthesis and wholeness is perceived to lie in that focal point of intersection between being and doing in “the Cross of Jesus, the Tree of life.” (158) The Christian task therefore is to find Christ in every culture and the people’s quest for being. The challenge is that Jesus Christ, the Logos, must be made manifest in the philosophy and religion of the Asians. Thus, dialogue with Asian culture is of utmost necessity.

The Centrality of the Cross. Ultimately, tree-symbolism finds theological significance in the Crucified Lord. The link between tree-symbolism and the cross is crucial to Asian theologians. The profoundness of mysticism in the light of the cross shows the junction where sinful humanity meets God. The sufficiency of Christ, where all things hold together, projects the Cross as that “something unitary” for the centrality of Christ is historically and mystically reconciled.

Response
A must reading for all aspiring Asian theologians! To dialogue with the thinking pattern of Asians is an important enterprise so as not to build theology on swampy ground that will drown one’s theology in oblivion. Hargreaves deals with the importance of making the message of the Gospel really understandable to Asian people and construct theology that meets the need of the community.

Jollibee’s Tony Tan and Jesus’ Plodders: On Taking the Lead

2006-09-04T01:53:00.000-07:00

By Glenn Plastina

“Jollibee’s success is a Filipino success,” and so it says.

First, it was Jackie Chan. Second was John Woo. And third, was a Filipino. It was like a hero’s journey. CCATV 3 Hong Kong featured Tony Tan in their Crossings program 17 August 2006. It made a deep impact on me. Tough I like Chan and Woo—and these three shared common stock as Chino—I begun to admire Tony the most as a leading entrepreneur and Filipino. As I follow through the whole segment of this summer episode, I can’t help, but take a serious reflection on theologizing the venture of Jollibee in correlation with Christian ministry—especially on Tony’s unrealized potential contribution to Filipino pastoral leadership.

Tony Tan is the key person who gave birth and robust growth to the Jollibee empire. He made this Filipino venture distinct and globally competitive. It is quite clear that spirituality has an ingrained role in this endeavor—somewhat like a Folk Christianity, a mixture of Catholicism and Chinese belief. This is seen in the documentary’s portrayal of the “blessing” rites of Jollibee new establishments and their ancestral reverence. Through out the documentary segment, some core elements contributing to the enormous successes of Tony and Jollibee were identifiable. The intactness of these values led me to reflect and correlate through the following points.

VISION. Jollibee, like any other business, started small, says Tony’s wife Gina. But just like a small “mustard seed,” it can potentially grow to a big and strong tree as Jesus used to say. The dynamic element—in fact the very core idea of the whole Jollibee thing, from first to last, I believe—is Tony’s vision: to be one of the biggest fast-food chain in the nation (Eventually, the vision was refined and expanded towards a global company). Tony himself felt it was quite naïve at first, but his “dream” was slowly taking place as he took time and specific steps to make his vision come true. His vision kept him focused; he refused Pepsi’s job offer because he wanted to take the lead. He dreamt of running a business. Anything that will hinder him from fulfilling his vision was easily turned down. Without a doubt, his vision and visioneering are essential to his effectivity and success in the venture. Near to the end of the documentary, it was emphatic: vision brought them where they are now.

Jesus’ vision of the future was impeccable. He was not only concerned about the “already present” in his ministry, but also of the “not yet” future, as he emphasized in his core message of the Kingdom of God. For him—and this is applicable to his contemporary postmodern or Filipino leaders—having a vision of the future is non-negotiable. Without vision, leaders and people alike are lost, wandering without direction, plodding without destiny; somewhat like “bahala na” or come what may. For Jesus, the future vision is intentional, focused, directive, and powerful. Anything that does not align to that future must be overcome--even discarded. Without kingdom vision, his servants will easily go astray, heading nowhere in their ministry. Today, we need to ask: How many leaders have clear and defined visions? Are we up for just maintenance and not taking the lead?

PEOPLE-ORIENTED. Tony is not a lone ranger, hermetic sage, confining what he knows just for himself. In his vision, he saw that he also need his family to venture with him—including his wife, children, and relatives. This one big family has to think and work hand in hand to make the vision a reality. Nonetheless, they also have some sort of ownership to the endeavor. Tony has the vision, and major family-players shared it also. They not only value their family, but also the people around them. They “listened” and gave the people what they deserve. They also wanted to pass the value of caring for other people through some of their programs where children are taught the value of giving and caring for the less fortunate. (Although the family learned the value of hard work while they were children, in this business, they need more than hard labor; they have to be smart.) They cater to the need of the masses, not just for the elite and for the few.

No doubt Tony thinks a lot before he does—and he does it with people in mind. Jesus’ valuation of the people cannot be underestimated. He came to seek people. While many programs, systems, and establishments are people-related, his was more than just a matter of consumerism or social activism. His was about people knowing and loving the Creator and loving people. Where Christian fundamentalism alienates people from God and his community, this poor people-skills and relationship building creates a rigid monologue culture. There’s little place for dialogue and interaction--or loving relationships. What matters most is legalism. Only the elite have the right to say. So whatever happened to the greatest command to love people? Replaced by dogmatic convictions of dysfunctional interpreter and preachers of separation and hatred? Whatever happened to the loving God’s preachers? Who will take the lead in building bridges?

KNOWLEDGE. Tony’s knowledge of his craft grew out from experience and knowledge development. He learned by participation, involvement, doing, and acting. His was not an armchair knowledge. He studied other businesses and learned from them—most importantly, excels in whatever he learned. He insisted to know the why’s, what’s, where’s, when’s, and how’s of his chosen life-path. He knew what people wanted by listening to them; he responded. He also consulted others who advised him to “think like the big boys.” Mith Lanning helped him a lot to identify the weakness, make strategic plans in their meetings, and serve well. Jollibees’ Research and Development area is also responsible in formulating scientific recipes that will give them an edge in their business. Tony knew his market. This time, no more guessing!

Knowledge, indeed, is power. While many Christian were dabbling into “Experience vs. Education” debate, it is evident that Jesus valued both knowledge and experience; they are not to be dichotomized. While the idolatry of academic acumen lies in constant around the corner, our knowledge of this God we serve is utterly important. It is because our knowledge of God will constantly reflect in the why and how we do ministry—even in doing theology. Christian ministers ought to know how their people think and what they truly need. The same is true with the unbelieving mentality, so that our ministry can make a difference in their lives. But it seems that busyness is a hindrance to deep reflections. When plodding diminishes our ability to point out the essentials, turning to the basics of knowing God and his people is worth taking. Jesus himself said, “I know my sheep.”

SUSTAINING. Jollibee’s venture is not an easy task. They have to face squarely several challenges. Competition with other foreign mega-business establishments like KFC, A&W, McDonalds, and the like, placed a huge pressure to keep their vision, business, and investments going big. They have to face vicious rumors that tried to discredit them, like the controversial “hamburgers from worms.” Nevertheless, they overcame such blows and it made their endeavor a lot stronger. To sustain and ensure growth, they did a lot of training and risk-taking by seeking advice from outsiders (like Paul Rosenberg). They diversified their portfolio to cater to the varied taste of the customers. They trained their personnel, mascots, and everyone involved in the business making them competent in their specific roles and tasks. Their training was "no nonsense" to serve well. Was it rewarding? How’s this? The world of business elite Ernst & Young 2004 Award was officially given to Tony—and of course in behalf of all his team.

“Well done thou good and faithful servant,” echoes from the future. Though spoken by Christ more than two thousand years ago, this call to be faithful and fruitful is worth pondering. Plodding for the sake of plodding ain’t working out. Jesus, in his teaching and parables, used the world of business, agriculture, nature, athletics, and the mundane examples to teach divine truths. The methods change, but the message was kept in tact. If we look at it today, yesterday’s approaches may not work well now; some were obsolete, irrelevant, and ineffective. (Barrenness is not the same with faithfulness by the way.) We are called to be faithful to the One who called us, not to the things introduced to us (like methods and approach). Keeping on until the end requires dynamic risk-taking and changes, because only dead people don't change! And only dead trees do not bear fruits!

CONTEXTUALIZATION. No, I haven’t heard this very word from that Crossings documentary. But the concept was there. Here’s how. Jollibee, although it definitely has a Western taste, Tony adds Filipino flavor. Hamburgers, hotdogs, ice creams, etc, were Western influences. They were not originated in the Philippines. These products were introduced to the Philippines by Western colonialists. But Tony did not swallow it as is. The ice cream franchising business in 1970s made a decisive point of change. As they listened to their customers, they tried the distinct YAM Burger (experimented by Tony’s sister, Virgie) to fit to the Filipino’s taste. The same adding of Filipino flavor in almost all of their products was made. This is to fit with the context! But this fitting in the context made Jollibee delicacies distinctly Filipino around the world (No wonder my wife and kids really like Jollibee when we are far away from the Philippines).

So what’s the point to the plodders? We have to admit that the evangelical faith we received is highly Western. Its rationalization and rudiments were evidently Western. Just look at the services and sermon styles, the bureaucratic systems and theological books. There is nothing evil to that. The problem is in swallowing such perspectives and practices without "chewing" it--a form of serious reflection. We suffer indigestion. We actually act who we are not. In consequence, we make Filipinos think differently to who they are. Cultivating our Filipino taste of worship is actually foreign to our many churches. Our theology sounds more like and European or American, rather than Asian, or more specifically, Filipino. Our Filipino people were deprived of an authentic Christian Filipino faith and practice because of our inability to listen, facilitate, and cultivate the "divine design" among Filipinos.

Who will take the lead? Anyone? Count me in.

(See this article also in http://www.plastina.blogspot.com )

The “Amdag” of the Ibalois and the Christian Teaching on Redemption

2005-11-03T19:00:00.000-08:00

By Mark S. Quios (Edited by Glenn Plastina)

The Ibalois and the Amdag. One of the interesting superstitions in Ibaloi Paganism which could have corresponding parallels to their tribes in the Cordillera is on the ransom of a soul. The Bible essentially talks about the history of redemption which was provided and accomplished in the person of Jesus Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God.

“Amdag” in the Ibaloi paganism is a ritual which refers to the ransom of a soul that is believed to have been taken or captured by a spirit. A scenario of this is that a spirit hunting for soul unprecedentally come over a house and take a family member (usually a child). Former pagans (including the resource person of this paper) witnessed and testify an eerie and haunting ambience when a hunting spirit strikes then suddenly hear a sound of a seemingly flying dog barking (which can’t be mimicked) and hovering a house of his victim. When a house has this experience, which usually happens at dusk or evening, the family, on the following day, immediately has to redeem the soul of the family-member. Subsequently, symptoms of a “captivated soul” shows the follwing: fever, flu, vomiting, LBM, oral or anal bleeding, etc. If nothing is done within the next 24 hrs, he or she will eventually die. The resource person of this paper said knew and witnessed two families who each lost a loved-one for neglecting the prescribed ritual to ransom their captivated family member. In contrast to other superstitions of the tribe (that is, the Ibalois), this has nothing to do with offending a spirit that incurs the incident. They just happen to be a victim of malevolent and capricious supernatural beings, a “chance-happenings”.

In doing the “Amdag” (or the prescribe ritual for redeeming the soul taken captive), usually a pig (a black one) is offered, though chicken will do. Two poles (metal bars) are posted facing east before a native winnowing pan on which 12 pieces of metals (bolos, sickle or any like) are placed. These pieces of metals must be pure as such, i.e., no leather, rubber or anything bound on the handles. The bolos are, said to be, what the appeased spirit will use in clearing his way through the journey. The two metal poles/bars will serve as his cane. After these things are prepared, right before the two poles, a pagan priest will call forth the spirit in their dialect “i-odim ali sota cararua jen inenopan mo, sikam jen mandebas ni mashem tan medebi” (“Bring back the soul you hunted, you who pass by at dusk and at the night”). After this call, the men in charged for the slaughter (of the pig) will thrust their pointed wooden instruments or sharpened sticks (from a branch of a tree) repeatedly on the side-neck of the pig, spurting blood. They call this “owek” which literally means “to pierce/thrust with a pointed instrument.” Following this is the slaughtering of the black pig. As in other rituals, the pagan priest will examine if the gall is “good”, i.e., not covered by the liver. The gall must be exposed on the surface of the liver; or else, the sacrifice won’t be accepted. They have to slaughter another one until the gall is pronounced “good” by the priest.

After the meat is sliced and cooked (typically in all pagan ritual cooking practice the meat is boiled plainly with no seasonings, not even a salt or any other ingredients), two plates are provided, one for cooked rice and the liver and the best part of the meat on the other one. After this, the pagan priest will pray (in chant) and call the spirit to eat and fellowship with them. His prayer includes again this line of plea, “please return the soul you’ve taken”. For about thirty minutes the spirit is allowed to eat. Then, the family and the gathered people will eat too. As a result of this ritual and having placated the spirit, the victim in the family will revive after one or few days; this means that the spirit has been satisfied with the sacrifice and the ritual.

The Introduction of the Gospel. In presenting the gospel to this people group, one particular passage and scenario in the Scripture could serve as a contact point. In Exodus chapter 11, after Pharaoh, due to a hardened heart, refused God’s people to go, God ordered His people to prepare for the tenth and final plague that would be poured forth on the land of Egypt, the death of all first born in the land. God told His people, "About midnight, I will go through out Egypt. Every first born son in Egypt will die, from the first born son of Pharaoh who sits on the throne, to the first born son of a slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the first born of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughput Egypt." (Exo. 11:4 –6). At midnight the Lord struck down all the first born in Egypt, from the first born of Pharaoh, to those who were in the dungeon, and to the first born of all the live stock as well (Exo. 12: 29).

From this passage, a story of redemption can be told that a God (The God of the Bible) through an angel of death passed through one time in a certain land at midnight, to require and take the souls of all first born sons. This could easily be a point of contact to the introduction of the gospel. It must be pointed out however that this God is "the sovereign God, the God of Gods” (Deut. 10:17; Dan. 2:24) and "the God of spirits" (Num. 16:22; 27: 16; Mk. 3:11). By killing all the first born of Egypt, he was challenging and judging the gods of the Egyptians, thus claiming supremacy, “on that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every first born men and animals and I will bring judgment on the gods of Egypt. “I am the Lord” (Exo. 12:12, NIV). Here the God whose name is Yahweh (Lord) collides with the Egyptian magicians with their gods. Though for three times they were able to imitate Yahweh’s miracle, but on the next plague, the plague of gnats, they could not (Exo. 7:-8:19).

The word “pass through” (Exo. 12:12) is a very significant word since the people of the tribe call the hunting spirit “the Spirit who pass by/through " as mentioned above. Not only that this God, whose name is Yahweh, is supreme above all other gods (“which are no gods at all” – 1 Cor. 8:5,6), but also He is not a capricious one, He didn’t just pass “by chance” and slew the first born of the land, but it was a consequent judgment on the Egyptians for their king’s hardened heart won’t listen to God’s command, to let His people go. Although the king was warned many times and suffered nine previous plagues. This passage means that this God is a just one who gives man what he deserves according to his ways and deeds (1 King 8:32; Jer. 9:24; Dt. 32: 4 Dan. 9:14). He is the same Spirit God we must listen to and obey, or else someday, as He says in the book called the Bible, we will be judged by Him; not merely a member of our family but all who would not listen to Him and obey his words will be taken away, cast into a lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8).

The God Who Is. This God so judges because He is the Spirit-Creator who made all things. He gives life, breath, rain and food that we need (Acts 14:17). “In Him we live and moved and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Without Him and His provision we will all be gone. Because of this He requires us to serve Him, to worship Him and obey Him. He is the God in whom we are responsible to (Heb. 4:13) and He has the authority over all ours souls as He said “all souls are mine” (Ezek. 18: 4); “as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: The soul that sinneth it shall die”, (KJV).

This Spirit-Creator God, whose name is Yahweh, being merciful, does not want anyone to perish (2 Pet. 3:9). He does not want that a member of our family will die and be punished. Thus, in order for His people to escape the passing angel of death, this God prescribed a ritual and a sacrifice; they were to do so that instead of “passing through” He will rather “pass over” them. "Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month (first month) each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household … the animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some blood and put it on the sides and tops of doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast ….. the blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Exo. 12:3, 5–8,13 NIV, Emphasis mine).

In order for the Angel of death to “pass over” the Israelites and not take their firstborn son, they were to slaughter a goat or a lamb. They were to eat its meat that is roasted (not boiled); and most important of all, its blood must be sprinkled on the door frames which will spare them from the Angel of death. And so the story goes to tell, that those who obeyed this ritual prescription--the tribe of Israel-- were passed over (or spared) while those who did not-–the Egyptians including its king--grieved over their dead sons (Exo. 12:24,30).

The book of this Spirit–Creator God (called The Bible) tells us that all men had offended him, they sinned against Him by breaking His law (Rom. 3:10,23); and as we have seen He says, “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezek. 18:4). His first commandment alone says that “you shall have no other Gods before me” (Exo. 20:3). Also he says, “let no one be found among you who practices divination, or sorcery, interpret omens, engages in witchcraft or cast spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consult the dead” (DT.18:10-11). (This passage strikes right at the heart of the tribe’s pagan practices). God's book tells us too that our progenitor Adam and Eve fell into sin and their sin and its effect was passed down to us (Rom. 5:12). (This “collective responsibility” is an innate perception and easily accepted among the Ibaloi tribe, unlike the individualism of Western culture. Being oriental people, Ibalois view race, tribe, and family as one and that one’s fault is a fault of the whole tribe or family, and that they are all responsible).

The Spirit-Creator God, being just and holy, is said in His book that he appointed a day of judgment (2 Tim. 4:1; Acts. 10:42; Rev. 11:18). In that day he will send His Spirit-angels to take and gather all those who broke His law and did not repent of it from all parts of the world to be cast into eternal fire (Matt. 13:41-42). Even the souls of the dead ones who did the same will not be spared, but will suffer the same punishment (Rev. 20: 11-15).

Though He is just and Holy, and thus punishes sinners, His book tells us a wonderful news. He is also, loving, merciful and gracious to us his creatures. It says, “The Lord, the Lord the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin . Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished…” (Exo. 34:6,7). The greatest and most awesome thing this Creator-God did in demonstrating his love to us was when He gave his one and only son (Jn. 3:16). Yes, “He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). This son of His was given to serve as our Lamb (Jn. 1:29). As a sacrifice He shed His blood on the cross. Without this shed blood of His, there will be no forgiveness of our sins (Heb. 9:22), because “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats (and pigs) could take away (our) sins” (Heb. 10:4), “in Him (only) we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Response. What this God wants us to do, then, is that we should trust in this son of His who died and rose again for our sin. If we do, His blood will be sprinkled on our souls (1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 10:22), cleansing all our sins (1Jn. 1:7). It is “not by silver or gold” (let alone inferior metallic tools such us bolos, sickle, bars, etc) that our souls are ransomed but only “with the precious blood of Christ, a Lamb without defect or blemish “(1 Pet. 1: 18, 19). It is only the Son’s blood that could appease Him (the Father) in his wrath on our sins. To those who would trust in Him and avail of His shed blood having it sprinkled on their hearts and souls, when that judgment day comes his spirit-angels will spare you. Just as what happened to the tribe of Israel on whose houses’ threshold a blood of the Lamb was smeared as a sign of their salvation. Instead His Spirit-Angels will take you to be with Him in His beautiful home called heaven. Hear again what his book says when that day comes, "At that time the sign of the Son of man (the one who died on the cross and rose again) will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And He will send His Angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect (those who believed in Him) from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." (Matt. 24:30-31)

In that day, this Son of God, who saved us, will appear in the sky above our homes to look for those who trusted in Him. He won’t come as a spirit and in invisible form, but He will appear in all His glory; it will be a beautiful and wonderful thing to behold; only those who did not believed Him (who will mourn) will be haunted and be afraid. His coming will be accompanied by a loud trumpet call (not by a barking dog); and His angels (His messengers) will take us home to be with Him and be happy forever.

•The resource person interviewed in this paper was a 72 year old woman who was a former practicing pagan priestess of the Ibaloi tribe residing at Happy Hallow, Baguio City.

The Deities of the Animistic Religion of Mayaoyao, Ifugao

2005-04-13T22:25:00.000-07:00

By Henry Bimmolog, Lorenzo Sallong, & Lorelie Montemayor
(Edited by Glenn Plastina)

“The non-Christian religion of Ifugao in general is polytheistic and the worship is centered on animal sacrifices.”(Angiwan) The Ifugaos are using two common names for their deity, which are Mah-nongan, and Kabunian, but these names meant differently to other Ifugaos. In some parts of Ifugao province, these names are understood as the names of one supreme god or deity, but to other parts, particularly the central Mayoyao town, they understood Mah-nongan and Kabunian as not names of one deity, but rather names of many deities.

The Ifugaos have different concepts or understanding of their deities. What we are going to look are the deities of central Mayoyao and how would it be compared with the God of the Bible. Presentations of the animistic religion of Central Mayoyao, Ifugao are primarily based on stock knowledge and interviews on very specific people. However, for the sake of comparison, confirmation, and further understanding of the deities of other Cordillerans, the researchers have consulted and quoted some works of other writers.

1. Understanding the Different Deities of Central Mayoyao.
The Names of their Deities. There are at least two names common to all Ifugaos by which they call or address their god or deity – Afunijon (or Kabunian) and Mah-nongan. In some parts of Ifugao, Cabunian and Mah-nongan are names of the same one god or deity who is believed to be the creator of the universe and man. He is the highest or supreme being. Dumia states that “The people do not consider their deities as supreme but generally refer to Mah-nongan as the honorary head and creator of all things. He is their chief god.” (Dumia 1979:22). In fact when Evangelical Christianity first came, some groups of Christians call themselves Mah-nongan and also called their Ifugao hymn translation as Mah-nongan. They perceived the God of the Bible and Mah-nongan as the same in some aspects or characteristics. However, in other parts of Ifugao—like the town of Mayoyao in particular—perceived Mah-nongan and Afunijon as not the names of one deity or god, but rather a name referring to many deities.

Afunijon (Cabunian) basically means “heaven.” When the Ifugaos offer their worship to these deities, they look up towards heaven where some of the deities reside. So later, the place afunijon (heaven) became accepted as the name of these deities to whom they offer their sacrifices. Thus, Afunijon meant the place where some of the deities reside and at the same time the name of the deities. Lambrecht remarked that Afunijun is the place of the deities of the Ifugaos. Thus, Barton translated afunijun in Kalinga as those to whom sacrifices are offered. Both writers were right in their interpretation.

Mah-nongan comes from the word “‘eh-nong’, which means to offer.” (Damuyan, Russel). The Ifugaos offered their animal sacrifices to the deities, but they do not have the name on which they address their sacrifices. Later on, the word mah-nongan was developed into a name and was used to address these deities.

The Five Major Deities. There are at least five major deities by which the Mayoyaos offer their sacrificial worship. These are territorial deities and distant from humans. Yet they have control over the daily lives of the people.
1) Aninitud chalom. This is the deity of the underworld or the deity of earthquakes. The Mayoyao people believe that even beneath the earth, there is someone who is in control. So whatever happens to the planet earth, it has something to do with the aninitud chalom. The Mayoyao people explain that earthquakes occur when the aninitud is not satisfied with man’s sacrificial offering and as a result, his anger with man is being manifested in a sudden shaking or shock on the earth.
2) Aninitud angachar is the deity of the sky world. All the region of space visible from the earth is the territorial reign of this deity. He is the deity of lighting and thunder. The cause of lighting and thunder is believed to be a collision between man and the aninitud angachar (by not satisfying the dieties through sacrificial offerings).
3) Mapatar is the sun deity of the sky in charge of the daylight.
4) Bulan is the moon deity of the night in charge of the nightime.
5) Mi’lalabi are the star and constellation deities.

The Minor/Lower Deities/Spirits. Aside from the five major deities, Mayoyaos also believe in lower deities/spirits. Yet these deities are nearer. “These spirit-beings are in charge of the affairs of every day life. They control events such as birth, death, sickness, war, weather, agriculture, spiritual relationships, protection of the family and the village” (Henry 1986:7). These are smaller deities, yet they play a big role in the daily life of the people.
1) Pinacheng is a group or class of deities usually living in caves, stones, creeks, rocks, and in every place. This class of deities has the power to mislead a person on his way and could even hide the person, literally, that his companion could not find him. That is what the Ifugaos call “nalimun.” (I was told by older people that the deities would return the person when somebody is calling the name of that lost (or nalinum) person hidden by Pinacheng); Pinacheng is just like humans who live in another world. It is believed that these were the souls of those who have been long dead.
2) Spirit of a Dead Person. When a person dies, the Ifugaos believe that the body would return to the dust where it came from, but the spirit or soul of the dead person will still continue to exist in two stages. They are: A) Banig (ghost). This is the “spirit of those who have recently died.” (Ma 1986:286). This banig would manifest in many ways: in the form of an animal, like dog or duck, and others. Banig would not harm anyone, but people are only afraid of the manifestation. B) Mun-apoh (ancestral spirits). These are the “spirits of those who have been long dead.” (Ibid., 285). The mun-apoh (ancestral spirit) is the guardian and the source of blessing provided by the living. They paid respect to the ancestral spirit. But the blessings could also be turned out into a curse.

Objects With Spiritual Power. 1) Fulor is a wood carved into an image of a dead person seated on a death chair. It is an antique that has spirit in it. Failure to offer sacrifice would result in sickness, death and unsuccessful crops (or harvest). 2) Inamah (paraphernalia’s of the pagan priest) is a wooden plate that contains rice, betel nut, lime, and many more. This object is brought out during ritual celebrations as means for the Monbuni (Munbaki) to communicate to the spirits. Inamah is not the spirit per se, but rather it contains spirits. Therefore, destroying or selling this object for Museum display would put the family in danger.

II. RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEITIES WITH MAN
The Deities' Relationship to Man. The Mayoyao’s belief on deities is based on “cause” and “effect” philosophy that nothing will just happen without any cause and everything under the heaven is explained in relation to spirits or the deities. Explanation and solution of all life-problem have something to do with their relationship with the deities. Living in the will of these deities—like offering sacrifices that satisfy—would result to financial blessings, successful harvest, and good health. On the other hand, when worshipers were not living in accordance to the will of the deities, this unyielding to the spirits' demand would result to sickness, calamity, and unsuccessful agricultural crops. Since it is believed that deities have control over their lives, people believe that living a good life, having a good harvest, good health, and prosperity are results of living in the will of the deities. Sickness and calamity are always attributed to the deities. When sickness and calamities come to a person, these have something to do with the offended deities. “The acts of the gods are considered either as curses or judgments. Calamity occurs, according to their understanding, when they offend any of the gods.” (Ibid., 271). Sickness and calamity are direct works of the deities and spirits.

The Causes of Sickness and Calamities:
1. The spirit or soul of a sick person might had stayed and joined with the pinacheng in the place recently visited. When a person is sick, the first question generally asked is about the place where the sick person had been most recently. The sick person will be asked how long he had been in that place, because his spirit or soul might had stayed behind and joined with the pinacheng.
2. An object is thrown to a spirit/deity and was hurt. The first question to be asked of a sick person is the place where he had been and what he dad done because he might have hit a spirit. So in retaliation, the wounded spirit will inflict sickness to that person or to any member of the family.
3. Damaged environment, such as cutting trees indiscriminately (Kiley 1994:39). Spirits are believed to be the owners and caretakers of forests. So damaging the environment would result in sickness and calamity to the village people.
4. Not paying and honoring ancestors. Ancestors need attention through animal sacrifices from the members of the family. Negligence would bring sickness and bad luck to the family.
5. Uttering words or sentences by old people would bring curse. Old people are to be respected no matter what. They are to be cared for so that they will not give a curse.

The Means of Healing Sicknesses
Animal Sacrifices. Animals are basically raised for this very purpose: a means to appease the deities for the recovery from sicknesses through animal sacrifices. There are selected animals used for sacrifices. Chicken is usually offered for preliminary healing, intercession, and for minor sicknesses. The number of chicken to be offered depends on the assessment of the mumbuni based on the seriousness of the sickness. The number of pigs to be offered depends so much on what the offended deity or spirit would demand through the mumbuni/mumbaki. It depends also on the seriousness of the sickness and the ability of the sick person to provide. Sometimes the demand of offended deity(ies) includes money and wine offered together with chickens and pigs.

The Healing Intercession. Normally, before the actual healing intercession ritual, a pre-healing intercession ritual, will be performed by the mumbuni to summon the offended deity(ies) and know from them their demand payments in exchange for the sick person to be healed. It is believed that deities cause sickness, therefore, it is also believed that healing can only be possible with the help of the same deity or other deities (Cawed 1979:35). If the deities inflict, they are also the ones to help in taking away the sickness so that the inflicted person regain his or her normal health. This is under the condition that deities are satisfied and pleased with the animal offerings. Inappropriate sacrifices would result to continued sickness.

Healing intercession is normally repeated. “If the series of rituals bring no improvement in the patient’s condition, another more elaborate series is resorted to, provided the family can afford the expense.” (Dumia, 22). When there is no recovery, it is either the offended deity (ies) is not satisfied or pleased with the animal being sacrificed or the offended deity is not aware of. Therefore, intercession could be moved from one territory to another territory to find who among the deities are responsible for the sickness.

The Medium of Healing Intercession. The “Priest (Mumbuni) is an ordinary farmer with special training in religious rites and ceremonies” (Angiwan). When a family member becomes sick, the first thing the family does is to seek the counsel of the mumbuni. The mumbuni then has to analyze the information given by the sick person (Ma, 271) and ask the family members to prepare the necessary things needed (paraphernalia, sacrificial offerings) for the healing intercession. In the intercession ritual, the mumbuni will call the attention of the five major deities and the minor deities to find who among them is (or are) responsible for inflicting the sickness. When the sick person has not recovered, a ritual intercession is done by the munbuni to summon and negotiate with the concerned deity(ies) for the healing.

The munmbuni has the power or ability to communicate with the deities and inquire of them about the cause and the cure of the sickness. Yet it is not only the mumbuni who possesses the ability to communicate to the deities. There are others also. There is a ritual to be done; afterward, he or she is possessed by the deity/ies and could communicate with them.

Conclusion. The Religion of Mayoyao, Ifugao, in general is polytheistic. They believed in the five major deities who are distant to humans and the minor deities who are near and have contact with humans. All of these dieties have control over the daily affairs of people. Basically, everything that happens is attributed to [the intervention or actions of the] deities. Some of the Mayoyao people do not know scientific, philosophical, and biblical explanations of life.
Today, although Ifugao is [one of] the most evangelized province in the country, especially Mayoyao town, there is still an influence of their former religion to their present religion. Rituals are not being observed anymore. However, when some were confronted with serious sickness and calamity, they would doubt the ability of this Christian God to intervene in their situation. So some of them seek these Mayoyao deities. The Christian God is perceived as provider of eternal life, whereas their former deities are perceived as the answer or solution to the present problems.

(For full details of the notes in this research project, just inform the editor Glenn Plastina. Through email: glenplas@yahoo.com or check http://www.plastina.blogspot.com )

Worship: Are We for Real?

2005-03-22T22:57:00.000-08:00

By Glenn M. Plastina

(This article appeared in Baguio Herald February-March 2005 Special Edition.)

If worship is all about God, why is the body of Christ still waging war on worship? Worship is supposed to be all about God, but in most cases, worship is actually not all about God. It is also about cultural differences, personal preferences, and varied interpretation of the Scriptures in matters of worship and practice. Worship became a major source of disunity among local churches—not to mention that it is also an indicator to discriminate others who do worship differently. The fact is, only Christians fight over worship. Churches were divided, disheartened, and disillusioned that their own way of worship is the best way in adoring God. Sometimes, it is easy to throw stones than offer bread in worship wars. But it should not be. Let’s be real this time.

God is seeking true worshipers. If we are for real, then we must understand that worship is not about warring between Evangelicals and Pentecostals, traditional and radicals, brothers and sisters, young and old. True worshipers seek, understand, and practice the truth found in God. I believe mature worshipers have high tolerance level when it comes to differences in worship styles. Some contemporary worshipers ridicule those who do traditional worship, unaware that they themselves are creating a tradition for the future. While tradition is not evil, when it becomes an end in itself, it fell short to what true worship is all about. True worship—in all its primitive and modern ways—can be glorifying God. It is not static, but dynamic.
We must remember that there are many words used in the Bible for worship. Each word—in Hebrew or Greek—bears significant distinction and manifestation from bowing to prostrating and falling flat to the ground, kneeling, dancing, singing, shouting, jumping, whispering, silence, and the like. To look for one way of worship in the Bible is to look for ridiculousness. Why? Precisely, it is because worship is more than just a style. While people do worship in various manners, it is more than outward appearance.

Worship is the utmost response of the whole person to the revealed presence of God. In the Bible, when the person is overwhelmed with the presence of God, style is not an issue anymore. What matters now is the heart before the holy God. It is not about what type of song we sing, even though worship involves singing also. Certainly, the Bible tells that songs for worship are diverse (Eph 5:19). Hence, worshiping God is, indeed, dynamic. If we insist that the way the Western world do worship is the superior—or perhaps the best—way, we deprived ourselves of worshiping God for real. We try to mimic others who we are not. This is not to say also that we are to disregard and reject what the West brought to us, but it is for us to seek for more meaningful way of worshiping God. It is still great to worship God and sing with our own native languages—even in native melody!

I’m also concerned with the prevailing attitude on worship we have here in the Philippines. Filipinos are very particular with experience. And yet, when many of us became Christians, it seems that worship becomes an abstract idea. It is akin to becoming a “thing” in the mind; it has lost its personal and intimate touch. When worship becomes a matter of the mind, a mere idea, or a concept, then it is long way off from being Christian. There is more indication in the Scriptures that worship is more personal and intimate—though not individualistic; worship is not just a thing that happens between and person and an abstract idea from above. There is even more support to the physical involvement of the body in the biblical worship. Hence, worship involves “heart and hand” so to speak. It is not just lip service. We need to regain our heritage in worshiping through the cultural gifts that God has bestowed to our local churches.

I do not subscribe to the notion that worship is more of what we do rather than what we explain. While it is true that we cannot fathom the mystery involved in Christian worship—for God is the mystery of the world—it is healthy for us to understand why and how we do worship. The content of our worship must not be separated from our practice. Both are essential. Of course, worship is not just what comes from our mouth, we should worship because it is an outflow of our hearts; not because we are obliged, but it is our delight to commune with God.

I’m proud to be a Filipino Christian for God has given us rich cultures. I don’t think that being a Filipino and a Christian is a conflict—being a Christian is not even in contrast to be a contemporary person. As a Filipino, I can worship God in diverse and dynamic ways. As long as we find way to redeem our cultural identity and heritage—in music, arts, language, etc.—we can be authentic Christians. The more I stay in the Cordilleras, the more I appreciate the unique and distinct cultural values that can promote authentic Christianity in this particular setting. Even in our Music for a New Generation ministry, we encourage new Christian artists to excel in modern and relevant way of reaching the youth, as well as for some to blend the ethnic elements of Cordilleran music for God’s glory.

John 4:23 says, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” It is long overdue. When are we going to learn that the true worshipers do not need to dwell in what has been given by others, but to cultivate our vernacular songs of worship, customs, way of communicating the Gospel, and cultural heritage? When are we going to realize that our ultimate destiny is to worship God forever with other fellow Christians who do not even practice the way we do worship in local churches? You and I are going towards that eternal celebration of God’s presence. Thank God. We are destined to worship him forever as a family.
With that hope, our past and present worship experiences become more exciting and meaningful. Yes, worship in heaven is a celebration! Are we not then to celebrate his presence? Celebration can be reverential as long as we have the right heart and spirit to come before God as his children. As children are not pretentious before their father, we can be real before God.

Moving the Soul through Worship

2005-03-22T22:55:00.000-08:00

By Glenn Plastina

(This article appeared also in Baguio Herald)

The ultimate goal in every act of worship is the glory of Christ. Every time I see thousands of young people who abandoned their lives to God in worship—like in the recent Movers and Shakers in Christ Concert ’05—I cannot help, but praise God. It was a tremendous experience with the Lord—similar to the previous “sacred revolutions” that inspired our young people to worship and commit their lives to Jesus. There are many “workings” of God that happened when God’s people worship him in Spirit and in truth.

Primarily, when God’s people worship, it is a celebration. In the Old Testament, we have many records of celebrations, feasts, and thanksgivings for the sole purpose of worshiping God, the source of life and salvation. God is worthy to be celebrated. While living as pilgrims in this world, we delight in existing through the love that comes from him. There is no reason for us to be ashamed to shout and give him praise as the book of Psalms declared. David himself “danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam 6:14). He was criticized and despised by his wife who watched from afar. But David is resolved to worship. “I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes” (21b-22). Is this a classic example of two groups of people in any worship events: the “movers” and “watchers”?

When God’s people worship, Christ is lifted up. This doesn’t mean that when we fail to worship God, God is not exalted. Far from that, for God is already glorious in himself even when people fall short in acknowledging him as Lord. When God is lifted up among his people, it only means he becomes the sole focus to be magnified before the people. This is where the danger comes in when the worship leaders try to protrude in between, trying to attract people to themselves instead of Christ. There is nothing bad to excel in the worship ministry with God’s gift; only use it in proper way, not for personal benefits and prestige. The worship leader’s primary duty is to usher—not push, manipulate, and control—people into the presence of God. Hence, the leader must allow the Spirit of God to work through him or her for lifting up Christ in the midst of his people is impossible apart from God’s Spirit.
When Christ is lifted up, his glory is revealed, the wayward child returns home. As Christ was hanging with an open arm, any repentant children were also longing to be embraced by God’s mercy. Sad to say, many young people love Christ, but they hate the church. Many youth preferred to be “un-churched” than to enter into the “narrow” church door to be ostracized, ridiculed, belittled. Just watch how members react when young people with tattooed-arms, nose-rings, and dyed spiky hair enter the church hall. Unchurched young people are not innocent not to notice the attitudes of the church goers towards them, except for some who overcame their prejudice, self-righteousness, and pride with Christ’s love.

When the church begins to function as a country club rather than a hospital for sick and sinners, many young people will remain outcasts to the local churches. What the unchurched young people need is “healthy relationship” not conspiracy of kindness. They do know if you come to them with string attach or you want to use them for statistical purposes on how many Bible study groups, attendees, and decisions made. Strange though, these young people don’t need who’s “covering” the ministry was made. All they need is the “covering of Christ’s blood”—not some metaphysical presumptions and territorial borders. It is the cross that remains an open arm of God for them. I still believe, God is raising new worshipers and leaders who will embrace these lost and lonely. These new breed of ministers seek God’s approval, not the “covering” of some spiritual hierarchy or cultic personalities. Christ alone will be lifted up.

When God’s people worship, the Church, the body of Christ, is edified. Some Christians remains skeptical to the “new worship” because the songs are short, shallow, and simplistic. The decibel-level is also loud and high, fast and heavy. But to others, these worship songs are more personal, intimate, singable, and direct to the point. Young people love to shout and sing “my God, my Lord, our Savior, and our King” rather than talk “about God” in third person. Because of the powerful and personal touch of God’s Spirit, these songs become instrumental in reaching out where the young people are. They don’t need a Christianese Dictionary to be able to sing these songs. But they do remember what the songs express and assures them that the Christ they worship is the one who set the captives free and loves them unconditionally. Through worshiping Christ, hearts and lives were united, churches were healed.

When God’s people worship, communities are reached out. We are living in a time where Christian ministry is ground-breaking and more innovative. This is the time where the youth were hungering for God. This new generation has a different music, culture, and worldviews. They also look at the church and its mission to seek the lost from a different angle. They are not traditional; they dare to be different, to be “fools for Christ” (1 Cor 4:10). Their power of corporate worship is not established by the volume of the sound—or the lack of it—but by the dynamic force brought by the Spirit of God. But the bottom-line of these all is not the differences, but Christ seeking the lost and healing the wounded. For them, Jesus conquered death—he is the real “hero” of faith; he is alive and still moving stones that closed the people’s heart to God. They celebrate the “livingness” of Christ Jesus.

Through God’s grace, we have eternal life in Christ alone. It is only appropriate that the center of Christian worship is God—not ourselves. We celebrate Jesus in worship because he is alive and well. We can live through him and we will dwell in eternity with him. No matter who and where you are, God can reach and move you to worship. Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Our ultimate destiny and reason of existence is to glorify God for everything was created for his purposes and for his pleasure.

The Aeta of Bataan

2005-03-08T21:54:00.000-08:00

By Preciosa Caronongan (Edited by Glenn Plastina)

The Aeta (or Ayta) are mountain people with dark skin, kinky hair, snub nose, black eyes, and with small body-frame. They usually stand from 1.35-1.5 meters tall in height. They used to occupy the outlying areas near the coastline and riverbeds, but were forced to go to the mountains with the coming of non-native settlers. The Aetas are found scattered in some parts of the Philippine islands. In 1988, they were numbered around 83,234 (CCPEPA 1994:22).

The Aeta people are most numerous in Luzon, particularly in the Zambales mountain range stretching from Bataan, Zambales, Pampanga, Tarlac and southwestern Pangasinan. They are also found in the provinces of Isabela, Cagayan, Quezon, Camarines, Albay, Sorsogon and Palawan. Some settled in the Visayas, particularly in Panay island. Negros island was named after the numerous Aeta inhabiting the area in the remote past. At present, a scant Aeta population is confined to the extreme northern and southern portions of the island. There are also Aeta in Surigao and Agusan provinces in Mindanao.

The Aeta communities belong to the Negrito ethnic group (Shimizu 1989:6). They are known in different names in various places. In Bataan, for example, they are referred to as "kulot" or curly-haired. In turn, the Aeta natives refer to the lowlanders as "unat," (meaning straight-haired people) or Tagalog. Aetas are divided into 25 ethnolinguistic groups.

There are small Aeta settlements in almost all of the municipalities of Bataan: Dinalupihan, Hermosa, Orani, Samal, Abucay, Balanga, Orion, Limay, Mariveles, Bagac and Morong. They have their own dialect, but they communicate to the lowlanders and outsiders in Tagalog vernacular. More than 40 Aeta families belonging to the Magbikin tribe are gradually vanishing because of social integration and urban modernity. It used to be a taboo for them to marry a non-tribal member, but this tradition was broken in 1977 when a daughter of an old chieftain married a lowlander. This event set the trend for mixed-marriages (Macatuno 2003).

Religious Beliefs and Practices. The Aeta tribes believe in a supreme being who rule over lesser spirits or deities. They worship Apo Namalyari, whom they regard as the creator, believed to inhabit the mountain top of Pinatubo in Zambales (Delica, "Preserving the Mountains"). There is no specific mention of other gods of the Aeta, but one source mentions that the four manifestations of the "great creator" who rules the world, Tigbalog, is the source of life and action; Lueve takes care of production and growth of goods; Amas moves people to pity, love, unity, and peace of heart; while Binangewan is responsible for change, sickness, and death. These spirits inhabit the balete tree (Wee 1994:29).

The Aetas are also animists, believing in environmental spirits - anito, the good, and kamana, the bad spirits. They believe that there are spirits that live in the environment such as in the sky, river, sea, mountain and others.
The Aetas believe that evil spirits are the usual cause of illness as punishment for wrongdoing. The more serious disease are believed to be coming from the supreme anito (spirit), while lesser ones from the lesser anitos. Bad spirits like laman nin lota (spirit of the earth), are believed to possess or enter the human body and cause sickness. The Aeta of Morong still practice a ritual called kagon, a spirit healing performed with dance, song and guitar music to exorcise the dimonyo from the sick person. Wearing a necklace of stringed pieces composed of sticks are believed to ward off such bad spirits.

The anituan, among the Pinatubo Aeta in Zambales, is a séance in which a manganito or a medium cures an illness by communicating with the spirit causing it. The ritual establishes close communication between the mortal and the supernatural world, so that misunderstandings between mortals and spirits may be resolved (Wee 1994:29). The first stage of the manganito séance is to find out what caused the sickness. The second stage is to eliminate the cause from the sick person.

Influence of the Lowland Culture. Shimuzu noted that in the culture of the Aeta, they are allowed to return to other ways of living than the present one. They may have adapted the sedentary way of life, yet they still continue to roam the forests in search of food, especially in times of scarcity. They may have been introduced to lowland viands, but they still relish the old favorites, like camote and other root crops which they gather from the forest.

The traditional forms of healing, use of native costumes, and other indigenous beliefs have been greatly affected by the intrusion of modern medicine, popular culture, and institutional religions. Common among all Aetas in the village, both young and old, is their unshakeable faith in God. They explain occurrences in life and death, sadness and joy, pain and relief, and wealth and poverty to the “will of God” (“kaloob ng Dios”, “tadhana ng Maykapal”). At the same time, old beliefs persist, such as taboos on calling one’s in-law’s name, farting in public, not offending the spirits that dwell in nature, to name only a few (The Park, The Community and The Aetas: A Situationer). For example, the oldest man in the Canawan village of Morong, Mang Aquino Malunik, who is estimated to be about ninety years old, but appeared thirty years younger, was asked what he wanted to eat. He replied, "Kung ano man ang ipagkaloob ng Diyos" ("Whatever God provides.") The response shows adaptation of the lowland religion, particularly the name of Biblical God (Santos, et al: The Philippines:The Aetas Canawan During Wet and Dry Seasons.)

Comparison with the Christian God and Spirituality. Apo Namalyari is the Aeta's god of creation, their counterpart of our God who created the world and all that is in it including man himself. However, they believe that their creator god can only take care of trees that are useful to the Aeta, making their creator god limited in power according to our standard. This was made evident when, during President Marcos' time, then First Lady Imelda had a project which enjoined the Aeta to plant ipil-ipil trees. When the Aeta realized that the trees were useless because they do not bear edible fruits for man nor for birds, they decided to burn the trees down and plant bananas instead. At another instance when DENR undertook reforestation by planting gmelina, ipil-ipil, and auricoliformis, though the community elders prohibited the cutting of these trees, the younger generation believe that Apo Namalyari could not possibly care for the trees that have come from the lowlands.

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1990 devastating the forest, the Aeta performed a ritual called talbeng to appease Apo Namalyari, asking him to halt the eruption and bring back the forest to them (Capuno 1996:147). Christians do not perform rituals to make right with God. Instead, we repent for our wrongdoings, ask for forgiveness and obey Him. Besides, our God is not appeased by rituals. We are restored into fellowship with God by the sincerity of our hearts in seeking his forgiveness.

The animist background of the Aeta also attributed a supernatural identity and powers to Mt. Pinatubo itself. Shimizu relates an incident when he and Pan Bangay hiked close to Mt. Pinatubo; that place suddenly darkened under a thick blanket of fog and it started to rain heavily. Pan Bangay was frightened because it was unusual to have such occurrence in the midst of the dry season. He took a straw from Shimizu's buri hat and burned it shouting to Apo Pinatubo as the smoke rose:

Pakida-ep mo Apo Pinatubo, agmo kay kik oranan
Apo Pinatubo, kapapa-ingalo ya kik nabaha
ang! (Grandfather Pinatubo, please smell the
smoke. Don't expose us to the rain, have pity
for we will get wet!)

Pan Bangay later insisted that the rain stopped and the weather cleared because of his offering and prayer (Shimizu 1989:50).

Christians pray to God and not to the creation. We do not believe that mountains and rivers and the environment have spirits. There seems to be some similarity between this and Christian's belief of territorial spirits. However, we do not pray to the territorial spirits, but rebuke them in the name of Jesus.

The Aeta of Limay, Bataan whom I was able to interview, are already third generation settlers. They have adopted the lowland culture and have even embraced the Catholic religion. They refer to Diyos (God) as the All-Knowing and Merciful. They acknowledge the sovereignty of God and that it is He who provides for what we need. They are able to say "kaloob ng Diyos" (will of God), and "ano man ang ipagkaloob ng Diyos" (whatever God provides). They attend Mass in the Catholic chapel built in their community. They participate in fiesta celebrations including "karakol" or street-dancing. Through their interaction with the lowlanders, they have better knowledge of sickness and cure, although for some sickness, which the doctor seem not able to cure, they still consult the manganito to do the healing ritual. Even most of their names no longer bear a trace of their origin being an Aeta. Names of Aeta whom I was able to talk to are Rosita Cruz, Marisa Salonga, Ephra Salonga, Mary Angel dela Rosa. Their manner of dressing have followed that of the lowlanders, mostly because of the regular relief distribution to them. Rosita Cruz, one of three women whom I was able to talk with, even had a rosary around her neck; she believes it would give her protection (as some nominal Catholics also believe).

The Aeta of Bataan who used to roam through the mountains are gradually finding themselves in settlements beside the mountains. The government has been reaching out to them, assigning them into settlement areas, providing schools and health centers near their communities. Community development is towards the mountains so we see lowlanders slowly making their residences up the mountain. There is an increasing blending of the kulot (Aeta) and with the unat (lowlanders). There may come a time when there will no longer be a distinct, pure Aeta, but "descendants" of Aeta.

With the Aeta's willingness to adopt the lowland culture, and with their adoption of the Catholic religion, there will come a time when there will also be a vibrant Christian church in their midst, in their community. In fact Limay Baptist Church has been reaching out to them through teaching children right in their own village. It will take the next generations to grasp the concept of the Christian faith as these generations will be more exposed to the world outside the Aeta culture.

The God's of the Igorots

2005-03-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

By Marny Balisong
The Igorots inhibit the mountainous area of the northern Philippines, which is called the “Cordillera.” The inhabitants of this region are generally called Igorots and they consist of eight major sub-tribal groups according to linguistic and cultural traits (Reyes 1987: xi). They engage in gold mining, slash-and burn farming, and planting vegetables as their primary sources of living. They are keepers of their own distinct cultural and sub-cultural heritage. The Igorots are primarily animistic in practice and ancestral worshippers by heritage.
During the invasion of the Spanish in the Philippines, Igorot tribes were preserved from the Spaniard’s religious, political and cultural influences. They retain and remained in their cultural traits. But when American colonial rule came, that’s the time the Igorots exposed themselves; their headhunting practice gradually stoped. Cordillera province is composed of many tribes like Ibaloi, Kalangoya, Ifugao, Benguet Kankanaey and kankanaey of Mountain province. But I want to present the generally beliefs and practices of the Kaankana-eys tribes:
The Gods of the Igorot tribe. According W.D Sacla, which is now the present vice governor of Benguet, there are categories of the gods of the igorots (A) Dios Adi kaila, the god which we can not see. The creator is the highest god; (B) Kabunyan-which is the son- he’s the one who execute the plan of god Adi kaila; canao are offered to him; (C) Anitos or the ancestral spirit - which means the spirit of those relative who pass away or malevolent ancestral spirits; they are often called Ap-apo under superior deities by Kabunyan. There is a tribe in the Cordillera that includes Lumaweg as one of their gods. But what I know lumaweg is the name of the god of Ifugao’s Tribe.
The Tribal Leader of the Igorot. Manbunong is considered as a tribal leader as well as priest who performed rituals. Leader are not elected but they emerge; the influence of this traditional leadership is immeasurable. There is no administrative structure; the elected government officials exist, but the influence of the manbunong is more powerful or influential than the elected officials. In small communities, this leader settle disputes, judge cases, determine punishment and compensation, officiate marriages, handle separation and bury their dead, they have the final authority in matters which affect the entire community. Their role is not limited in social matters; they also perform religious functions. He preside over various religious rites and rituals, interpret dreams, diagnose sickness, and determine the cause of misfortune through divination and prescribe appropriate rituals to correct situation.
The rituals: (a) Canao is a highlight of religious celebration. It is offered for various purposes: to celebrate as a religious and as part of funeral rite and to secure healing . In some part of Cordillera, Canao is also celebrated to be blessed by the anitos or Kabunyan. According to Encarnation, the Canao fulfill two social functions; it brings prestige to the family, it also affirms and strengthens the existing social structure and the extended family ties. In his survey, all five leaders fulfilled the ritual requirements by offering thirteen native pigs with white and black nails. This prestige celebration begins with three pigs, then second rituals require five, then seven and so on. The Canao plays a vital role in reaffirming the existing order and status which has been determined in the spiritual world. It is also regarded as a means of influencing the gods and spirits to maintain the existing order. In addition, the Igorots believe that fame, material blessings, and good health are granted by Kabunyan and the Ancestral spirits. Therefore, it is natural for them to view present wealth as reward for their religious piety expressed through many canao sacrifices; today’s canao ensure tomorrow’s blessing.
(b) Begnas- After planting and before harvest there is one week of celebration, the community contributes any kinds of food and animals for the rituals. The purpose for this are: the deities will bless their crops and protect it from plagues or insects. Normally, Igorots killed the animals to offer to the spirits or Anitos and later the meat will be distributed to the entire community. During these event, there is one day declare as rest day or "Tengao" in Igorot; nobody went out of the house, then the elders make the cooked-rice like ball to be distributed also to every families in the community
Their Concept about Blessing: It is known, ‘The Igorots believe in spirit beings but also in these beings’ intimate involvement in the daily activities of the Igorot life, the deities thus function in role which are significant for people. The most relevant and tangible expression of divine power is felt in the forms of blessing and curses endowed or inflict by the deities’ The Igorot tribe believe their gods are the ultimate source of blessing. That’s why they try to perform rituals in order to receive blessing. They believe that the deities have the power either bring fortune or misfortune to them. And even the assumption that the ancestors grow the crops, help to raise their animals. Traditional Igorot believe that Kabunyan intervene in every things that they do especially in their crops--from preparation of the seed through the sowing of the seeds and the actual storing of their crops in the storehouse. The Igorots accompany their works with rituals to secure flourishing and abundant blessing from Anitos but when the harvest is not bountiful, they try to evaluate what they did during the rituals and if there were things that are not in line to the tradition then they will make another rituals. There are common rituals they make even today:
Senga/ Sambo. This feast or ritual is where they speak blessing of prosperity of the family. 1. Senga for be-ey (House blessing) after building the house, the family expected to perform ritual to express their thanksgiving to secure more blessing from the deities. Their common prayer is that the family would offer more rituals to honor their gods, especially if the owner of the house becomes rich. As they perform this ritual, they should butcher 2-5 pigs, and they distributed the meat to the relatives of both husband and wife, then at the night time, all the night old folks gather at the newly built house to speak blessing (gasat or swerte) upon the family but they tell it in day-eng or Igorot chant. At the might night they eat the remaining meat (head and feet of the pigs); they offer prayer of blessing to the ancestral spirits (anito) after that they will go home at 1-2 o’clock in the morning.
2. Senga for the newly wed couple- (blessing for the newly wed couple) – a newly married couple is encouraged to perform a ritual for two days following the wedding festival. The ritual prescribed by the manbunong, as the rituals performed, they anticipate that Kabunyan will bless them and bring them good luck. After they butcher the animals, (chicken, pig, cow or carabao) they distribute the meat to their relatives who are present and even those who did not attend.
When they perform these rituals, the manbunong always look the liver of the animals (pedis) for luck of the family by predicting the future if they will become rich or not, (swerte or malas) if the river is little, the manbunong tells to the family to butcher another pig again until they found bigger liver.
This system continues to function today, ‘the return of the meat’ by those who received before will expected to do the same when they were perform rituals mentioned above. ‘The manbunong received extra amount of meat or choice portions, they enjoy special parts of the animal, such as the liver, which are generally regarded as sacred’
These things must be observed properly in order to experience blessing of the Anitos. In addition, ‘The Igorots trust that their wishes and blessing will be realized through the community priest’s ( manbunong) proper appeal to the gods along with the proper performance of ritual… every activity of the Igorots complete only insofar as the deities are invoke intervene’. The prayer is achieved through appropriate means of ritual performance. It provides a meaningful celebration by which the people have their felt needs met.

Igorot Concept of Cursing. When the Igorots experience sickness, calamities, difficulties or disaster, they always attribute it to the anitos’ activities. ‘The acts of the gods are considered either as curse or judgment. Calamity occurs, according to their understanding, when they offend any of the gods or spirits’ they hold a notion that the spirits bring curses or unlucky fortune when the ritual is properly administered or offered. The offended and angered anitos bring sickness as a kind of a curse, causing poor harvest, sleepiness, headaches, illness and etc. The only way to counter such affliction is to appease the anger of the deities sacrificing animals to them. This is not voluntary but an attempt to appease the anger of the spirits.
Mr. Sacla gives a belief behind the ritual. “During the ritual the manbunong carefully observeds the bile of the sacrificial animal’s liver, the organ most commonly inspected for signs or omens. If the bile is partly covered by the liver, this is interpreted as a sign that a spirit, called Tomongao, does not wish to release the afflicted person. The manbunong orders to offer more chickens or pigs until the desired bile is finally obtained. The curse normally comes from the offended Adikaila, the highest god and god of justice and fairness, according to Sacla. The traditional Igorots believe the god has the power to bring curses. That’s why it is crucial for them to avoid offending the spirits in any form. Appropriate avoidance and appeasement will protect them from unfavorable occurrences and will secure favor. Butchering animals for the gods restore normal states of life.
Their concept of healing. Healing is one of the prominent in the Igorots life. According to Mrs. Sabong, when a part of the family sick, normally they did not go to the doctor but seek counsel of the munbunong. Mansip-ok, who is gifted in discernment. This mansip-ok analyzees the information about what the person did, and say at the past, and the mansip-ok tries to determine the cause of the illness mostly the spirit of the relatives can cause the sickness, the spirit of the relatives need food, animal, t-shirt, blanket or he is hungry or etc. The mansip-ok also prescribes the cure or specific animals to be butchered in the ritual for the sick people to be cured. As they perform the ritual, the mansip-ok persuades the anito or spirit to leave the person. As the mansip-ok prays, the sick person simultaneously plucks wing feathers out of the chicken and put them inside the small hut for the spirit to follow. After this procedure, the chicken is singed, sliced, cooked and eaten.
According traditional believed of the Igorots, the spirits of the deceased are not totally separated from visible world, since the spirits have no direct means of communication with kin; they employ dreams, signs, omen or sickness to tell their family what they want; ‘it is believed that although the spirits are out of body, the spirits still need for their use items such as, blankets clothes, garments, food and animals. To obtain power to heal from the spirits, the family complies with their demands. The spirits posses power to release when living people approach the presence of the deities through mediums in the worship of ritual’
Conclusion. This worldview of the Igorots still exists today, most of the old folks are the ones who insist it to be followed, but in my observation the young ones have no interest regarding these practices. Probably this is the effect of secular and religious education because most of the places in Mountain Province are already penetrated by the gospel of Jesus Christ. And as a typical Igorot Christian like me, I will continue to share Christ as much as possible to my tribesmen because it’s the only way for them to be freed from bondage of animism beliefs.

(Edited: G. Plastina)

Watch Out!!!

2005-02-08T19:07:00.000-08:00

This blog spot is dedicated to the rising, reflective, and future scholars and servants who will make a difference in Christian ministry and mission.