On the Question of the Existence of God

By Glenn Plastina

Somehow, the immensity of God’s existence is perhaps the haunting and the enlightening issue in life. This is so because the question on the Existence of God does not only appeal to His nature but also its implication about the existence of man himself. For me, the question of God is not only a matter of ascertaining the existence of the Absolute but also on questions of being. If God is deemed to be the Ultimate Ground of being then his existence does not only provide repercussions on the philosophical quest but also of my existential concerns.

Here, God-Talk is not easily resolved via negativa or silence. Mystical experience may be spoken of by speechlessness but certainly, the alternative is not as simple as it seems. The tension between mystical experience and existential relevance is also inevitable.
God exists and that thesis may not be provable but at the same time irrefutable. But the question is more than just finding facts and resolving the arguments and tensions, it has something to do also with the question of “my” existence. What is my relationship to that decisive question: Does God exist?

God as the ground of being provides providential answer that would meet the existential need of a person. Three main questions are in consideration. Who am I? What is my purpose? Where am I heading? These are not just a marketing strategy of a good thesis to base a best-selling topic that would cater to the impulse of mankind but it certainly makes sense. I can never separate the question of God’s existence with the meaning of my existence.

It is more than just issues of the transcendence and immanence of God or his indefinability and incomprehensibility; this has something to do with life that longs to find ground for existence. Thus, the question of God’s existence is a question of intuition and not merely academic or philosophical interest. It is rooted upon man’s nature and identity formation. If God’s existence is leveled upon intellectual interest without relevance to the existence of man, a major point is missed. But also, if I consider it again, “Does God Exist?” is the right question? Again, I think, this is not only a matter of question of existence this time, but also of faith. My existential question includes...

Do I believe that God exist?

On the Primacy of Religious Faith to the Existence of God

By Glenn Plastina

If the question on the existence or non-existence of God is not provable, what makes faith meaningful?

The case for the evidence of God is perhaps the most elusive case man has to face. It is just like looking for fingerprints in the surface of the running water. Philosophy has tried to cross the river, but only the shallow part that created the raucous verbiage war. Some great minds struggled with a case never won in arguments but only in faith. While some fideists swam themselves to the abyss of God’s mysteries, their rational and non-rational arguments and experience can no wise win the case. Some of them lost themselves in the ocean and remained silent. Some came back to attest to the experience in rational terms but they seem to talk non-sense to the rational atheist.

This case, for me, is a unique one for both parties, the fideists and the atheists, are all acquitted, in a sense that their defense are all counted to be reasonable and intelligent—only to certain degrees. No one is guilty; it’s a win-win situation. Or is it? Via negative, if ever God does not exist and the atheist philosopher is right, what does it profit him? To some extent, his philosophical quest is admirable in that the exercise to cultivate a rational thinking pattern has been developed. At least, the contribution to the development of mankind’s ability to think is perceived. What about the fideist, does it profit him to believe in something that does not exist? If ever God does not exist, does it make a faithful a fool? Perhaps he is. But on what standard? In failing to exercise his philosophical capacity? Perhaps! But for me, a man who trusts in God has nothing to lose if ever God does not exist after all, it is not even a mistake. He just followed his intuition.

Via positive, if ever God does exist, what does the atheist philosopher gain? Does it make him a fool? Not so. As a man with freedom to decide for his own, he is just true to himself or held strong to what he perceives as it is. He could even convince himself that God did not show more evidence for his existence. Is God to be blamed? Who knows? But to the fideist, if God does exist, that man’s faith is rewarding. Why is that so?

Primarily, the person who has faith is just a recipient of something he does not seek to prove. It is something believed upon even in the midst of uncertainty and paradox in reality. He may have developed his philosophical understanding but his faith is never overruled by rational and empirical senses but by heart. This does not mean however, that philosophical quest is heartless. It is just that the person with faith is not manipulated or enslaved with open-ended arguments. After all, knowledge of truth is never final to the extent that there is no more to discover and explore. At least, the person who believes is free from philosophical systems that do not prove faith in the existence of God as inferior.

As of now, there is no other better alternative to philosophical quest and religious faith than the synthesis of two—possessing faith and yet cultivates rational explanations of faith, not just for personal nurture but helping others understand the nature and significance of the their faith in a rational way. Faith does not have to be irrational to prove itself spiritual, neither philosophy of religion to be totally rational to prove itself intelligible. After all, both faith and reason can coexist and can make way to connect to each other, to make the bond of life more meaningful and reasonable to the subject and its observers. I’ll take faith that seeks understanding.

Christianity, Politics, and Election

By Glenn Plastina

What has Christianity to do with politics? The separation between the church and the state is an established reality among Filipinos. Both are autonomous and independent of their own. For the same reason, the tension between Christianity and politics is ever-widening. Now that the nation-wide election is nearing to its culmination, Filipinos could expect another face of politicizing the people. And religious institutions are experiencing various responses to the campaign,

Lately, the Philippines gained prominence among the second top most corrupt countries in Asia. No one seems to claim who is responsible for the blatant corruptions that placed the nation on a disgraceful status globally. Ironically, this is the same country known as “the only Christian nation” in the Orient (That could be an overstatement). But it is easy to throw the blame on politics as sole responsible for the anomalies in economy, justice, and law.

From the perspective of Christian communities, politics is generally perceived as a dirty business. This is just one of the complex personalities many Christian Filipinos have. Even those who are known for many abuses and corruptions in politics are the same religious people that can be seen in the churches. Is it a manifestation of "split-level spirituality" or just a façade to cover the anomalies? Meanwhile, common Filipino people continue to struggle for a better living.
Conversely, Filipino Christians have different stance towards politics. On the right side are the “passivists.” They believe that politics is the realm of no concern. They have nothing to do with political affairs and are therefore willing to entrust their social fate as a Filipino citizen to the flow of the masse. Some are critical and suspicious to the game of politics; to some extent, so come what may. They are already comfortable on their own self-reliance. They have spiritual priorities to fulfill in their own local church. On the left side, however, are those “activists.” They are aggressively involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and rights through protests and campaign. Though some are after social change and righteous revival, many are concerned for their accountability as a witness in a wider place.

But Filipino personality is not complete without the middle. There are the “moderates” in relation to politics. They are concerned about politics and yet involved in a social struggle through responsible citizenship. They take the chance to help the nation towards a national, social change by living a responsible life within their local communities. They bend on their knees and fervently anticipate that their influence will contribute a spark of life and hope to the nation under stress. They believe that election is a bridge that will impact both Christianity and politics. If politics fail, Christians will be affected; if Christians fail by their conspiracy of silence, the nation suffers.

Then, here comes the election. Honestly, this is a fearful event. Even if a president shares common belief with the people, it does not guarantee social change. The impact must start from below--the community. But a wrong majority decision is a landslide also to the minority. The most fearful thing are those religious influence who sold their allegiance to the highest political bidder; without thinking that those who bribe for a position is determined to take a hundred fold than what they gave. That is why communities must take necessary steps to ensure their accountability as Filipino citizens. By earnestly praying for a godly leader who is politically competent to lead the nation, Christians must decide whether they are to leave their decisions on people who sold their rights. This election is not just a matter of electing a person who shares a certain belief but also an experienced political persona entrusted by the people, for the people, and of the people.

Exchanging decision to vote for the right person in the seat of government is tantamount to betraying the future of the present and next generation of Filipino children. It will not only devour the other local citizens, but all of community of believers. It is hoped that Christians will indeed live up to their call as change-agents in their own locality. In such a way, they can impact the nation from below.

On Inculturation-Existential Synthesis Theology in Filipino Context

By Glenn Plastina

The quest for an authentic Christian life is a challenge to many Filipino Christians. Just last week, I overheard it in news media; the Philippines is the top three most corrupt country in Asia! (now, It's number two.) Personally, I empathize with this situation of seeing the suffering poor and the richie rich; and the most vicious have the face to stand unashamed before the nation as if nothing happened. Almost every major establishments and government agencies are known as havens of corruption and scandal. To some extent, even many church-leaders and authorities are sources of anomalous conduct.

I have had an opportunity to visit Hong Kong in one of my tours of duty. After I stayed there for a few months and learned some of their worldviews and beliefs, it was an eye-opener in doing ministry and theology. I came back with a new and broader perspective in my ministry. As I enter the Philippines, especially with the notorious airport and taxi transportation, I felt I was in a different dimension. Nevertheless, this is where the Gospel of Christ is supposed to be understood in a relevant way. I may not be sure of Bulatao’s Split-Level Christianity, but I’m convinced that existential theology in its positive sense may help a lot in inculturation of Filipino people. There is no doubt that Roman Catholic traditions are still Roman in a catholic (universal) setting. But there is no contest that their advances toward inculturation are also ahead in comparison to evangelicals.

Filipinos are rich in culture. There might be some concepts that will not be met by extreme existentialism—i.e. rejection of supernatural, miracles, etc.—but its quest for integrity, honest intellectual evaluation and authentic being might give a different impact to the concreteness of Filipino worldviews that will contribute to an indigenous theology. Though Filipinos are relational people and they posses languages and vocabularies that have a more meaningful emphasis in their own ideas, these concepts are no doubt ontological also. Their understanding of these local concepts are part of their value systems and being! Most of the Filipino concepts that has been considered and popularly known possessed some dynamic quality that would somehow shed light to the relevance and potentiality also of the Gospel to transform, purify, complete, or strengthen the specific cultural concepts in consideration.

If indeed inculturation is a significant nation building approach and existentialism as a method that emphasized authentic being and existence, then synthesis of these two theological methodologies is a potential system that could be applied in local churches, especially in ministering with family units. Existentialism approach will cover the factual dimension of existence and inculturation will deal much on the valuational dimension of existence. Since relationality is not the only thing in knowing the existential being of Filipinos, ontology might illumine more the concept of Filipinos as a person and as a humane being. We may never have control to do away with many things in a broader sense, like the blatant corruption in national level, but at least, we can start with the smallest unit in the country that will affect, shape, and determine the future of our churches and nation. We begin in our own families and local churches.

On Myth as Open Window to Filipino Inter-Cultural Theology

By Glenn Plastina

Traveling and ministering around the Philippines, was a learning opportunity for me. It opened my eyes to the reality that worldviews of the people in Batanes are different in comparison to Palawan. Somehow, it helped me to consciously appreciate the differences in outlook of God, life, and the world as I ministered to these various people group. There are treasures that are to be explored in these elements concerning the divergence of worldviews within a small country like ours.

One of the painful events of my ministry with various people groups was the discovery of negligence on the part of many Christian ministers on the elements of the indigenous people they ministered with. It was a terrible thing to see churches in the Mountainous provinces—i.e. Kalinga, Apayao, Isabela, Mt. Province, Benguet, Banaue, etc.—where I went to and see a culture within a small culture in the locality. I am referring to the fundamental churches (where I belonged before) within these areas. They are relatively small and yet remote in sense that their Christian concepts have become a threat of destroying the local culture. These are concrete examples of churches not helping in building the nation. As I reflected on the effect of these ministries, some prevailing realities were noticeable.

Primarily, many of these churches were planted by foreign evangelists, not intercultural missionaries. They were pastored by leaders who have no knowledge and formal training on anthropology and cultural studies. They are western in mentality as expressed in the evangelistic approaches, ministry styles, liturgy, and style of preaching. Many of these ministers known to me personally don’t even care about the cultural values of the people, as if the Christian or, actually, Western worldview is the Christian worldview. Cultural elements of the locality are deemed as heathen. Thus, indeed, the church is a culture (western) within the culture.

I was conversing with one young artist, who I believe a young people who values his cultural heritage even in his paintings, in one of the elegant towns in Mt. Province. I asked him to tell me their ancestral stories. We were at the top of the highest mountain of their province and he told me the story of their God, gods, ancestors, land, garden, serpent, and the like. It was a learning process for me. Such a beautiful window that opened the light to illumine where they were coming from and how their ancestors were actually told by God, in the story, that a sage will come and will bring with him the Book and tell them the truth. Most of their mythical stories have resemblance with the stories in the Bible. I went home to my pastor-friend and asked if he knew these things. Negative. What a missing link! Instead of opening the door and let the windows illumine the interior of the house, their ministries were grappling in darkness of their negligence in listening, learning, and understanding the cultural elements that would shed light to the way of the heart of the people through their culture.

Sunday came, I did not wonder why it was easy for the town folks to embrace cultic religions that speak, relate, and accommodated their culture. There was no transformation. The western Christian church is also remote and static. Faulty attitude and theology in culture, I believe, brought rootless ministries that make the Gospel hard for the local people to conceive at all.

On Religion and Filipino Dehumanization and Humanization

By Glenn Plastina
As old as our religious history, the invasion by the Spanish regime has not only conquered the nation, but also the way Filipino think and lived. This long struggle is not only in political arena. It is also religious. Those were the times where the Filipino people were treated as ignorant animals and uneducated barbarians that should be Christianized by force. As far as my memory in history can go, religion was subject to many anomalies that dehumanized my ancestors.
It was the friars who betrayed the confidence of the parishioners. Some of those faithful Filipinos who have known the plans of the courageous few to resist the political and religious abuse of the Spanish regime were exposed via the confessional.

Filipino history is littered with long tradition of being people dehumanized by religion. In the first introduction of the concept of Christ, the Sto. Nino, especially in the Visayas regions, the concept of Christ was presented in a faulty perspective. Yeah, it’s true. Filipinos value their children and childhood years, but where did the concept of Christ as the Christ who can be manipulated like a child came from?

In the uttermost north of the Philippines, Batanes history in particular, priests were worshiped. When the priest passed by along the road, the people would bow down in worship and kiss the hem of his robe. No matter what anomalous activities were made in the convent, the people remained silent in fear of being condemned by the priest himself. If one person is converted to an evangelical Christianity, the person is a cast away from the family without educational support and the schools were run by the Catholic Church. There even cases where converts were persecuted, not only verbally but, physically. Many were disowned by their own relatives and family. It is good if evangelical churches can have three to four converts in a year. That was when I was there in 1998.

At present, the Roman Catholic Church was plagued by intrigues and scandals of many priests involved in sexual malpractices. But this is also true among evangelicals. There are also some Filipino self styled cults that have been questioned for abuse of power in manipulating members to choose a political figure at the right cost of bribe/offering. Iglesia Ni Cristo has been a controversial sect that solicited public criticism. On the other hand, religious leaders like M. Velarde, Abante, and others were also subjected controversies and scandal that somehow forced others to voice out their human concerns.

Among the ancient Filipino-animistic religions here in the mountainous provinces, tribal people religion has been dehumanizing in that it was used to justify violence and inhuman treatment of the outsiders and enemies. Many valued the dead, but often dishonor the living. Many are constantly living in fear. Every ritual must be performed right or the gods, spirits, and revered ancestors will be offended.

But despite of these seemingly image of religion as the main culprit, still, by the abounding grace of God, glimpse of hope is still present. If there is one instrument that has been used by God to change people’s lives and have a more and a meaningful life, certainly religion can not be denied. It is perhaps, God must have a role in establishing religion in one way or another. If it was instrumental in dehumanizing many people, it was also a haven of a comforting community for refuge, spirituality, and love.

On Western Philosophies and Filipino Theology

By Glenn Plastina

Filipino philosophy and mentality may not be as complicated and advance as the established long tradition of Western and European philosophy, but certainly there is a voice in Asian philosophy that has been heard among its counterpart. In a wider scope, some of our Asian neighbors—like China, India, Japan, etc.—have long traditions that are older than the most modern western philosophical quest, but such idea is unpopular. However, these Asian philosophies are, I believe, original and worthy of consideration.

Western philosophies are so popular in that even Asian, especially Filipinos, is acquainted with them. Most of the mainstream western philosophies are being dealt in many of our seminaries, colleges and universities. Most schools offer a good amount of these foreign perspectives. Even in styles of teaching, these philosophies bear some trademarks of western approach in a sense that the medium is basically English, an adopted language for Filipinos. The concepts are also western and the abstractness of ideas resembles to that of the west. There is of course a degree of valuation to the Filipino line of thought and reasoning, but it is not as popular to the western counterpart.

As for me, an aspiring Asian-Filipino theologian, western philosophy is not totally negative and worthless. They have their own weaknesses and strengths especially that their basic ideas are sometimes foreign to me. It is “sometimes” in a sense that I was basically raised, educated, and schooled in the western line of thought, music, and ministry. Nevertheless, my roots are still roots. It is part of my being and humaneness. I can not do away with my Filipino cultural background no matter how westernized my environment is. I am still an advocate of “Filipinizing” Filipino church and theology. I might be in sense nationalistic, but not that narrow. My point is that, western philosophy is necessary especially in methodology and approach and to some extent in essence. But what is more important is that the conceptual essence must be provided by a culturally redeemed and relevant idea that is more understandable to the Filipino people.

Of course, the primacy of written revelation is still an important factor for the ultimate essence of the concept. Yet, there is openness to cultural relevance especially in religious matters since we are dealing with Filipino religiosity. When the relationship of these two factors—revelation and culture—are laid, then there could be a dialogue with western philosophies so as to give a dynamic interaction with intellectual honesty and philosophical growth.

The originality and distinction of Filipino religiosity is positive and potential in that there is a unique blend of many influences that somehow shaped the contemporary understanding of Filipino reasoning. Due to the fact that Filipino religiosity is not at all an original and ancient type of religious understanding, and our line of thought are not that established in comparison to the long tradition of western reasoning, there could be a way of bringing out this unique blend of reasoning that is special and relevant especially to those who understand it well.

For me, doing Filipino theology could have rootedness and relevant reasoning if western (if there is no other available) methodology were utilized. It could have helped in the rise of a Filipino philosophical way of reasoning in theology at least in the beginning. For in due time, when Filipino theology can make a creative methodology of its own, then it would be a rewarding moment.

On Religion as Means of Humanization and Dehumanization

By Glenn Plastina

Sociological and cultural panorama presents religion as a human project. Humanity possessed intuition for protection, survival, and order; religion was a necessity to fulfill that inner intuition. The back draft of chaos as context for this intuition was juxtaposed to the threat of humanization. In the sociological process of externalization, objectivation, and internalization, religion came into a nominizing being. But this reified object became the “otherness” that somehow, unfortunately, possessed a risky personality that eventually dehumanizes its creators. Though created, along with culture, religion’s potential power to dehumanize a group of humans is deemed consequential.

In the negative sense, religion’s manipulating power endangers the lives of its adherents even if it is part of their world construction and maintenance; religion’s legitimizing ability and ontological precariousness were often seen as historically fatal and dangerous. If money has been one of the sociological elements that dehumanize persons, religion carries the same potential to dehumanize many persons, especially those who seek refuge in religion for answers and certainty for life and hereafter.

Religion not only dehumanizes its practitioners, but also their confused promoters and priests for their deception of imposing to others what they themselves were oppressed in observing. False consciousness, of course, can play a vital role in this alienation and hypocrisy. Other element includes: religion objectivises a person. Religion was supposed to be a self projection, but its repercussions alienate its makers. As a result, it swallowed and made its makers less human or presumptuously divine—two extremes which deny humaneness. Internalization of religion can dehumanize person in submitting to its humanly imposed ontological status.

Through sociological process, reaching towards the final stage of nominazation alienates humanity to the superimposed rituals that were initially used to remind people for order and protection. What was meant to be a weapon against fear of disorder has enslaved the practitioners to fear of not maintaining the rituals and offending the ontologically elevated status quos of the sacred few—i.e. persons, things, places, and objects. Alienation was the eventual tragedy that enslaved a person to nothing less an object, not a person. But the other side, however, of ritual was its power to set order in the midst of fear for chaos. This could not be undermined also. Apart from nominizing order, anarchy will prevail—a situation no society will ever be humane. Nonetheless, well systematized religious systems can be oppressive for its tendency to systematically oppress human freedom.

It could be well said that limitations were good as it serves it genuine intention for order, but when its limitations oppresses people, it is legitimizing evil. Suffice to say, if a new definition of evil is anything that dehumanizes a person, religion is a strong candidate. If there is one avenue that dominantly dehumanize a person—it’s religion.

Somehow, major questions are also considered. Was the religious idea of transcendence threat to humanization? On the other hand, was immanence the answer to humanization? It is here, in not being afraid to face self-criticism, that integrative reflections are helpful. Self-evaluation of Christian thought is never the enemy for truth; it’s the objection to honest pursuit for truth.

Asian Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Dialogue Theology

By Glenn Plastina

Theology in Dialogue with Worldviews
There is nothing like this before in the history of theological enterprise where worldviews were given an opportunity to voice out its heart to be heard and be appreciated in theological task. This is meant to last since worldviews are one of the most important elements to be considered in theology. Worldviews are said to be windows to the inner chamber of a human heart and a community. While theologians are often preoccupied with interests that matters, worldviews can not be ignored as such since ministering to people involves listening to their worldviews and life concerns.
When theology is in dialogue with other worldviews, it keeps the theologian from arrogance and disadvantage. Westerners met much resistance from other Asian communities because their approach to theology and indoctrination is monologue. This one way approach is obsolete and ineffective because there are so many tribal communities, even nations, who have longer and older history than the west. When they approach to “teach” and not listen in dialogue, deep inside the heart of the individual or community is a wall of resistance that whispers, “What? You come here to bring your message as if you alone know the truth that in fact our tradition is more ancient than yours?” What is seen in the ministry is just a façade, perhaps just funny feelings in the people’s heart to what the missioner is doing.
Knowing the worldviews, language, and thinking pattern of local community is always an edge in doing local and indigenous theology or practical ministry.

Theology in Dialogue with Culture
How many times a missioner is seen as less than a transformer and never an incarnational agent? Ever since childhood, this reality is always a norm. A missioner and a theologian comes to “educate” the “uninformed” or the “mountain people.” Or are they treated as people? Perhaps not. What happened to their local culture? Keeping in touch with many friends in the Cordillera region, hearing and seeing people threatened by “Christianity” is a common scenario. This is not just a matter of Spanish friars’ abuse and justification of violence; that’s long been gone and is now minimal. The biggest threat today among indigenous people is missionary-minded evangelicals and foreign-funded mission works, even Bible Schools and Seminaries. How many seminary-trained workers were taught that the best way to preach is English and the best way to build a church building is like the preference of foreign missionary agencies?
This is not just a matter of outward concerns of buildings, properties, and schools, but the very material that evangelicals use today are more often foreign to the people. These materials are not even teaching people to strengthen their culture through, in, and for Christ, but phasing out their culture by a westernized or Hellenized Christianity. This student can never forget one honest and brave youth who mourned for his dying culture because of lowland evangelicals who brought harm to their indigenous culture. If only evangelical missionaries and theologians in the past gave them opportunity to talk and be heard in dialogue, their culture could have been redeemed and their heart totally changed towards Christ.

Theology in Dialogue with Ethnic Religions
As a matter of opinion, when Christianity attempts to reach out ethnic religions, the mindset is often to conquer, invade, or treat ethnic religions as inferior to Christianity—a spiritual apartheid as such. This does not mean to romanticize ethnic tribes but to treat it as part of the life, culture, and of the local community. If the theologians thinking pattern is so consumed by western superiority complex, it reflects in the theological ministry. It wants to control and monopolize conversations. It thinks and feels that one’s spiritual stance is the ultimate answer to all ethnic religions’ insufficiency to meet human needs. It may be, but it does not have to start that way. A highly relational and redemptive theology must be in dialogue with other ethnic religions to show its edge and significance to the local community.

Theology in Dialogue with Politics
There may have been too much going on in third world countries especially with that of liberation theologies, but this is never an impediment for clarification of theological stance in relation to politics. Separation of the church and state does not mean a great divide where no dialogue can occur. In fact, politics and church are given personalities as if there is no relationship between the two. The church may be a community or an organism, but its organization is plagued with politicking, sometimes worse than in the government. Board of deacons is manipulating God-called leaders and ministers. Bored trustees are even contented with maintaining control and not releasing leaders to their potentialities.
The same is true with theology, tradition and organizations itself are withholding theologians to explore the unknown and the road less traveled in theological enterprise. Of course, theologians, for economic reasons and others, may be afraid to take the baton and travel. Silence may be a conspiracy but it is never without a cost. This is not a task just for difference sake but for potential advancement of the discipline. And going back to politics, especially with the moral decline of many government officials and political, as well as economic, sectors, it is perhaps high time for the church and its theologians to take the stripe flag for a dialogue in that each camp may be heard and do the right step for building the nation. A right theology and distorted practice may be incompatible but the church with all that is entrusted to her, must take the stand to listen and be heard also as it dialogue with politics—not for politicking but for powerful transformation.

Theology in Dialogue with Anthropology
Humanism may have excesses in the past and even in the present. Many Christians may have been disappointed with their tenets of making man as the measure of all things. Some even called humanists as devil’s disciples; but this is good news, even the devil can be used by God for his purposes. This is more than the correspondence of Wormwood and Screwtape. The Bible is even using the evil king Nebuchadnezzar to serve God’s purposes. The very vessels despised by many can be used for the advancement of God’s kingdom.
Dogmatic Christians even Bible Schools can not even take anthropology in their curriculum. But this is a bold step of some Seminaries who saw the benefits and advantage of having redemptive cultural anthropology in their curriculum. One advantage that can be seen here is that when theologians and missionaries are acquainted with cultural anthropology, they are safeguarded from “dehumanizing” people in the process of indoctrination and practice. This is the case of religion in oppressing people through its inhuman demands and concepts. Man may not be the measure of all things, but things that matter to humanity can never be discounted.
To some extent, reevaluation of major and minor traditional concepts--i.e., God, sin, salvation, etc.--of Christian faith can be modified in anthropological perspective. But this requires an extensive and comprehensive dialogue between theology (revelation) and anthropology.

Theology in Dialogue with Sociology
While many Christians are afraid of having dialogue with other disciplines especially those “marked” as hostile to Christian faith, interdisciplinary dialogue is a healthy practice. Though there is never a guarantee of safety here, reaching out for the lost is not just a matter of being safe and secure but to take the risk and challenge. Christian faith and theology is never afraid of self-evaluation and self-criticism. In fact, Christianity was there all alone when it was tossed to and fro in the wildest waves of persecution, attack, and slander. That has been the very breath of Christian faith. It inhales defensive stance for faith and exhales apologetic arguments with those who despise her.
As of the present, especially in doing Asian theology, dialogue with other discipline, like sociology, is a potential way to hear the other side of the camp. To defeat an enemy is to know his strength especially his weakness. It importantly includes using their own power for Christianity’s advantage. This is a healthy “spoiling Egyptians” and this has been an asset of theology when it is in dialogue with other disciplines. Utilizing their strength and rejecting, if there’s no hope of accommodating or modifying, its weakest link that is contrary to the faith and theological task. In sociology for example, many ministry now are growing and benefiting the contribution of this discipline. This is not just a matter of marketing the church or the Gospel, but using what is in hand for God.
While many dread exploring knowledge due to ignorance, a learner of interdisciplinary can take courage that truth can never be monopolized by any institutions, not even the church, the pillar and keeper of truth. If God can never be domesticated, truth can be found wherever God may put it and no one has the right to question him about that.
In sum, if Christian theology wants to make an in-depth effect to transform and strengthen the people it ministers with, dialogue with worldviews, culture, politics, ethnic religions, and other related disciplines like sociology and anthropology is inevitable. Asian Christian theology must live to its purpose and goal to reach out to the lost by making the Gospel of Christ understandable and meaningful to the local community. The message may be unchanging and inherently powerful in itself but let it be remembered that doing Asian Christian theology is like farming vegetables. The farmer cultivates the soil and waters, fertilizes, and cares the plants. God provides water, soil, rain, and makes the plant to grow. God could do all these things for the farmer, but it is certain that He will not. Both must do their part that the harvest may be plenty. Theologians and the Ultimate Subject of their quest and task must work hand in hand.
Asian Christian theology, therefore, must communicate and this communication is not monologue but dialogue. Then and only then the Logos is made clear in the heart of the local people.

Redemptive Inculturation-Existential Synthesis Theology in Filipino Context

By Glenn Plastina

This integration includes basic elements in the foundation of a proposed Filipino theology.

Sensitivity to Cultural Filipino Components
Worldviews. Philippines is composed of fragmented islands with no general worldviews, but differences in concepts of God, world, and man can be categorized when dealt with specifically as theologians start with specific people groups. Theology in dialogue with Filipino worldviews can be more helpful than isolated independent formulation without consultation of where the people are coming from. This is the very case of “unrootedness” of many evangelical churches that discard and take no consideration of their people’s worldviews. Insensitivity to people’s worldviews damaged their understanding of the essence of Christianity since the introduced Christianity is either Hellenized or Westernized Christianity. Through worldviews, the task of doing Filipino theology is a potential enterprise.
Myths. Every tribal Filipinos have their own unique myths that shaped their worldviews. These myths are older than foreigners think. They passed from mouth to mouth and their development have undergone many generations. It is important for theologians to take notice of the people’s mythological understanding for they can serve as bridges in the introduction of the gospel. Many of these myths have resemblance with the narrative accounts of the Bible especially with the beginnings. Moral values are even passed through stories, thus, narrative theology is a potential tool in making theology in the Philippines. Filipinos may love imported stories but the main interest remains the same, their stories.
Traditions. Filipinos are innovative and interested for new things, but they are also concerned of their past, especially their traditions and beliefs. Many might say that since they were born in that belief, they are to die in that belief. This is not mere superstitions, but sensitivity to traditional heritage as part of their identity formation and security. Such traditions are not at all threat to the gospel for it can be the completion of that tradition and the redemptive tool for their past heritage. Filipinos may speak western language fluently, but their heart language is still Filipino. They still think, act, sleep, dream, and believe like Filipinos.

Sensitivity to Filipino Existential Emphasis
Self-valuation. The Filipino concept of self is very interesting and deep. The breadth and scope of it is not only limited to self alone, but of others. Filipinos value themselves in the light of others, yet they value their own. This self-valuation is healthy and weak at the same time. A theological framework that will face the challenge of this concept of self is a potential enterprise since abstraction is of little value to Filipinos. They want something experiential, cause-worthy, and personal, rather than abstract propositions, highly philosophical and irrelevant.
Sense of Well-being. With the Filipino-image downtrodden in the global view, Filipino’s sense of well-being is strongly desired. Almost all aspects of Filipino lifestyle bear the stigma and scar of humiliation, shame, corruption, and economic depression, as well as spiritual insufficiency. Most evangelical churches are not even meeting the demands for Christian lifestyle check-up and there are only a few communities of believers who exemplified an authentic faith. The scandal of the Roman Catholic churches is so popular to make it to the headlines. This is a time, where propositional and abstract theology failed no matter how historical and biblical they were. I think, as of now, what the Filipino need is a culturally relevant modified existential theology that gave emphasis to authentic being and give allowance to non-rational elements.

Sensitivity to Filipino Behavioral Generalities
Relationality. Filipinos, like most Asians, are relational people. The individualist’s theological perspective may only catch a few, but the emphasis that most Filipinos desire is a relational element, even in theology. The mass-appeal to Filipino relationality has been insufficiently noticed in the past. Theological sensitivity to this concept may touch more areas as needed since this is one of the main cores of Filipino behavioral distinction.
Present Valuation. The past and future may be important to some, but most Filipinos are present-oriented people. They want to enjoy and value the present in that many accused them of not preparing for the future, like insurance or security systems. This might be a picture of shortsightedness, but this will help theologians evaluate their theology in the light of the present eschaton. Many Filipinos are into cultic religions and denominations for one main reason: these groups emphasized the here and now. They are passionate of the present life and experience, not on abstract propositions. Most of their spirit worldviews tell them that spirits, ancestors, etc. are actively involved in the present life.

Sensitivity to Humanization of Sacred Concepts
Religions. In broad spectrum, many religions in the Philippines are under the umbrella of Christianity but some of these are Filipino distortions of the Christian doctrine, i.e. INC, Rizalists, Dating Daan, Filipino Spiritists, etc. to name the few. The diversity of Filipino alternative “Christian” religious cults is numerous since Christianity has long tradition already in this country at the arrival of the Spanish. In fact, many of these religious groups are attempts, to some extent, to make the gospel relevant to the Filipino mind pattern. Yet generally, these religions have their own way of dehumanizing people also due to the nature of their teachings and methodology in imposing belief systems to the converts.
Animist traditions. With tiny religious groups in the Philippines, the challenge of Christianity is enormous. These traditional religions are often dehumanizing. Their requirements and religious obligations are not helping them to succeed as a community or as an individual family unit. Though there is so far to prove yet on the relationship of religion to poverty, this seems to be the main motif of the poverty of many cultic and primitive ethnic groups in the Philippines. Of course, politics has been the main player of this economic decline, but the religious understanding of these people is basically the foundational manifestation of dehumanized people through religion. Their idea of the sacred is the great challenge to Christian theology if ever it will be able to make the bridge and take roots in the tribal lands without distorting the essence of the Gospel of Christ.
Miracles. This is where extreme existentialism is found wanting. Allowance for the non-rational and supernatural is necessary to make an effective theology in the Philippines. Many Christians here in the Cordilleras have dual allegiance to power encounters. They may have believed in Christ for their eternal salvation, but for their daily experiences, especially in direst needs and crucial events in life, they tend to go back to their old folk-faith with “Christian” intention. It is important not to bring them the truth only, but truth with power. People around the Philippines are receptive to power encounters, yet most evangelicals have been silent (a conspiracy?) to non rational phenomena, especially that of miracles.

Sensitivity to Filipino’s Identity in a Globalized Society
Retrieval of Filipino Identity. The Philippines has been the melting pot of many ethnic nationalities. With the original Indio-Malayo tribal people with the sequential coming of the Chinese, Muslims, Spanish, Americans, Japanese, Indians, Koreans, etc., Filipinos are struggling to maintain their identity as a people. Mixed marriages, media, and migration to urban cities contributed a lot to this phenomenon. Industrialization and modernization, however, were not impediments to Filipino traditionality and religiosity. A Christian theology that helps to bring solidarity and unity, not uniformity, to the identity of the Filipino people is an important enterprise.
Global Filipino with Local Roots. Filipino OCW phenomenon is also sensitive element in doing Filipino theology. How is Christian faith relevant to the “diaspora” Filipinos? Filipinos are found globally, but they usually have their roots intact in their homeland especially that most of their loved ones are here. Their affections and interests are usually for the welfare of their families who are not well to do, but their efforts contributed to nation building. Nonetheless, their concept of God, world, self, and “fortune” are elemental to theology.
Filipino Community Struggle. With the upsurge of corruption and economic depression, patriotic struggle in the name of Christ is also a challenge. Third world theology, especially liberation theology, is taking grounds among many grass-roots Filipino. Catholics were ahead in terms of theological inculturation and doing Filipino theology, but a better theological alternative that gives foundation to the moral and spiritual changes of community and nation building is a challenge to achieve. Filipinos are not necessarily illiterate but their traditional religious heritage and community struggle are still influential in shaping their theological concepts.

Sensitivity to Family and Community Thinking Pattern
Extended Family. Perhaps, this is where the theological challenge to cater to the family members and needs rather than to a scholastic individual. This does not mean that Filipino theology is to be too low, but that it should be comprehensible enough to be understood by families, a strategic place to cultivate theology and faith. Of course, there is a place for academic pursuit for theology to cater to the scholarly arena and global competency. What I’m suggesting is a theology that can have a multi-level reference understandable to the different stages of family members.
People of Reference. Filipino people are also habitual in terms of identifying themselves with someone or a group of people that are significant, powerful, influential, popular, or not ordinary citizen. They often associate themselves with significant others. This is relational phenomenon and could be a strong consideration in theology since most propositional theology has individualistic tendencies behind. A theology for the community of God is an effective tool that emphasizes community building and identity formation.

Sensitivity to Biblical and Cultural Integrity of Theology
Biblical and Oriental. An “unbiblical” Christian theology can never be an authentic Christian Asian theology. The Bible is still the very foundation of theology as methodology are being modified and explored to make the gospel understandable to the people. When the oriental emphasis is taking ground, westernized or Hellenized Christianity will be minimized, if not eliminated. What is very important is the eternal and unchanging essence of the gospel and not the coverings that surrounds it. With correlational approach to theology, Bible and culture can be a good combination to approach Asian theology.
Oriental and Redemptive. Not only that it is oriental in methodology and biblical in essence, true Asian theology must be redemptive. Whatever is considered to be from God and potential vehicles for God’s message must be redeemed. Thus, redemption covers not just the person but the objects, ideas, concepts, etc. that surrounds the person. It is not to be judgmental on those “strange” practices, rituals, thinking patterns, and the like but seek to find ways to redeem the true purpose and design of the person or object in hand.
Theological explorations may delve into some of these Filipino concepts: the relationship between logos and “diwa,” divine providence and “kapalaran” or “malas,” sin and “hiya,” especially Filipino spirit world, “Bathala” and “bahala na” concepts and the like. The task goes on to make the Gospel of Christ take its roots in the hearts of Filipinos. Himaya sa Ginoo!

On Religion and Perspectival Explanations

By Glenn Plastina

As an evangelical Christian, the issue on religion can be an enormous challenge. Religion, and those concepts related to it—i.e. religiosity, institution, ritual, spirituality, etc.—are needful phenomena that require careful attention. Secularization is a deep challenge to evangelicals also. While it can be explained that secularization came from within the portals of the Christianity, it is not a threat to Christendom alone, but to religion also. It is evident that evangelicalism has down played the importance of religion; this is perhaps in the emphasis of the evangel (gospel) and missions. But one of the major consequences of this streamline attitude has proved to be disastrous and negative. While there was a widespread support to mission and the propagation of the gospel, the recipients were also deprived of their religious heritage. In fact, in the eyes of the indigenous people, Christianity is the main proponent of “de-religionizing” nations.
The phenomenon of religion, on the other hand, impacted the interest and curiosity of mankind for a long time in history. There have been explanations offered to explore the vast meaning of religion. Some of the point of references utilized to explain the origin of religion was institutional, anthropological, societal, psychological, etc. This only proves that there is no one way of looking at religion. As a phenomenon it can be approached through various lenses. Since it is older than any observer, only a theory can be offered to express its origin, meaning, and destiny. Its nature can be explained based only on available facts. As far as the researcher and observer can avail these facts, it is the only means by which one can presuppose the development of religion in human history.
Of course, explaining religion can never be confined to what is in hand. What I mean here is that: explaining religion can be perspectival.
The exploration of the phenomenon of religion is like doing theology. With available facts in hand, a center point of reference can be a potential lens of explaining the origin, nature, and essence of religion. What made the theories of Weber, Freud, Jung, etc. worked were their originality and eloquence of presenting their cases with convincing support from observable facts. Oftentimes, it is just a believable “speculations” that makes sense. Yet one thing remians: each of them can never do away with the center point by which they do things together. They all need a central perspective in seeing and proving their desired explanations and arguments on the origin, nature, and essence of religion.
This observation looks forward for a potential and new explanation on the significance of religion, not only its relationship with the community, society, institution but to self also. It is something more than psychoanalytical, trans-relational, or meta-phenomenal—maybe a perspective of religion in the light of hope.

On the Meaning of God-Talk in Religious Language

By Glenn Plastina

The problem of God is never a problem to God. Primarily, it is because man is the only one concern for the problem of the concept of God. Even the very word “God” has been linguistically disputed with a long history. Perhaps, an old question was succinct about this concern: What’s in a mane?
Etymologically, the term “God” has an ancient history. Platonic contribution may have spilled a lot of understanding and implications of it. As times goes by, the word became more complicated and ultimately became a subject of philosophical dispute. Religiously, the term have various similarities and differences from different, major, and cultural perspectives. Though by intuition, it is a popular claim that man has that innate nature to have inclinations geared towards God; of which various explanations ranges from psychology, sociology, philosophy offer alternative answers. No doubt, even the concept of God by itself is subject to complex scrutiny. No wonder, others were struggling with the concept of God. What if the term “God” be replaced with other term? Is its representation and meaning changed? Is altering the term God means abolishing the meaning of God-talk? Is decisive God-talk intelligible apart from “God”? Is there meaning in the word “God”?
There have been attempts to change the term God, yet the problem remains intact. Man can never do away with the problem of religious language. No matter how many arguments were given to justify personal and prolific reasoning, he has to face the fact that in dealing with concepts, language is inevitably useful and controversial. Even if it can not represent the whole of what it wanted to represent, with the meager linguistic tool he has in hands, he is compelled to accept that the word “God” is a religious language. And since it is a religious term, the meaning of it can never be manipulated for the recipient’s concept may differ from one to another. If there is one responsible in understanding the meaning of God, man is.
God is not obliged to understand himself even if man fell short in understanding Him. Personally, God is not mistaken to utilize man’s finite words to reveal himself through human language and ultimately in human form through Jesus of Nazareth. Limitation of religious language is never the ultimate predicament in understanding the meaning of God. Whatever is that ultimate hindrance, the quest for the meaning of God-talk goes on and on.

On Ontological Angst for the Quest of Reason

By Glenn Plastina

More often, the question is far more important than the answers. The question on existence can be a haunting experience for anybody, especially those who are afraid to take the courage of facing the answer if ever they fail to meet idealistic expectations. Perhaps, there is nothing more disappointing than to find out that one’s chosen path, after all, proved to be a wrong track. Personally, I have been reared and often forced to be reasonable and not just accept any stance without prior investigation whether a position on something can really stand the test of tension with other standpoint, especially the opposite conviction, reasoning, or assumption. People I know who are dearer to me often tested my reasoning in almost everything—values, convictions, doctrinal bearing, etc. These I learned while still a kid. But the most fearsome thing I ever faced in my earlier years was to stand and be tested with the realities around me, and most of all, inside of me. It is easy to settle things outside, but often the disquieting things to order are those that pertain inside of my being. Who am I? Why am I here? What is the reason for this existence? Where am I heading to?
Raised as a hardcore fundamentalist, doubt is a serious matter—perceived as mother of all evil. To doubt God and the fundamental doctrines is almost as serious as eternal sin. I let other define me. But somehow, the realities outside proved to be a serious quest also. There were times that I was thinking; perhaps God is not at all powerful for he was not able to take full control every evil things happening around and inside me. Perhaps God is not what I thought about after all. Deep inside, the most haunting question has something to do with my being. “Lord, what have I become?” I was afraid. Is certainty, indeed, a myth? When all I cherished to be true seems to be other wise. This is after all a disappointment—like hitting at the wind.
No matter how hard I tried to settle everything by reason, it seems that the best I can was still not good enough. I have been an avid learner and I love to really learn. But it took courage to realize that the more I know, the more I realize that I know a little. There are things that pertain to faith as well as reason, but I don’t need to reason out everything. With meager knowledge of what is outside is often less important than knowing who am I and why do I exist. It takes courage to be and faith to become.