Towards Maid-en Theology and Practice

by Glenn Plastina

As a pastor and theological educator, I find it very interesting in shaping and doing theological—above all, Christian—endeavor. I visited Hong Kong for the first time at the dawn of this century. It was a window that opened my eyes to the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Filipino ministries in this place (for most part of my life was spent in looking for an authentic Christian Filipino theology in my homeland). But now--it's just like I have to welcome my self to this long un-updated blog--so I have to keep up the pace.

In Hong Kong: Welcome to the world of women and workers!

Time and again, I wonder how my fellow people view God in this foreign land—one among many--as my fellow people were in diaspora globally. This scattering of Filipino Christians posts a challenge to doing theology as I personally perceived. In such a highly advanced community—technologically and economically superior—and often impersonal place, our fellows struggled to keep life on the move here in HK. Our nation, Philippines, flattered these women as “modern heroes,” but it is actually in relation to monetary productivity. They bring hugh cash in the nation's storage bank (and the corrupt officials' pocket?). They might be branded as “heroes’ but they bear the stigma of being “helpers.” The two descriptions are obviously distant and paradigmatic.

Most of the people I knew here dwell between the tension of becoming and unbecoming. For others, it’s between blessings and burden. For those who were highly educated, they were domesticated; the professionals became plain—more often less than average—people. Many individuals felt useful, but many suffered being used up. Many were not able to escape as mere financial provider to the whims of erring husbands and wayward children (a common and obvious effect of absentee wife and mother) although others experience sustainable satisfaction. Whether many are married or in man-hunting-business, the fact is, the need for theological relevance that relates to them is in view. Moreover, a ministry that meets their manner of living is a significant concern.

Christian Filipino style of theologizing in a particular place like Hong Kong is a great challenge. It requires different methodologies and approaches, even new theological models, as the needs arise. In my specific effort in educating Filipino—or in actuality, Filipina—leaders, (as most of them are women. Where are the men?) I tried to utilize dialogical, interactive, and gender-sensitive approach in their theological formation. Considering that the leaders’ situation here are very heavy and numbered, monologue (as in the style of the “experts” and “specialists” may not work well in this specific situation. Bookish, library researched, peppered with heavy footnotes and what-ever notes there is in the world, seemed outlandish here. The sophisticated approaches that mostly produce scholars, rather than servant-leaders and seekers of the lost, might be a disadvantage also. Applicability is more preferable than abstractions.

If I’ll move on further, perspectival, rather than patriarchal convictions and theological chauvinism can deal with sensitive issues and debacles. Hence, as I work it out with others, I propose an endeavor towards a redemptive maid-en theology and practice.

Why redemptive? My acquaintance with the wider body of Christ in HK provides a macro-perspective to what I am saying here. There seems to be a strong—and sometimes prevailing—“peasant-mentality” among many believers. Being a maid/helper doesn’t sound good to a lot of believers. If possible, this was the last thing they want to be called. Of course, a great number came for this is something better than in their hometowns. It is need that pushed out their courage to come. But many also came to be something less than who they were. Teachers, principals, college degree holders, and the like, all were boiled to one: maids. Crucial necessities pushed them to the limits. Their sense of self-identity, valuation, and personal pride were constantly challenged. Where redemption does comes in? It arrives in the restoration of self-identity and valuation of spirit in the light of God’s continuing salvific plan.

A relevant theologizing must cultivate their true value as humans created in the image of God. The sacredness and competency of the redeemed individual in the community of God must be stressed. Doing away with peasant-mentality is possible through the theological deformation-to-transformation. The root causes, internal problems (like the evil of insecurities, low self-esteem, and the like) must be deconstructed. In effect, the need of a transformative theological formation is a must to bridge them from being helpers to leaders, mere workers to winners (in terms of spiritual productivity), and maids to ministers. Authentic servant-hood (serving God while supporting their families) is a goal worth taking.

Why maid-en? I suppose that this theological endeavor is still in its primary stage (sounds like a maiden voyage, still going to the deep). I thank God for there are existing efforts that promote this theological formation through formal, non-formal, and some are in correspondent shapes. Presently, I’m privileged in joining this (from July-August 2006) pilgrimage towards transforming Christian leaders through Theological Education for Filipino Leaders, sponsored by Hong Kong Baptist Theological Education. PBTS is also an accrediting partner in this ministry.

These leaders are more than helpers. Moving on towards more maids becoming ministers—I strongly believe, they can.

On the Ground of Early Christian Ethics

Glenn Plastina

Initially, the question on the ground of Christian ethics is still a puzzle for me. In class discussions, the ground for Christian ethics is sometimes hard to identify. In fact there seems to be "grounds" of Christian moral. Let me reiterate them.

First, early Christian ethics were partly based upon the ancient biblical documents with various moral judgments. It partly evolved through particular times and traditions, especially in the Old Testament scriptures. Yet, biblical characters, both in the Old and New Testaments, themselves faced moral issues where their judgments were basically different than other believers. They themselves don’t have unified norm. Perhaps, this is so because of varied interpretations of the exiting data in hand. But we have to remember that in the pre-written era of the Torah--and it applies to the Prophetic writings--ethical standards were not totally the same as in the New. Today, students of Scripture interpretation also vary in their "biblical" convictions on practical and social matters. This will lead to the next consideration.

Second, early Christian ethics utilized Judaistic, as well as Greek, legacies to shape the form of their moral judgment. Here, an art of accommodation can be seen in a classical way. Ethical standards according to perceived authority, either a tradition or philosophical arguments, will sometimes do. Most of the first generation Christians were Jewish in heritage with an admixture of a Greek-Hellenistic culture. It would be hard--but not totally impossible--for us to take that they have no homogenous worldview to express their ethical standards and practices. But it is likely that they do have heterogenous worldviews affecting their practices and lifestyles, social and practical applications.

Third, early Christian ethics used reason as another source of authority, as also expressed in the Wisdom traditions, philosophical logic, and universal laws. As a rational being and member of a community of faith, reason has its place more often than not.

Fourth, early Christian ethics also utilized human experience as norm for morality. Here, it is probable that these norms are not basically coming from the community of faith, but also from universal experience of man accommodated in the Christian development of ethics. Even the Bible characters knew themselves about God through one main avenue: experience.

Fifth, early Christian ethics considered the role of intuition in practice. Since the Bible is never a systematic book on morals and values, sanctified human intuition and perceived direct revelation--sometimes via mystical experience--can be an elemental part of the moral judgment. In fact experience is a powerful force in moral decisions and observance. Here, faith can also fit in.

Sixth, early Christian ethics appealed to Christ, surely, a more flexible--but specific--focal point of morality. Here, the norm could be perceived by giving value to the assumptions of, in modern expression, what would Jesus do in a certain situation. Or this could be an appeal to his teachings, his life and works. But there are, certainly, somethings in Christ that may not be considered a universal standard for ethics and practice, e.g. celibacy, crucifixion, forty-days fasting, and others. This will lead to another proposed ground of early Christian ethics.

Seventh, early Christian ethics used love-- pure and holy love--as moral standard. This could be the great step to a practical application and appropriation of moral judgment in every situation, especially in dealing with other persons. Love as the highest rule is more than a clue. But what could be the last “ground” that we would consider? Isn’t it that most of these assumed grounds were planted upon the seventh element, discussed so far? Yet we can't stop therein.

Eight, early Christian ethics perceived the overarching element of a theistic perspective of conduct. This concept pervades every other elements, otherwise compartmentalized. The concept of God is the permeating factor that influences the moral judgment of early Christians. Every moral intentions and deeds of the early Christians were likely pointed out to God as the perfect--and yet mysterious--ground of reference.

But a careful reflection considers questions concerning these perceived grounds of Christian ethics above. Isn’t it that diversity is evident in these various stands and arguments mentioned above? Even if the ultimate element based upon the concept of God prevails, isn’t it that this, as well as others, is subject to the personal and subjective “interpretation” of the proponent and practitioner? If this is so, are there “grounds” of ethics--and not one? Are the “roots” of Christian ethics finding its fruition in the end (telos)? But which end? The ultimate ground of all being on which all moral people will give account for every decision and act made in this life?

Is there not an interplay here between the Ground of being and the created moral being which perceives the epicenter as the focal point of morality? After all, the question of morality is not of objects, but subjects.

On Intuition as a Source of Ethics

Glenn Plastina

It is quite clear that man, as a moral being is created in the image of God. Kant made a good critique or “postulation” on the role of morality in relation to the existence of God. In fact, it is in the concept of God that ethics is made more meaningful. The question of God, for me, is not only a matter of his existence and nature, but also its implications on man’s morality. It is unthinkable for me to comprehend the essence of morality apart from the concept of God as the ground of morality.

Personally, the imago Dei is not only an abstract proposition, but a practical concept. Among the Quakers and mystics, the concept of the inner light is an important ethical basis. This is in the line with the belief that man is created in God’s image and has the capacity to think and be morally responsible to his actions. To some extent, it brought a new dimension in relation to ethical stance; people became more tolerant to other citizens since their ethics is based upon intuition. In this case, they are humane in their dealing with other people. Such is a positive view of man’s freedom: the capacity to do what is right.

But, is there such thing as pure ethical stance based upon intuition? How about the other non-Christian religious orientation? How about the goal of intuition? In my mind, however, these questions require answers. First, is the role of religious orientation. Religious orientation includes belief in the concept of God, world, and man, sacred or profane, and/or processes of divine revelation. While man has the capacity to think for himself in a given matter on a given situation, no one thinks and responds out of a vacuum. Even a mind has a context! Any ethical responses are, for me, products of a conviction guided by previous/past/present religious orientation.

In the primitive sense, we can hypothesize that personal intuition exists before religious orientation; it somehow contributed to the origin and development of religious orientation, but the interplay of religious orientation and ethics is inescapable. One more thing is the question of response and motivation. Reliance upon intuition opens diversity and uniqueness in matters of response to any given situation. Thus, it avoids nominal rigidity of rule, standards, and regulations, a destructive formula of legalism. That is positive. But somehow, it should be clarified that ethics is directly involved with motivations and practical applications.

There is a difference between basis of ethics and intuition also. Ethics may never be able to do away with intuition, but the primacy of the concept of God as basis for morality is, without a doubt, necessary. An intuition without a clear understanding of its grounds for ethics can be an aimless practical effort, a misfocused emphase. In the final analysis, I would like to address that ethics is in no position to make itself meaningful when the subject of intuition is deprived of the ground of such morality. The ethical practitioner and subject must also be careful to make his/her foundation of morality certain and solid. An intuitive claim for moral stance may be authoritative, but only for the claimer. As long as it is not logically established or grounded upon “revelation,” its ethical essence is indeterminable.

If possible, ethics should be theistic and humane. Striking the balance between spiritual and material, temporal and eternal, loving and justice are all important. If there can be no universal ethical standard, God-driven or humane-driven, at least love applied will do. But it should be remembered that a God-driven love is always at the edge than just mere act of sacrifice and blind obedience.

On Ethics of Christlikeness

It seems so easy to propose a theocentric ethics in relation to Christlikeness, but how is this possible? While it is God who is responsible of revealing himself to mankind, it is also true that man construct concepts of God according (at least in relation) to his own orientations, i.e. religious experiences, environment, culture, and natural realities. It would be presumptuous for man to confine Christ in his own interpretations, whether it has something to do with written revelation. Here, the confusion is of the concept of Christlikeness and its impact on ethics.

What is the ethics of Christ? Is Christlikeness a "mind set"? Is it objective or subjective? What is its nature? Is it possible? Christlikeness can be a major concern, especially for practical reasons. It is the kind of life where the believer tries to be conformed—like a small Christ—to the image of the Son of God. But contemporary understanding of “image” is too subjective. It could mean an outer reflection, worse, a psychologically shaped understanding. It is a fact that we are living in an extra-biblical times. There might be some modern interpretations and equivalent of the circumstances of Jesus to the present, but it must be noted and recognized also that our time is more different to Christ's time.

Any believer can face the same struggle of asking: How can I be sure that what I do is indeed Christlike? How certain am I that what I perceived is not just an image of my own making? In every moral decision, isn’t it that my initial response, reasoning, and motivations were well affected--and not to mention, predetermined--by my own worldview and culture? It is an undeniable reality that even the way I look at the Bible is more dictated by my own understanding; perhaps totally different to the past where I was not actually there. Even if I try to live in two worlds--the world of the Bible and the present--I still must recognize that there is a greater tendency that what I think might not necessarily be the accurate one.

Even Christian thinkers before me can acknowledge that retrieving the real, historical Jesus is a hard task; even in answering the cliche: "What would Jesus Do?" on some situations not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures, the ethical answer is far from crystal clear. But this does not mean that living like Christ is impossible. With God’s revelation before the community of believers, I would prefer by virtue living “in Christ” as a practical suggestion to those who were striving to live a moral and responsible lives. Living in Christ entails love, freedom, grace, and moral responsibility—a life lived under the influence of Christ.

On Ethics of Anticipation

Glenn Plastina

There is continuity in the midst of seeming discontinuity in Christian ethics. Several philosophies and perspectives have been offered to express the dept and breadth of ethics in that it looks like each of them are a set of propositions and “oughts” without connection to each others. But as long as these ethical explanations are placed within the embrace of Christian ethics, there is one common string that can be seen through it. It is like a thread that runs through their differences. What is it? The uniqueness of Christ by which ethics is perused.

Most of the ethical explanations that were offered by many Christian theologians, ethicists, pastors, and teachers, are ethical perspectives seen through the eyes of the present with careful consideration of the past, as in the notion of case studies and experiences. Supporting arguments and bases were basically found in the scriptural documents. Sometimes, patristic sources were gathered; and to some extent, many utilized institutional--or some would prefer ecclessiastical--and communal, personal, and “transcendental” explanations and point of views to justify ethical stance, concerns, including convictions.

Personally, if there is one thing from the past that is indispensable to Christian ethics, it is the Scripture. The early disciples and church fathers may have placed weight on various ethical stances related to their cultures, it is also evident that they were aware of their practical differences; but the fact that even though there is only one Bible used to justify and guide ethical stance and they remained different in their practical applications. The level of tolerance for differences rose as the context where Christian ethics was applied.

This might be a speculation, but I guess, there is that something in man that desires to perceive something like an absolute ethical stance. It is something universal, unifying, and perfect. The best of man’s powerful arguments were expressed in history--and it will continue to do so--yet, there is a big "yet," mankind is still on the way, on course, on an unfinished journey..on for a look of something “not yet.”

Is this a time to consider the ethics of the future in the "already"? Is this the ethical stance on the way to be fully realized? What is the essence of this ethics of the future? What is there that is not here? What is the "not yet" that is not 'already"? What makes it “special” and different to what is perceived and applied at present?

Maybe, I can call it “ethics of anticipation.” But this anticipation is not mere wishful thinking and whimsical waiting, doing nothing as we wait for the “guava" (for Filipinos) or "stars to fall” (for their contemporaries). This is an ethics that allows the future to impact the present in a very practical way. This ethics seeks to embrace the notion that only the future can reveal the full meaning of the “actions” of today. What really matters is in full view at the future.

The fullness of Christian ethics will be dawned in the fullness of anticipation. Looking at the past, ethical positions were geared from a solid foundation. But time again and again, the expressions of ethics, to some extent, changed as time unfolds. The past and present situation that our predecesors went through shaped also their etchical orientations. This process happened all the time.

May be this time, an ethics of anticipation might open up a new prospective to explain and do justice to what Christians may deem “ethically” right and good in the light of the future. With firm anticipation, as the Kingdom of God unfolds, all ethical acts held these days will be validated and confirmed to its rightful place and rest of quest. Thus, the future matters.

Christian Ethics in a Technological Age

Glenn Plastina

Is the Bible sufficient enough for ethics in a post-modern technological era? Is the argument on silence a solid basis for ethical stance? To what extent Christians have to address modern issues? What grounds can be made in a technological, pragmatic understanding of ethics? This could be a great challenge to those who held dearly to the sola-scriptura-believers who try to make Christian ethics a strong foundation or at least a catalyst in the post-modern period. This is not, however, a case of take-it-or-leave-it argument; but a challenge to re-evaluate the basis and nature of a Christian ethical stance for contemporary ministers. It cannot be denied that the Bible is silent on many matters that concern the post-modern world. Humanity today is far different from the times where the Bible was shaped. Of course, the basic belief takes the Bible as Word of God and is eternal; but this claim must be coupled with a qualifier to make it more sensible to the intelligent searchers of truth and morality.

Personally, to claim that the Bible has all the answers to all the modern concerns of the technological era is an overstatement (That's why I like the hippie slogan "Jesus is the answer, but what's the question?"). This is putting the Bible in place where it remained silent, e.g. bioethics, cloning, etc. And to force the Bible to talk on our behalf can only be a product of our subjective and postulated interpretations. At least, a manifestation of our creative implant as imago Dei.

Implications can be arbitrary to support our own preconceptions. This is the usual case of interpreting the Bible in accordance to one's denominational stance or personal preference. In a way, to address the ethical stance of Christianity today can never be homogenous to some extent; it must pave the way for variety, open-mindedness, and tolerance. Here, I perceived that Christ’s greatest command remains intact to lovingly live life to the fullest and in genuine relationship. This could be expressed in being responsible for our demeanor in a utilitarian community. It will cover a benevolent dominion--a delegated sovereignty--over God’s creation and nature. At the same time, it is also responsible for the future generations who are yet to come, but has become a part of the present.

If a theocentric ethics can be proposed here to meet the contemporary needs of modern man, its thesis for God as the ground of morality must be elaborated. It is not as simple as proposing God as moral or amoral for it requires lucid arguments that appeals to reason, faith, and practicality. In relation to the scientific age, a theocentric or theonomous ethics can be an alternative that might be developed. Grounding morality upon the universal God can be a potential enterprise to explain the significance of God in relation to modern morality.

Ethics and the Effeciency of the Market Place

Glenn Plastina

Perhaps, the ethics in business world is not as much a controversial matter than the contemporary marketing of the church. The issues of drivenness and commercialism have been a questioned by many conservatives as an invasion of secularism over the portals of the church of Christ. Of course, marketing the church is never mentioned in the Bible but due to the present reality that the church faces, this controversy can fall into an ethical or efficiency question.

At first, the scenario is quite neutral. Marketing the church is a sort of managing the church more like a business with an intention of an honest gain. The church is often run like a non-profit institution or organization, complete with board of trustees and organized positions to ensure efficiency in administration and management. This is especially true in above-average churches where maintenance is a norm. On the other hand, the church is much more than an organization. It is also an organism—a mystical body at least. In order to function well, the members of this spiritual body, with their identified potentials, are developed and cultivated in a way fashioned to meet the purposes of the church's Master, not just the demands of time.

Whether the church likes it or not, the contemporary world is shaped by the marketplace. In fact, many modern pastors are geared towards market orientation—i.e. managerial laws of leadership, marketplace preaching, electronic church, digital worship, etc. The most profitable ministerial manuals and books today are leadership-centered shaped in the mould of “drivenness” and managerial context. These issues are harder to face than just a set of questions: What Would Jesus Do? Will he utilize such marketing strategy for the church and the advancement of his kingdom? For postmodern ministers—are we to upgrade our leadership skills to meet the demands of the marketplace? What would be the ethical questions in considering the world as the marketplace inorder to "sell" the church? Is the great commission the greatest vision to market the church? If present ministers are to disciple future leaders, are they to shape their mentoree in the tradition of a sales-rep inclinations and management of human resources? How about media for church promotional scheme? Such questions require a plumb line between ethics and efficiency in ministry.

If I pursue to answer one more critical question related to the issues mentioned above, it goes: Why not?

Who Are You?

(Painting: Acrylic, "The Son of Man'" by Glenn Plastina)

Are You the man I never knew?
Are You someone they said of You?
Are You the one they make You here?
Just who are You really to me?
Who are You?

They bowed on you, they bought you in
And kept you clean like figurine
A babe or boy or a toddler
On a portrait with your mother

You wear barong or just plain shirt
Sometimes with hat upon your head
Holding a stick like an old man
And carried you under the sun

Sometimes you’re black then white or brown
You often wear thorns on your brow
Dressed like a king and robes were stripped
On golden cross upon their neck
Who are you?

So familiar to name a son
An expression or just for fun
A magic spell to drive away
Some evil curse on their own way

They say you’re rich you owned the earth
Some said you’re poor beggin’ on the street
Someone in jail or one who’s sick
Just anyone that they can think

You’re a soldier to the oppressed
To liberate from injustice
You held a gun on your right arm
And a clinched fist on your left hand
Who are you?

Some says you’re Lord, Savior, and friend
And pledged to love you til the end
They serve you still in poverty
Remained content’d with words you said

Seems everyone knows who you are
And thinks of you as near or far
A diff’rent one with diff’rent role
To anyone as all in all

They call on you with many names
In thousand tongues you’re still the same
Or are you all they think to be
On what they’ve read or hear and see
Hear and see

Are you the man I never knew?
Are the one they said of you?
But there’s no doubt you changed my life
You took my sins died on my behalf

I can’t let go for more of you
I wanna know, I wanna show
I’ll always seek your will to do
I wanna know just who are you?