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

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.

Thanks, Tony. I salute you.

Update: Jollibee enjoys the prestige today as the top most admired companies in the Philippines.

Controversy of the Trinity

Christological controversy paved the way for Trinitarian debates. The Trinitarian controversy can not be isolated from basic issues that surround the Christological arguments. The crucial moment that ignited the controversy of the Trinity slowly occurred when a realization and deeper reflections concerning the concept of God was reconsidered. In the development of Christian theology, those bishops who had signed the Nicene Creed after the crucial debate with the Arians, became doubtful to the concept of homoousios--the Son as “of the same substance” with the Father. Many of them understood the Son, not as of the same substance but, as of similar substance (homoiousios) as the eternal, unchanging Father. By implication, it led to an existence of two separate beings. This was not perceived before as of significant value to create controversy in the future. But this idea was unacceptable to Athanasius, the main defender of homoousios position. The Son is of the very same substance as the Father; and for him, to accept the concept of homoiousios is an abandonment of the Nicene Creed.[1]

Upon the emergence of the Trinitarian controversy, there is a clear tension between reason and revelation for in the first place, revelation was not clear in relation to the Trinitarian concept. The Bible simply assumes the concept of the Trinity. But theological reflections require a clearer explanation rather than just abstract assumption.

In the light of these tension, the challenge for Athanasius was to intellectually explain the manner of sameness of the Father and of the Son as of the very same substance and yet not identical. With consideration to the significance of the Scripture as a norm for theological correctness, added to the complexity is the implications of the concept in relation to the Holy Spirit which implies that was spoken concerning the Son and the Father must be said of the Holy Spirit also. The Trinitarian issues are not isolated cases to be discussed, but complex inter-related and inter-connected parts to the whole. Placher notes that there was an extremely important role of the Holy Spirit in the early church that was evidently manifested and yet early theologians paid little attention to it. It is a tension where the Spirit is silent concerning the structure of Christian theology with reference to himself. It was only in 200 AD that a clear citation of the Spirit as “God” was made by Tertullian. No Greek Christian writing openly mentioned the Spirit as “God” until the late 4 ca. The Nicene Creed made no ample commentary on the faith on the Holy Spirit and his status in the Godhead. The Trinitarian debate is grounded mainly upon the baptismal formula which conceded the authority of the Scripture and the liturgy.[2]

Suffice it to say that neither Scriptural revelation nor creeds are enough to pacify the intellectual and integral interest of theologians to delve into the truth. The coherence and intellectual clarity of Christian theology is such a demand that no early theologians refused to pass by. Such is a continuous challenge for modern theologians also.

The solution to the Trinitarian controversy was meager. Placher focused the intellectual solution upon the three Cappadocian theologians namely brothers Basil and Gregory of Nyssa and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil was mainly organizer-leader and his brother Gregory is more of a poet-dreamer. Gregory of Nazianzusis is the great orator among the three. They are responsible in saving the concept of homoousios by making a terminological plumbline to the distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. With reference to Origen, the Cappadocians argued that “God was one ousia but three hypostaseis.”[3] In the understanding of Nicene Creed and Athanasius, ousia and hypostasis are synonyms, but the Cappadocians dissected the difference between ousia and hypostasis. Ousia mainly refers to the Godhead and the hypostases to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Using the hypostaseis concept on God is a special case for it does not mean three divine beings that are inclined to disagree to another. The three divine hypostaseis are always acting imperfect harmony. Only in the three hypostaseis the divine ousia takes form or could ever take. The oneness of ousia can never be understood clearly apart from the threeness of the hypostaseis. The threeness is not contradictory to the oneness of the Godhead. There are no three separate Gods.[4]
If there is one tension that must be added here, aside from the tensions referred by Placher, is the tension between language and meaning. This is basically a hermeneutic challenge of the early theologians. They are faced with a dilemma to express in finite mortal words the infinite reality of the all-embracing reality. By their definition, a certain meaning is added to it, but it could be possibly understood in the other way through a different perspective that could create more controversy rather than just a desire to clarify an abstract idea. Meaning can be understood according to the context it is used or according to what the words intend. Meaning may mean that which is a matter of discernment and ability to explain.

An example can be cited, however, in the explanations of the Greek-speaking Cappadocians, where Platonic assumptions are basically present. The deep influence came from the understanding the universal form as more real than the particular. Reliance upon particular words makes the problem more complicated since it is hard to express their Trinitarian concept in other language but Greek. Like in Latin, the literal translation of hypostasis is substantia for both terms mean “that which stands under.” Thus, in Latin understanding, three hypostaseis means three substantiae. And as a result, both camps, the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Christians decided that they were just using different words to articulate the same thing [Or are they?]. Only, the Greek-speaking Christians began with emphasis on the threeness of Godhead, while Latin-speaking Christians started their Trinitarian discussions with the unity of one God. The Latin camp struggled also with explaining the use of three persona in the Trinitarian doctrine. The word persona can mean a character in a play or the mask the actor wore. Extremely, Latin Trinitarianism is inclined towards treating the personae as only masks or roles, rejecting any real distinctions at all and the Greek Christians towards three Gods.[5]

But nonetheless, the distinct tension that contributed to their differences in understanding and emphases was mainly shaped by their theological stand point in perspective. Something like looking an object inside the tube from both polar ends where one side is perceived much clearer than the side as one claim. But the other side sees a different side.

Added to this, Augustine was concerned with the theories expressing the things which cannot be uttered. In the eyes of the skeptics, the doctrine of Trinity is a preferred target to implicate the logical incoherence of Christianity. Three does not simply mean one (or vice versa) in their common and logical understanding. Mysterious formula does not seem to fit in their common sense understanding. Moreover, fourth-century theologians were trying to keep away from conclusions they thought seriously erroneous. They tried to maintain their doctrine in agreement with the Scripture. Any attempt that delineates from the revealed Scripture was a dangerous path to take. And with reference to the New Testament, there is an established interpretation of the distinction between the Father and the Son. This theory was denied by Sabellianism. On the other hand, the Arians also leapt towards two divinities--putting Christ as a lesser begotten divinity. But Placher seems to imply that by avoiding both Sabellianism and Arianism, Christian theology eventually moved towards an idea like the dogma of the Trinity.[6]

Cultural Engagement

Trinitarian concept can pave the way for Asian understanding of God as a community. Filipinos, for example are highly-relational and community-based people. It is personally perceived by this student that an Asian modification of Trinity in relation to its significance to the communal orientation of the people can be better understood as the eternal and dynamic communion of the Godhead as a relational and communal being. So far, no established evangelical attempt has been made yet in any Filipino context.

Questions

1. Can you think of other models to the doctrine of Trinity which will clarify practical insights than philosophical abstraction?

2. What makes the concept of Trinity significant to the Christian faith and community?

3. It seems that the early foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the baptismal formula. Does the lack of explicit explanations from Scripture may mean an explanation to be taken from other theological resources like reason, history, and human experience?

[1] William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1983), 75-76.

[2] Ibid., 76.

[3] Ibid., 77.

[4] Ibid., 78.

[5] Ibid., 78-79.

[6] Ibid., 79.

Models of Divine Presence in Christ

The doctrine on the divine presence in Christ makes special interest concerning the relationship between the divine and human nature of Christ. The quest for clarification upon this dogma of dual nature requires models to explain the nature of the relationship between the two elements in Christ’s person. In the Council of Chalcedon (451) there was an underlying assumption of divinization in relation to Christ’s divinity and humanity. What was not assumed by Christ was not healed. If Jesus is not God then he is not capable of saving humanity.[1] If the divine did not assume humanity, then humanity is not healed. The dual nature of Christ, therefore, is not just a matter of discussion on Christology but also of the implication it brings in relation to salvation.

The attempt to explain the relationship of Christ’s dual nature utilized a realistic approach. A consensus of Christian theologians can not be bypassed by the Council. They found common realization on the divine and human nature of Christ but not on the mode of the relationship between the two distinct natures. But the majority opinion can not escape the significant challenge of the Monophysites. Considered as a minority but enough reason to halt the Council’s success in establishing a global consensus concerning the dual nature of Christ. Monophysitism emphasized only one (mono) nature (physis) of Christ which is the divine element eclipsing the human nature. This theological understanding permeated the Armenian, Abyssinian, Coptic, and Syrian churches.[2]

Interestingly, the Council may compose the majority of theological agreement; but across the east Mediterranean world an opposing view on Christ’s nature was held. The split decision and agreement is conditioned by the cultural and philosophical orientations of the East and the West. From the context of the community of believers (in this case a widespread sector) consensus on a certain belief system is agreed on major issues only, i.e., Christ is truly divine and truly human. But the globally perceived idea of a specific doctrine finds more complication in terms of definite and specific thought content, i.e., the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ. In clarifying the relationship between these two elements of nature in Christ, variety can be expected. The following are several models that McGrath presented to shed light on the divine presence in Christ.

The Example of a Godly Life

In this model, the measurement of Christ’s distinction from other human beings is a qualitative one. There is heavy emphasis on morality and ethics. Jesus is highly regarded in relation to his character, being an example of living godly existence. This godly life is a manifestation of God’s will for human morality and as an example, Jesus is worthy of emulation by everyone. This model is popular in the line of thought of the Enlightenment. Other theological understanding on Christology with heavy emphasis on morality or moral example of Christ is that of the Antiochene School and Peter Abelard, but both retained a classical understanding of Christ’s dual nature. Modern explanation of Christ’s divinity with reference to example is highlighted through his self-giving love to the point of death. This is perceived in the Enlightenment to be the foundation of a morally right person in relationship with God. Among the Liberal Protestantism, the moral example is taken from inner or spiritual relationship of Jesus with God. The emphasis is on the religious personality of Christ. Wilhelm Herrmann is a representative in understanding Jesus as the ground of faith manifesting the inner life of a Christian in history.[3]

A Symbolic Presence

The model of divine presence through symbolic perspective presents Christology, not in substance but, representational. Christ is representative of a new being. Symbolic presence refers to the same presence which is available and accessible to humanity. Personal life is a main concern, especially to the proponent of this view. The historical Jesus is not the foundation of faith but more of the New Being active in Jesus as Messiah—the bringer of new state of things. Jesus is only a historical manifestation of the New Being who saves men from the old, alienated, and doomed being. Since God is the ground of being, he cannot appear under the categories of existence of Jesus, thus, Christ cannot be God as the New Being. He as a human only achieved union with the Ground of being; this is the same possibility for humanity.[4]

Christ as Mediator

The divine presence in Jesus, in this model, is centered upon his mediating representation as the “Christ” between the transcendent God and fallen humanity. The presence as mediation carries the implications of revelation and salvation with it. The mediation of revelation as presence is closely associated with the Logos-Christology of Justin Martyr. Jesus is the Logos-incarnate mediator that reveals the distance between God and humanity. It is developed by Brunner who emphasized man’s personal encounter with the Divine through Jesus by faith. Through faith, the divine impartation of his self-revelation is located, not in propositional truths but, in the act of Jesus or act of God. This act of mediation and self-revelation is historical in Jesus Christ. The truth encounter carries the elements of historicity and personal-ness. God communicates himself through the historical and personal Christ, not impersonal propositions.[5]

Special mention is made on Calvin’s model of mediation also. The soteriological emphasis is focused on the salvation that comes from God through Christ. The redemptive work of God is focused on Christ as the channel and focus of salvation available to the fallen humanity. As a mediator between transcendent God and fallen humanity deprived of any capability to be saved on their own, Jesus must be himself divine and human to be able to function as true mediator. Through Christ’s obedience as human, he became an offering to pay the penalty of man’s sin. Calvin theorized also that the incarnation of Christ is partial; God may have stayed in heaven in part since he cannot be totally concentrated in Jesus historical existence. Nonetheless, the mediatorial function of Christ as divine presence can be seen in the three functions he holds namely—prophet, priest, and king.[6]

Presence of the Spirit

The model of divine presence of the Spirit is like a pneumatological Christology. This model perceives Christ as the bearer of the Holy Spirit. This is how it interprets the divine presence upon Jesus. The assumption heavily relies on the Old Testament concept of the charismatic leaders or the anointed Messiah. In view is the significance of Christ’s anointing by the Spirit at his baptism where adoptionism and Ebionitism was closely tied with. They held that Jesus is a human being who became divine at his baptism. But in the explanation of Walter Kasper, the spirit-filled existence of Jesus is of prime importance to his Christology. Christ’s unprecedented relationship with the Spirit is indispensable as the life-giving power that paves the way for the new era of healing and hope. Jesus Christ is the focal point of God’s saving plan and the Spirit of the Lord at work in Jesus will be at work also in humanity so that they will be able to have the inner life which was in Jesus.[7]

Pannenberg laid some concern for this model as having the tendency to laps into adoptionism. Maintaining the divinity of Christ does not require the presence of the Spirit in him. For him, the resurrection of Jesus is the decisive measure to present his divinity and humanity.[8]

Revelational Presence

The revelational model of the divine presence in Christ emphasized the unveiling of God in time. Two representatives are worth considering. First is Karl Barth’s comprehensive treatment to the revelational presence of God in Christ. Christology seems to be that the overarching implication for all of his dogmatic theology. The revelation of God, like the hour glass, passes through the linking centerpiece or Christ, whereby all content touches Christ before pouring down to the base (which is representative of fallen humanity). Though Barth intended that Christian dogmatics is not totally centered upon Christological idea, Christ is the underlying foundation of theology in its entirety. But Pannenberg’s approach is more of an eschatological interpretation of the divine presence in Christ through his resurrection as an anticipation of the whole end-time resurrection of the dead. Through Christ’s resurrection, his identity with God is established. This self-revelation cannot be separated from God himself; it means that the revealer is identical with the revealed. And God’s divinity is proven only at the end of all world events.[9]

Substantial Presence

With emphasis on the incarnation, substantial model of the divine presence in Christ takes place when the divine nature assumes human nature. In the patristic theology, as they were bombarded with Gnostic teachings, the substantial presence justifies the goodness of matter. Here, the concept of redemption is not simply a spiritual affair, but represented tangibly. The symbolic, yet tangible affirmation of eucharist, deification, and icons are connected to this model. Those who held God’s ineffability and transcendence opposed icons.[10]

Kenotic Approaches to Christology

Kenosis has something to do with the use of the divine attributes, not attributes in itself. In Germany, this doctrine is hotly debated. Were the divine attributes used in secret or not at all? Special mention is on Thomasius who proposed that Christ deliberately set aside all his divine attributes and abandoned his privileges through his humiliating experience on the cross of suffering. The second person in the trinity leveled himself with humanity (An attempt to disprove this theory was made by A. Dorner using the argument of God’s immutability). Some theorized kenosis as the abandoning of divine omniscience on the part of Christ. The suffering of God was also highlighted. All of these theological models present significant emphases on Christology.

Cultural Engagement

God-talk with special emphasis of the divine presence is a comforting concept for Filipinos. If there is one model that is significant to the circumstances of the Filipino, it is the kenotic concept where Jesus chose to lay down his life for humanity. Filipino can better appreciate and attach themselves to a suffering Christ rather than the moral Christ. His suffering can be better understood and felt by the Filipino people. Evangelicals have emphasized so much the Christ as revealer or mediator for they are more comfortable with talking about him. Charismatic prefer the presence of the Spirit in Christ. But the strength of the Catholics is the sympathy they got from the suffering people through their representation of the Christ who understands the meaning of suffering, pain, oppression, and injustices.

Questions

Are theological models predetermined by culture?

Why is the edge of Christology in contextualization?

What is the role of Christ in relation to social transformation?

---

[1] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2d ed (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1997), 343.

[2] Ibid., 344.

[3] Ibid., 344-45.

[4] Ibid., 345-46.

[5] Ibid., 347.

[6] Ibid., 347-48.

[7] Ibid., 349-50.

[8] Ibid., 350.

[9] Ibid., 351-52.

[10] Ibid., 352-54.