January 27, 2010
In the last three days the political limelight has been focused on the Philippine Senate where the ethics issue involving presidential candidate Sen. Manny Villar has split the senators right down the middle. Twelve senators led by senate president Juan Ponce Enrile have signed the report of the committee of the whole finding Sen. Villar guilty of unethical behavior and calling for his censure by his peers. At the other side are Sen. Villar’s allies who also sponsored a resolution that was previously signed by 12 senators. Subsequently, two senators – Francis Pangilinan and Jinggoy Ejercito withdrew their signature, which will give the committee report a clear majority.
From my end, neither side is winning in the moral contest. Villar’s persistent non-appearance and his friends’ pathetic defense only made him appear guilty even without the benefit of sifting the evidence against him. On the other hand, watching Enrile, Roxas, Noynoy Aquino and Jamby Madrigal gloating and faking righteous indignation didn’t earn them any moral point. In an effort to score political points against each other, the entire senate loses in the eyes of the Filipino people. The whole spectacle on national TV leaves Manny Villar’s candidacy fatally tainted but it does not make his adversaries, particularly those with presidential ambitions, any more righteous and morally superior either. The situation reminds us of Jesus’ regard for sinners and the righteous Pharisees. Jesus bristled against the hypocrite Pharisees and reserved his compassion for penitent sinners, like Zaccheus the tax collector.
For Villar, however, a mea culpa won’t give him redemption because it would now be impossible for him to take back his protestations of innocence after all that he and his defenders have said. His candidacy may survive but the issue is likely to hobble him in his campaign. There are no saints in Philippine politics, but everything has to do with the image that one projects to the voting public. Should Villar lose in his bid for the presidency on account of this one issue, it is not because Noynoy Aquino and company are without sin but rather because they have succeeded in demonizing him.
It would be a mistake for the Villar camp to counterattack by uncovering the sins of his opponents. This was, I believe, Alan Peter Cayetano’s mistake in his defense of Villar at the senate floor. But this mistake also inadvertently revealed his opponents’ true color. It does not take a keen observer to see the game played by Villar’s accusers when one by one they stood up to defend their honor and family name. Jinggoy’s defense was both silly and comic and won’t win a single vote for his father. Jamby’s counter to Sen. Pimentel’s dig was totally out of line that showed an immature child in her adult body. Mar Roxas stood up to defend his wife’s honor but he looked more amused than offended. Noynoy Aquino sounded like he had to say something smart and presidential in one breath. And Enrile – he was humorless, vicious and unforgiving. This man who engineered Marcos’ martial law saw a mountain of a sin in what he claimed to be Villar’s attempt to bribe him.
This is all happening as the election fever rises up to a high point. The issue of corruption is central to the Aquino-Roxas campaign. They understand the Filipino people’s yearning for a new administration to replace the corruption-riddled Arroyo presidency. Aquino’s Liberal Party has chosen the issue of corruption as the centerpiece of its campaign. “Hindi ako magnanakaw,” says an Aquino TV ad. On the other hand, Villar’s Nacionalista Party is banking on his entrepreneurial ability and experience to address the problem of poverty. Villar’s campaign line should appeal to the masses of people who are hungry, jobless, and homeless.
The propaganda war is going to escalate and truth will likely be the casualty. As lawyers say, the issue is not about justice but winning the case. The same can be said of Philippine elections: it’s not about the truth but winning the contest. Do the cynical among us have the last word?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
RH Bill and the Church
To show the seriousness of its opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill that is awaiting plenary approval at Congress, the Roman Catholic Church called its faithful not to choose candidates who would vote in favor of the bill. Can the Roman Catholic Church speak for all Christians in the country? What compelling reason does it have to challenge the state on a matter of public policy?
Firstly, according to the Catholic doctrine of the church, ecclesiology in theological parlance, there is only one church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the fullness of God’s grace in Jesus Christ subsists solely in the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, the overflowing abundance of God’s grace is far greater than what the church can hold but it is only partially available outside the church. Hence, the Catholic Church in the Philippines can speak with authority to all Filipino Christians.
Secondly, in Roman Catholic theology there are certain matters that are solely the prerogative of God, such as the conception and termination of human life. Human beings are endowed by God with freedom but its exercise is not absolute but relative to God’s sovereignty being the author of life. The conception of human life is not to be tampered with for whatever reason. Hence, the use of contraception which literally means “against” conception is an intrusion of God’s prerogative. For the same reason, suicide is a sin because it robs God of his rights. The application of any human means or tool that interferes with the natural conception of human life as a result of sexual intercourse is considered violative of divine law. The greatest offence against God is hubris, the usurpation of God’s office.
For the Catholic Church, birth control or family planning or whatever name it may come is not subject to human debate because it lies outside the purview of human freedom. It should not come as a surprise that some of the arguments against the RH bill coming from the Catholic Church show little appreciation of the letter as well as the spirit of the bill. Those who are engaged in the debate could have failed to engage the church on theological grounds. It may be possible to demonstrate the necessity, soundness and beneficial effects of a state policy, but for the church that is irrelevant and of no consequence because human reason must bow down to divine truths. Perhaps it’s simply beyond non-Catholics to realize that human reason does not operate where the church exercises its teaching authority, the magisterium, over the faithful.
From the perspective of a non-Catholic, like myself, a compromise that insures the right of the state to preserve the well-being of the citizens and that also preserves the right of the church to teach the faithful is not possible to achieve as regards the RH Bill. In other words, what might be a fair and balanced compromise bill would actually do violence to the integrity of both the church and the state. A possible way through of this imbroglio is to allow both sides to do their duties: let the state craft a bill that would uphold the citizens’ well-being, and also let the church teach the faithful the right understanding of the faith to protect them from sinning. Then give the people who are both citizens and Roman Catholic the freedom to choose and do what their mind and conscience tell them. In the final analysis, the state and the church should not deprive the people the freedom to decide for themselves.
Firstly, according to the Catholic doctrine of the church, ecclesiology in theological parlance, there is only one church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the fullness of God’s grace in Jesus Christ subsists solely in the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, the overflowing abundance of God’s grace is far greater than what the church can hold but it is only partially available outside the church. Hence, the Catholic Church in the Philippines can speak with authority to all Filipino Christians.
Secondly, in Roman Catholic theology there are certain matters that are solely the prerogative of God, such as the conception and termination of human life. Human beings are endowed by God with freedom but its exercise is not absolute but relative to God’s sovereignty being the author of life. The conception of human life is not to be tampered with for whatever reason. Hence, the use of contraception which literally means “against” conception is an intrusion of God’s prerogative. For the same reason, suicide is a sin because it robs God of his rights. The application of any human means or tool that interferes with the natural conception of human life as a result of sexual intercourse is considered violative of divine law. The greatest offence against God is hubris, the usurpation of God’s office.
For the Catholic Church, birth control or family planning or whatever name it may come is not subject to human debate because it lies outside the purview of human freedom. It should not come as a surprise that some of the arguments against the RH bill coming from the Catholic Church show little appreciation of the letter as well as the spirit of the bill. Those who are engaged in the debate could have failed to engage the church on theological grounds. It may be possible to demonstrate the necessity, soundness and beneficial effects of a state policy, but for the church that is irrelevant and of no consequence because human reason must bow down to divine truths. Perhaps it’s simply beyond non-Catholics to realize that human reason does not operate where the church exercises its teaching authority, the magisterium, over the faithful.
From the perspective of a non-Catholic, like myself, a compromise that insures the right of the state to preserve the well-being of the citizens and that also preserves the right of the church to teach the faithful is not possible to achieve as regards the RH Bill. In other words, what might be a fair and balanced compromise bill would actually do violence to the integrity of both the church and the state. A possible way through of this imbroglio is to allow both sides to do their duties: let the state craft a bill that would uphold the citizens’ well-being, and also let the church teach the faithful the right understanding of the faith to protect them from sinning. Then give the people who are both citizens and Roman Catholic the freedom to choose and do what their mind and conscience tell them. In the final analysis, the state and the church should not deprive the people the freedom to decide for themselves.
The God Who Came Down Upon Us: An Epiphany Sermon
“The God Who Came Down Upon Us”
Exodus 33:18-23; John 14:6-7
Introduction: The whole message of the gospel is that Jesus was sent by God from heaven that we may know who God is and where we might find him. In Jesus, God came down to us. This, in short, is the Christian meaning of Epiphany, today being the third Sunday after Epiphany.
But there are other stories of God’s epiphany in the Old Testament, like the one with Moses. The text from the Book of Exodus tells us the story of Moses’ meeting with God. Moses set up a tent at the foot of Mt. Horeb, some distance from where the people were encamped. He called it the “tent of meeting.” Whenever Moses went inside the tent a pillar of cloud would come down and linger at the entrance. All that the people could see was the pillar of cloud. It is said that there “the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.” But it is more likely that Moses could only hear God’s voice because in verse 18 Moses finally said, “Now show me your glory,” to which God replied, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” So God led Moses to rock nearby where God would pass by. God would cover Moses eyes with his hand as he passed and removed it to allow Moses to see but only his back, for his “face must not be seen.” Some scholars say that Chapter 33 is a composite of two different traditions: one says that God spoke to Moses face to face, while the other says otherwise.
At any rate, the biblical tradition as a whole affirms that God’s holiness is beyond anyone’s approach. God appears behind a thick cloud or in a burning bush as in Moses’ experience. God’s presence has to be mediated by someone who is intimately known to God. In the Old Testament, the one person considered close to God is Moses. And yet in this epiphany Moses was allowed to see only God’s back, not his face. Moses’ fleeting glimpse of God or rather of his back is the sufficient basis for the entire Mosaic Law. The implication, from a Christian point of view, is that the Law comes not from knowing God face to face but from the sight of only his back. The Mosaic Law only represents Moses’ view of God’s back.
The core content of the Law of Moses is God’s justice. God demands of us nothing less than justice in our relationship with one another. In its positive meaning, justice demands that everyone is able to enjoy the abundance of nature and the benefits of human productivity. In its negative or retributive sense, everyone must be made to account and pay for his/her wrongdoings. The Law must apply equally to all, including the Ampatuans and Jason Ivler. A mother’s unconditional love is admirable but in the end she must yield to the demands of justice. God’s justice as expressed in the Mosaic Law is harsh and uncompromising. But for the victims of injustice, it is comforting and satisfies their thirst for justice. Without the law, human relations and community life won’t be possible. In God’s design, the law in its positive and negative senses is the glue that holds society together. Injustice that is left uncorrected destroys the very fabric of God’s creation.
But justice does not speak all of God; it’s based on a glimpse of God’s back. There is something greater that justice cannot accomplish or create from itself. Something totally new has been accomplished by Jesus Christ. While Moses only saw the back of God, Jesus has seen the very glory of God. He saw the truth about God, not just part of the truth but the whole truth of God. This truth includes God’s justice and more. As part of the whole truth, justice acquires a new dimension of meaning and demands new forms of faithfulness to it. Suddenly, mere compliance to the demands of justice becomes inadequate and incomplete. In view of the whole truth, followers of Jesus see God differently and are invited to a new and different path of obedience.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus claims to be the very face, nay the very presence of God to the people. “From now on,” he says, “you do know God and have seen him.” Jesus demonstrated to the disciples who God is and showed them how to find him. This claim proved very offensive to the faithful Jews, which led to his untimely condemnation and crucifixion. But here is the twist: his death by execution proved to be the revelation of God’s truth for sinful humankind.
While the Law of Moses presents God as Judge before whom everyone must give an accounting of his/her life, Jesus shows God as Victim of injustice, the ransom and sacrifice on behalf of world. Jesus was God falsely accused, unjustly condemned, tortured and crucified. This is a shocking truth that has absolutely nothing in common with all religions, including Judaism. It is a violent assault on the intellect and nullifies all the wisdom of philosophy. But this is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not Jesus the Christ or messiah who was foretold by the Old Testament prophets but Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God. [That’s why I still prefer to call the Bible as the Old Testament and the New Testament, rather than Older Testament and Newer Testament, which implies a single testimony of two parts.]
The stories and parables of Jesus are great for spiritual and moral edification. But so are many others in other religions/communities of faith. Jesus’ sayings are good for inspirational speech and homilies but the world has known more moving speakers. Perhaps that’s the reason why Paul, who was a Jewish scholar and a learned student of pagan literature, didn’t care much about Jesus’ stories and speeches. For Paul, only one message matters: Christ crucified. “For I resolved,” Paul writes to the Corinthians, “to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). God’s humiliation in Jesus Christ is the one truth that can save the world from sin and its consequence, death. For an individual person and for human commnities, it is a choice between life or death, between salvation and damnation. Why and how?
The gospel is an announcement and a call to respond. By itself it has no power of salvation. As Paul said in his Letter to the Romans, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” I put the stress on the last part of the statement, “who believes.” It is by believing in the gospel that one may obtain salvation. Faith implies obedience in discipleship. In other words, the gospel of a crucified God challenges us to respond one way or another.
The gospel is addressed to people who are authors and perpetrators of injustice, who delight in unjust practices, who mock their victims. The gospel tells them: “Every time you abuse someone, every time you violate their rights, every time you inflict violence on the small and helpless – you are abusing, violating, and inflicting violence on God himself because God has taken their place and bears their suffering.” If you are this kind of people, how will to respond to it? If you persist in sinning, that is, keep on doing injustice then you are already condemned under the law of justice. But if you believe in the gospel and repent, that is, do justice then you will be forgiven and receive God’s mercy. Which will it be, the way of life or the way of death?
The gospel is also addressed to the victims of powers, the disadvantaged and marginalized, the broken hearted and hopeless. To this kind of people the gospel tells them: “every time you suffer abuse and violence in the hands of wicked people, when you are systematically denied food, shelter, medicine and education, every time people accuse you falsely and violate your human rights – God is with you, God takes every blow that hits your body, God takes all insults and slanders thrown at you, God bears your every pain and is there with you in your darkest moments of doubt and despair.” If you belong to this category of people, how will you respond to the gospel? Will you laugh at this incredible announcement and let your mind continue to be gripped by the religion of your tormentors? Will you feel fortunate of God’s company in your suffering but continue to wallow in helplessness and passivity in the hope of a reward in the afterlife? This kind of response to the gospel is a form of sinning.
For some people, the announcement of God’s full solidarity in their suffering awakens them from the slumber of ignorance, arouses their passion for justice, enflames their love for freedom, quickens their hope for a new life, and emboldens them to take up the cross to challenge the powers of this world. For them, the gospel is truly liberating. Those who see God only as judge would simply wait for time of the last judgment when the wicked will be separated from the just. But others who discover that God is also the victim of injustice will rise with righteousness anger not only to save themselves but also to vindicate God who made his epiphany with them in their suffering.
Conclusion: The church celebrates the epiphany of God who has come to us as a victim of the world’s sinfulness. The gospel forces us to locate our position in the equation of God’s justice and compels us to do what needs to be done. What will it be, the way of life or the way of death?
Exodus 33:18-23; John 14:6-7
Introduction: The whole message of the gospel is that Jesus was sent by God from heaven that we may know who God is and where we might find him. In Jesus, God came down to us. This, in short, is the Christian meaning of Epiphany, today being the third Sunday after Epiphany.
But there are other stories of God’s epiphany in the Old Testament, like the one with Moses. The text from the Book of Exodus tells us the story of Moses’ meeting with God. Moses set up a tent at the foot of Mt. Horeb, some distance from where the people were encamped. He called it the “tent of meeting.” Whenever Moses went inside the tent a pillar of cloud would come down and linger at the entrance. All that the people could see was the pillar of cloud. It is said that there “the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.” But it is more likely that Moses could only hear God’s voice because in verse 18 Moses finally said, “Now show me your glory,” to which God replied, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” So God led Moses to rock nearby where God would pass by. God would cover Moses eyes with his hand as he passed and removed it to allow Moses to see but only his back, for his “face must not be seen.” Some scholars say that Chapter 33 is a composite of two different traditions: one says that God spoke to Moses face to face, while the other says otherwise.
At any rate, the biblical tradition as a whole affirms that God’s holiness is beyond anyone’s approach. God appears behind a thick cloud or in a burning bush as in Moses’ experience. God’s presence has to be mediated by someone who is intimately known to God. In the Old Testament, the one person considered close to God is Moses. And yet in this epiphany Moses was allowed to see only God’s back, not his face. Moses’ fleeting glimpse of God or rather of his back is the sufficient basis for the entire Mosaic Law. The implication, from a Christian point of view, is that the Law comes not from knowing God face to face but from the sight of only his back. The Mosaic Law only represents Moses’ view of God’s back.
The core content of the Law of Moses is God’s justice. God demands of us nothing less than justice in our relationship with one another. In its positive meaning, justice demands that everyone is able to enjoy the abundance of nature and the benefits of human productivity. In its negative or retributive sense, everyone must be made to account and pay for his/her wrongdoings. The Law must apply equally to all, including the Ampatuans and Jason Ivler. A mother’s unconditional love is admirable but in the end she must yield to the demands of justice. God’s justice as expressed in the Mosaic Law is harsh and uncompromising. But for the victims of injustice, it is comforting and satisfies their thirst for justice. Without the law, human relations and community life won’t be possible. In God’s design, the law in its positive and negative senses is the glue that holds society together. Injustice that is left uncorrected destroys the very fabric of God’s creation.
But justice does not speak all of God; it’s based on a glimpse of God’s back. There is something greater that justice cannot accomplish or create from itself. Something totally new has been accomplished by Jesus Christ. While Moses only saw the back of God, Jesus has seen the very glory of God. He saw the truth about God, not just part of the truth but the whole truth of God. This truth includes God’s justice and more. As part of the whole truth, justice acquires a new dimension of meaning and demands new forms of faithfulness to it. Suddenly, mere compliance to the demands of justice becomes inadequate and incomplete. In view of the whole truth, followers of Jesus see God differently and are invited to a new and different path of obedience.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus claims to be the very face, nay the very presence of God to the people. “From now on,” he says, “you do know God and have seen him.” Jesus demonstrated to the disciples who God is and showed them how to find him. This claim proved very offensive to the faithful Jews, which led to his untimely condemnation and crucifixion. But here is the twist: his death by execution proved to be the revelation of God’s truth for sinful humankind.
While the Law of Moses presents God as Judge before whom everyone must give an accounting of his/her life, Jesus shows God as Victim of injustice, the ransom and sacrifice on behalf of world. Jesus was God falsely accused, unjustly condemned, tortured and crucified. This is a shocking truth that has absolutely nothing in common with all religions, including Judaism. It is a violent assault on the intellect and nullifies all the wisdom of philosophy. But this is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not Jesus the Christ or messiah who was foretold by the Old Testament prophets but Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God. [That’s why I still prefer to call the Bible as the Old Testament and the New Testament, rather than Older Testament and Newer Testament, which implies a single testimony of two parts.]
The stories and parables of Jesus are great for spiritual and moral edification. But so are many others in other religions/communities of faith. Jesus’ sayings are good for inspirational speech and homilies but the world has known more moving speakers. Perhaps that’s the reason why Paul, who was a Jewish scholar and a learned student of pagan literature, didn’t care much about Jesus’ stories and speeches. For Paul, only one message matters: Christ crucified. “For I resolved,” Paul writes to the Corinthians, “to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). God’s humiliation in Jesus Christ is the one truth that can save the world from sin and its consequence, death. For an individual person and for human commnities, it is a choice between life or death, between salvation and damnation. Why and how?
The gospel is an announcement and a call to respond. By itself it has no power of salvation. As Paul said in his Letter to the Romans, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” I put the stress on the last part of the statement, “who believes.” It is by believing in the gospel that one may obtain salvation. Faith implies obedience in discipleship. In other words, the gospel of a crucified God challenges us to respond one way or another.
The gospel is addressed to people who are authors and perpetrators of injustice, who delight in unjust practices, who mock their victims. The gospel tells them: “Every time you abuse someone, every time you violate their rights, every time you inflict violence on the small and helpless – you are abusing, violating, and inflicting violence on God himself because God has taken their place and bears their suffering.” If you are this kind of people, how will to respond to it? If you persist in sinning, that is, keep on doing injustice then you are already condemned under the law of justice. But if you believe in the gospel and repent, that is, do justice then you will be forgiven and receive God’s mercy. Which will it be, the way of life or the way of death?
The gospel is also addressed to the victims of powers, the disadvantaged and marginalized, the broken hearted and hopeless. To this kind of people the gospel tells them: “every time you suffer abuse and violence in the hands of wicked people, when you are systematically denied food, shelter, medicine and education, every time people accuse you falsely and violate your human rights – God is with you, God takes every blow that hits your body, God takes all insults and slanders thrown at you, God bears your every pain and is there with you in your darkest moments of doubt and despair.” If you belong to this category of people, how will you respond to the gospel? Will you laugh at this incredible announcement and let your mind continue to be gripped by the religion of your tormentors? Will you feel fortunate of God’s company in your suffering but continue to wallow in helplessness and passivity in the hope of a reward in the afterlife? This kind of response to the gospel is a form of sinning.
For some people, the announcement of God’s full solidarity in their suffering awakens them from the slumber of ignorance, arouses their passion for justice, enflames their love for freedom, quickens their hope for a new life, and emboldens them to take up the cross to challenge the powers of this world. For them, the gospel is truly liberating. Those who see God only as judge would simply wait for time of the last judgment when the wicked will be separated from the just. But others who discover that God is also the victim of injustice will rise with righteousness anger not only to save themselves but also to vindicate God who made his epiphany with them in their suffering.
Conclusion: The church celebrates the epiphany of God who has come to us as a victim of the world’s sinfulness. The gospel forces us to locate our position in the equation of God’s justice and compels us to do what needs to be done. What will it be, the way of life or the way of death?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
