Author Archives: Michael J. Fast

In order to make a difference in the world today, we need to expand our understanding of evil beyond being merely personal

Posted on by

We often think of sin in simple personal terms, don’t we? We tend to believe that when we recognize the sin within our hearts, the solution lies in accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour, leading to the forgiveness of our sins. Indeed, the Bible teaches us about the presence of sins in our hearts and the need to seek forgiveness for reconciliation.

However, what we often fail to grasp is that sin can extend beyond the scope of individual transgressions we carry. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus includes the phrase “deliver us from evils,” signifying a deeper complexity of evil that affects us in the world today. Naturally, we’ve discussed the personal and individual sins we commit, acknowledging our inherent human susceptibility to sin. Nevertheless, sinfulness operates on a deeper level.

Sometimes, as we observe the society around us, we perceive sin embedded within it. Injustice, unfairness, corruption, and persecution unfold before us, all stemming from an imperfect, sinful societal fabric we inhabit. While my individual sins may impact the society around me, there are deeper-seated sins embedded within society that also exert influence over me, regardless of my personal state of sinfulness.

Moreover, we can expand our perspective further by considering the natural world. Occasionally, we confront afflictions—much like the pandemic/COVID-19—or experience natural catastrophes such as floods, famines, typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. All these phenomena bear witness to an inherent evil connected to the physical realm. We see this is Genesis 3, where God’s curse is placed upon the Earth leading Adam to toil for sustenance. Unlike the natural order before, where fruit grew effortlessly, now work is necessary due to the curse upon the Earth. Hence, as we grapple with contemporary challenges, it’s imperative to acknowledge that while we might be personally sound, other forces in the surrounding world might still affect us.

What does this mean on a practical level?

What this means of course is that we need to change our approach when it comes to what is commonly referred to evangelism or discipleship. Rather than simply focusing on praying the “sinner’s prayer” we also need to learn how to incorporate addressing evils in society and creation into our discipleship.

Discipling Nations.

The Bible asks, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.’” This tells us that nations are actually opposed to God’s rule over the earth. Thus, the command to “make disciples of all nations” is one of helping nations transition from their own kingships towards God being LORD of all creation.

Does discipling nations include speaking up against injustice, making sure prisoners are not being abused? Perhaps it includes speaking out against issues such as patriarchy (also here) or overturning broken systems of church leadership that rely upon a solitary Pastor rather than a team of elders or others? Does it perhaps involve dealing with corruption at its root? Even commemorating and acting upon issues associated with the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Orange Shirt Day, and the Residential School System in Canada is a part of this. Promoting human rights and social justice are also key parts of discipling nations.

Discipling the Earth

God’s command for humans to “‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground’,” implies that humans have a role in discipling the Earth. What does this look like I wonder? Would discipling the earth include environmental care or creation care? Would it involve making sure we don’t throw garbage on the streets or dump chemicals in our water — to put trash into our pockets rather than tossing it on the path? Perhaps ensuring that people have safe drinking water, or by planting mangroves along coastlines to ensure tsunamis and storm surges don’t affect people living in those areas? Does it include promoting sustainable farming practices to help protect our lands from overuse? Does it involve finding alternative forms of energy to eliminate pollution and other issues that are affecting the weather around the world? Does it mean tossing aside politics and actually wearing a mask and getting vaccinated? All of these things are part of discipling the world.

What is the way forward?

If we have the Four Spiritual Laws to help us navigate personal evils, what would a Four Spiritual Laws look like for structural and natural types of evils? How could we then embed them into the Christian psyche?

What are your thoughts? Can you come up with other ways for us to disciple nations and disciple the Earth? Please leave them in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

This is part of a series on Evil:

Image by vonvix on Unsplash.

What do I mean when I say that the gospel is dialogical, that no one single voice has priority, & that it’s shaped as we dialogue with one another?

Posted on by

I get inspired sitting in church listening to sermons, and yesterday I got this idea about the gospel. I guess my mind has been reflecting on it of late since a recent SEATS class with Dr. Jason Hallig about how our gospel is often too small. An idea came to me of the gospel as being dialogic.

So I posted, “The gospel is dialogical. No one single voice has priority. It is shaped as we dialogue with one another. Note we aren’t seeking some kind of uniformity but rather unity through diversity.” Not all understood this very short paragraph so I thought I’d write a longer explanation of what was behind my thoughts in this brief statement.

Mikhail Bakhtin developed the idea of dialogic and heteroglossia. Bakhtin observed is that truth is formed through a multiplicity of voices. One aspect to remember about heteroglossia is that it never arrives at a universal definition. Rather these multiple voices are more a unity in diversity rather than a uniformity.

We all have our own Favourite Theologies, don’t we?

Rei Lemuel Crizaldo posted something a few days ago that referred to universalisation in the context of theology. A good example of one of these universalisations is in the debate between human agency and determinism. These are commonly connected to theologians such as Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius, whose theologies are named after them (or at least the theologies we identify with them are named after them even if they themselves wouldn’t recognise them). They basically approach the relationship of God’s sovereignty with human free will, when it comes to salvation.

Crizaldo’s point was that adhering uncritically to these universalisms is an identity issue, given that universalisms suppress individual identity. Others have pointed this out, particularly Lila Abu Lughod, who wrote against culture saying that generalising something into a “culture” erodes the particularity of individual cultures and sub cultures.

Both Rei and Abu Lughod are correct in their rejection of generalizations or universalisms. That’s not to say that there is no truth associated with these generalizations or universalisms, but rather these very truths are themselves particular, contextual, local, and not indeed, universal! If I am, for example, saved by grace through faith, I also have choices to make in my life as to whether to follow God or not. On the other hand, repentance is real, but that doesn’t mean that God is not sovereign in the world.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It shows me that each person, tribe, nation, and language, has their own particularities that allow the gospel to be understood in particular ways. Awareness of these particularities makes the gospel richer.

The Voice of the Question of WWJD?

A number of years ago an idea was revisited that used the initials WWJD? This stands for What Would Jesus Do? and relates to how Jesus-followers can shape their lives with a simple question of “how can I imitate Jesus in what I am doing today?” There was push back against this largely from people who have set aside an idea of good works and focused on salvation through God alone. They said the proper question should be “What did Jesus do?” implying that he’s already saved us, and that’s all that there is to the story. The problem is that while it’s true we aren’t saved through good works, we are still supposed to do good works as Christians. We have to both except that Jesus saves us not through our works, but continue to do good works for him.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It shows us that Jesus is not only our Saviour, he is also our Lord. That means that we should work at imitating him in our lives and not merely anticipating his presence once we die.

The Voice of Honour-Shame

Another idea that has taken root lately is commonly referred to as honour-shame. It tries to approach the gospel from the framework of different cultures. One idea that it pushes against it the idea that the guilt-righteousness motif is universal. While often present in gospel presentations it works best in some cultures but not so well in others. At least two other motifs are presented: Shame-Honour and Fear-Power. What’s the difference? Here’s something I have written elsewhere:

Guilt to Innocence is the most common understanding of personal evil, largely due to the predominance of western Bible interpretations. It uses a courtroom as its motif. This understanding has led to popular gospel presentations such as the Four Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, and the Roman Road to salvation. The emphasis to this approach is that all are guilty of sin and are thus in need of righteousness. This perspective is common among individualistic societies.
Shame to Honour is another perspective on personal evil. In recent years, students of culture have seen that many peoples on the earth do not see things in light of guilt and innocence. Some people better understand a proper relationship with God through concepts of honour and shame. Shame to Honour emphasises relationships and how they can be restored. This perspective is common in communal societies.
A third approach to understanding personal evil is Fear to Power. In recent years, students of culture have seen that many peoples on the earth do not see things in light of guilt and innocence. Some people better understand a proper relationship with God through concepts of Power and Fear. Jesus overcame the power of Satan and death on the cross and gives power to those who are afraid.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It allows us to see beyond the gospel as a mere courtroom transaction and expand into the realm of relationships and power. God didn’t merely remove our guilt, he also restored our relationship with him, and freed us from the power of sin and death.

I could go on with Frost and Hirsch’s shift from Church as Worship toward the Church as Mission, or Joash Thomas’ shift from championing slaveholders’ theologies toward identification of slaveholders’ theologies as suspect and seeking voices that are more balanced, or hearing the voices of indigenous peoples and First Nations who didn’t find a whole lot of good in the way the Good News was presented (event though many found good in the Good News itself) towards working on reconciliation, or shifting from “David and Bathsheba committed adultery” toward “David raped Bathsheba,” and so on.

How does all of this relate to the title of this post?

Thus, the truth of the gospel can only be understood in community. Truth doesn’t emerge in any practical form in isolation. It’s only through engaging with others with their own backgrounds, languages, cultures, ideas, genders, roles, values, etc. that I can begin to understand truth in its fullest form. But even though what I continually discover may approach the truth, it is by no means the only way that truth may be approached.

Jesus-followers are uniform in their relationship with Jesus — the main test of orthodoxy after all is believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. That’s it. There is no more to it. Knowing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead allows me to reflect on what that means for me — how I can treat him as Lord of my life — and shape a life that gives glory to him. It is unity not uniformity.

Dialoging about the good news of Jesus Christ gives me a richer understanding of the gospel. Recognising that I don’t always agree with my siblings in the Lord gives me a greater understanding of the power of God’s grace in the world.

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Akson on Unsplash.

Hindi dapat ganito: Mga bagay na maaaring sabihin sa atin ng bibliya tungkol sa labanan ng mga kasarian upang matulungan tayong wakasan ang digmaan.

Posted on by

Read this in English. 

Sa unang yugto sa aking bagong serye ng mga pagkalalake at maka-Diyos, tinutugunan natin ang isyu ng labanan ng mga kasarian. Ang sinumang gumugol ng anumang oras sa mundo ay alam ang pakikibaka na umiiral, sa maraming pagkakataon, sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae at sa pagitan ng mga mag-asawa. Napakakaraniwan na maaari nating itanong ang tanong na, “Normal ba ito? Wala bang mas magandang paraan?” Mayroon akong magandang balita para sa atin — hindi ito dapat maging ganito. Sa post na ito ay titingnan natin kung paano sinasabi sa atin ng Bibliya kung saan nagsimula ang lahat ng problema at kung ano ang magagawa natin tungkol dito.

Saan ba tayo nag simula?

May ilang bahagi lamang ng Bibliya na naglalarawan ng panahong walang kasamaan sa mundo. Isa sa mga ito ay ang mga huling kabanata ng Pahayag kapag ang lahat ng kasamaan ay inalis na. Ang isa pa ay ang pinakasimula ng Bibliya sa Genesis 1-2, kaya naman mahalagang magsimula doon. Ang pangunahing kaganapan sa dalawang kabanata na ito ay ang paglikha, kung saan nilikha ng Diyos ang lahat ng umiiral. Ang isang mahalagang bahagi ng paglikha na iyon ay ang paglikha ng sangkatauhan, na inilalarawan ng Diyos sa ganitong paraan: “Kaya nilikha ng Dios ang tao, lalaki at babae ayon sa wangis niya” (Genesis 1:27).

Tandaan na walang gaanong paglalarawan na ibinigay kung ano ang hitsura ng relasyong ito ng lalaki at babae. Sa susunod na kabanata, inilarawan si Eva gamit ang isang salita na kadalasang nauugnay sa Diyos: Ezer, na kung minsan ay isinasalin bilang “kasama na tutulong sa kanya.” Bagama’t maaari tayong matukso na bigyang-kahulugan ito bilang katulong ni Adan, sa katotohanan ito ay isang salita na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang Diyos (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). Sa katunayan, sa dalawampu’t isang beses na ginamit ang salitang ito sa Lumang Tipan, apat na beses lamang itong hindi tumutukoy sa Diyos.

Ang isang tanyag na ilustrasyon ay binibigyang-pansin ang katotohanan na si Eba ay nagmula sa tadyang ni Adan, na nagpapahiwatig ng magkatabi na pagkakapantay-pantay, sa halip na mula sa paa, na nagpapahiwatig ng pagsunod, o mula sa ulo, na nagpapahiwatig ng pangingibabaw.

Bukod doon, maaari nating ipagpalagay na ang mga pangunahing biyolohikal na tungkulin na ginagampanan ng mga lalaki at babae sa paglilihi at panganganak ay umiral, ngunit higit pa doon ay wala tayong ideya. Walang sinasabi tungkol sa domestic arrangement, tungkol sa work-life balance, tungkol sa leadership o authority o submission o hierarchy. Ang alam lang natin ay magkasama sina Adan at Eva sa hardin at araw-araw silang nakikipag-usap at nakikisama sa Diyos tuwing gabi.

Maraming haka-haka ang umiiral, gayunpaman, na nakasentro sa pagkakaiba sa pagbigkas ng utos na ibinigay ng Diyos kay Adan at ang pag-alaala kay Eba — ang ilan ay lubos na naniniwala na idinagdag ni Eva ang pariralang “o humipo man lang” (Ge 3:3). Gayunpaman, hindi malinaw kung ito ay nagsasalita sa mga isyu ng awtoridad o sa mga isyu ng madalas na hindi tumpak na mga katangian ng sinasalitang wika? Sino ang nakakaalam?

Saan ba tayo ngayon? 

Sa kasamaang palad, ang mga bagay ay hindi nanatiling ganoon magpakailanman. Ang unang pagkakakilanlan bilang tao lamang ay maputik sa susunod na kabanata kapag nakita natin ang pagpasok ng kasamaan sa mundo. Maraming epekto ang kasamaang iyon sa paglikha, ngunit para sa ating mga layunin ngayon ay tututukan natin ang bagong relasyon na nagsimula sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae. Kapag tinatalakay ng Diyos ang epekto ng kasamaan kay Eva, idinagdag niya ang isang kawili-wiling pahayag sa Genesis 3:16 — “Pero sa kabila niyan, hahangarin mo pa rin ang iyong asawa at maghahari siya sa iyo.” Dito ipinakilala sa atin ang ubod ng labanan ng mga kasarian, katulad ng hahangarin ng babae para sa kanyang asawa at ang maghahari ng asawa sa kanyang asawa. Bagama’t ito ay madalas na binabanggit bilang biblikal na katwiran para sa patriarchy, ang katotohanan na ang pahayag na ito ay nangyayari pagkatapos ng Pagkahulog sa Kasalanan ay nangangahulugan na hindi ito ang orihinal na plano kung paano gagana ang mga relasyon. Sa halip, ito ay isang sistemang batay sa kasamaan.

Ano ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang “pagnanais” ng asawa ay higit na mauunawaan sa pamamagitan ng pagtingin sa isa pang gamit ng parehong salita. Nang harapin ng Diyos si Cain tungkol sa pagpatay niya kay Abel, sinabi niya ito sa Genesis 4:7, “Dahil kung hindi mabuti ang ginagawa mo, ang kasalanan ay maghahari sa iyo. Sapagkat ang kasalanan ay katulad ng mabagsik na hayop na nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka. Kaya kailangang talunin mo ito.” Pansinin ang pariralang iyon nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka? Sinasalin nito ang parehong salita. Sinasabi nito na ang relasyon ng mag-asawa ay mailalarawan sa pagnanais ng babae — ang uri ng pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa atin. Ang salitang ginagamit para sa mga lalaki, sa kabilang banda, ay paghahari. Hulaan kung saan lilitaw muli ang salitang ito? Oo, sa talakayan ng Diyos kay Cain tungkol sa kasalanan. Kung gusto ni Cain na salungatin ang pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa kanya, dapat niyang pagharian ito. Kawili-wili hindi ba? Kaya pagkatapos, ang parehong mga salita ay naglalarawan ng relasyon pagkatapos pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo. Dahil dito, hindi natin maaaring gawin itong indikasyon ng esensyal na sangkatauhan kundi ng makasalanang sangkatauhan lamang. 

May pag-asa ba?

Ngunit mayroong pag-asa. Hindi kailangang mangibabaw ang kasamaan sa mundo. Isang kislap ng pag-asa ang ipinakita sa atin sa Kawikaan 31, na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang babaeng may tapang. Gayunpaman, ang ilang mga talata ay nakatuon sa relasyon ng pag-aasawa na mayroon ang babaeng ito. Sinabi sa 31:11-12, “Lubos ang tiwala sa kanya ng kanyang asawa, at wala na itong mahihiling pa sa kanya. Kabutihan at hindi kasamaan ang ginagawa niya sa kanyang asawa habang siya ay nabubuhay.” Hindi ba ito ay isang mahusay na paglalarawan ng relasyon nina Adan at Eva bago pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo? At hindi ba ito isang magandang pangitain kung ano ang maaaring mangyari dito sa lupa?

Ang mga huling kabanata ng bibliya ay bumabalot ng lahat ng mabuti. Muli nating nabasa ang tungkol sa isang relasyon sa pag-aasawa — ito sa pagitan ng mundo at ng Diyos. Ang relasyong ito ay inilarawan bilang perpekto, ang nobya ay ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng paglikha at ang lalaking ikakasal at nobya ay magkakasamang umiiral. Isipin ang larawang ito mula sa Pahayag 21:22-27:

“Wala akong nakitang templo sa lungsod na iyon, dahil ang pinaka-templo ay walang iba kundi ang Panginoong Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat at ang Tupa. Hindi na kailangan ang araw o ang buwan sa lungsod dahil ang kapangyarihan ng Dios ang nagbibigay ng liwanag, at ang Tupa ang ilaw doon. Ang ilaw ng lungsod na iyon ay magbibigay-liwanag sa mga bansa. At dadalhin doon ng mga hari sa mundo ang mga kayamanan nila. Palaging bukas ang mga pinto ng lungsod dahil wala nang gabi roon. Ang magaganda at mamahaling bagay ng mga bansa ay dadalhin din sa lungsod na iyon. Pero hindi makakapasok doon ang anumang bagay na marumi sa paningin ng Dios, ang mga gumagawa ng mga bagay na nakakahiya, at ang mga sinungaling. Ang mga makakapasok lang doon ay ang mga taong nakasulat ang pangalan sa aklat ng Tupa, na listahan ng mga taong binigyanng buhay na walang hanggan.”

Hindi ba’t isang magandang larawan iyon? Hindi ba nito tinatapos ang isyu nang napakaganda?

Paano tayo ngayon?

Kung totoo nga na ang mga lalaki at babae ay nagsimula bilang magkatabi, magkapantay, parehong huwarang tao, kung totoo rin na ang orihinal na sitwasyon ay napalitan ng labanan, kung totoo rin na ang epekto ng kasamaan sa relasyon ng mag-asawa ay malalampasan, paano natin ito magagawa? Ano ang kailangan nating gawin? Hindi mo ba malalaman pero nagbigay din ng sagot ang Diyos para diyan.Sa Efeso 5:21, binabasa natin, “Magpasakop kayo sa isaʼt isa bilang paggalang kay Cristo.” Kaya ayun. Kailangan nating mamuhay ngayon na parang hindi kailanman naapektuhan ng kasamaan ang mundo. Kailangan nating isipin ang ating sarili bilang pantay. Kailangan nating kilalanin na ang pagsusumite ay mutual. Na kapwa babae at lalaki ay maaaring kumilos nang may awtoridad sa bawat sitwasyon. Bakit natin ito gagawin? Dahil sa paggawa nito ay ipinapakita natin ang ating paggalang kay Kristo. At siyempre hindi tayo hinihiling ni Jesus na gawin ang anumang bagay na hindi pa niya nagawa. Siya ang pinakahuling halimbawa ng pagsuko ng lahat upang mangyari ang plano ng Diyos na pagalingin ang mundo ng kasamaan. Sa halip na maupo lang sa langit bilang kapantay ng Diyos umaasa lang na magiging maayos ang lahat, na “kahit na nasa kanya ang katangian ng Dios, hindi niya itinuring ang pagiging kapantay ng Dios bilang isang bagay na dapat panghawakan. Sa halip, ibinaba niya nang lubusan ang sarili niya sa pamamagitan ng pag-aanyong alipin. Naging tao siyang tulad natin. At sa pagiging tao niya, nagpakumbaba siya at naging masunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, maging sa kamatayan sa krus” (Filipos 2:6-8). 

Tularan natin si Kristo at sikaping alisin ang impluwensya ng kasamaan sa mundo.

Ngayon napagtanto ko na ang lahat ng ito ay tila malinaw sa akin ngunit maaaring iniisip mo na may malalaking butas sa sinabi ko. Kung gayon, pakisabi sa akin sa mga komento sa ibaba!

Paki-click din ang Follow link sa ibaba para makuha ang mga susunod na installment ng seryeng ito sa napapanahong paraan.

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Larawan ni Artem Podrez sa Pexels.

It’s not supposed to be this way: Things the bible can tell us about the battle of the sexes to help us end the war. 

Posted on by

Basahin mo ito sa wikang Tagalog.

In this first installment in my new series on masculinities and religiosities, we address the issue of the battle of the sexes. Anyone who has spent any time in the world is aware of the struggle that exists, in many cases, between men and women and between husbands and wives. It’s so common that we may ask the question, “Is this normal? Isn’t there a better way?” I have good news for us — it isn’t supposed to be this way. In this post we will look at how the Bible tells us where the problem all began and what we can do about it.

Where did it all begin?

There are only a few parts of the Bible that describe a time without evil in the world. One of them is the final chapters of Revelation when all evil has been removed. Another is the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1-2, that’s why it’s important to start there. The key event of these two chapters is creation, where God created all that exists. One key part of that creation is the creation of humanity, that God describes in this way: “So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). 

Note that there isn’t a lot of description given as to what this male & female human relationship looked like. In the next chapter Eve is described using a word that is often connected with God: Ezer, which is sometimes translated as “helpmeet” or “helper.” While we might be tempted to interpret this as meaning Adam’s servant, in reality it’s a word that is most often used to describe God (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). In fact, of the twenty-one times this word is used in the Old Testament, only four times it doesn’t refer to God.

A popular illustration pays attention to the fact that Eve came from Adam’s rib, implying a side-by-side equality, rather than from the foot, which would imply subservience, nor from the head, which would imply dominance. 

Apart from that, we can suppose that basic biological roles that men and women play in conception and childbirth existed, but beyond that we have absolutely no idea. Nothing is said about domestic arrangements, about work-life balance, about leadership or authority or submission or hierarchy. All we really know is that Adam and Eve were together in the garden and that they had daily conversation and communion with God every evening. 

Lots of speculation exists, however, largely centred around the different wording of the command God gave Adam and Eve’s recollection of that command — some make much of the fact that Eve adds the phrase “and you must not touch it” (Ge 3:3). However, it’s not clear if that speaks to issues of authority or to issues of the often non-precise nature of spoken language? Who knows? 

Where are we today? 

Unfortunately, things didn’t stay that way for ever. The initial identification as merely human gets muddied in the very next chapter when we see the entry of evil into the world. There are lots of effects of that evil on creation, but for our purposes today we will focus on the new relationship that began between men and women. When God is discussing evil’s effect on Eve, he adds an interesting statement in Genesis 3:16 — “… Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Here we are introduced to the core of the battle of the sexes, namely the “desire” of the woman for her husband and the “rule” of the husband over his wife. While this is often cited as being the biblical rationale for patriarchy, the fact that this statement happens after the fall means that it is not the original plan for how relationships would work. Rather it’s a system grounded in evil.

What does it mean? The wife’s “desire” can best be understood by looking at another use of the same term just a chapter later. When God confronts Cain about his killing of Abel, he makes this statement in Genesis 4:7, “if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Notice that word desire? It’s the same word. That tells us that husband-wife relationships with be characterised by desire on the part of the wife — the kind of desire that sin has over us. The word used for men, on the other hand, is rule. Guess where this word appears again? Yup, in God’s discussion of sin with Cain. If Cain wants to counteract the desire that sin has for him, he must in turn rule over it. Interesting isn’t it. So then, both terms describe relationship once evil has entered the world. As such, we can not make them indicative of essential humanity but merely of sinful humanity.

Is there hope?

But there is hope. Evil doesn’t have to dominate in the world. One glimmer of hope is presented to us in Proverbs 31, that is often used to describe the woman of valour. A couple of verses, however, focus on the marriage relationship that this woman has. It says in 31:11-12, “Her husband trusts her with ⌞all⌟ his heart, and he does not lack anything good. She helps him and never harms him all the days of her life.” Isn’t this a great illustration of what Adam and Eve’s relationship may have been like before evil entered the world? And isn’t it a great vision of what things can be like here on earth?

The final chapters of the bible wrap everything up nicely. Here we read once again of a marriage relationship — this one between the world and God. This relationship is described as perfect, the bride is the most valuable part of creation and the groom and bride co-exist. Image this picture from Revelation 21:22-27:

“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Isn’t that a great picture? Doesn’t it wrap up the issue very nicely?

So, what should we do now?

If it is indeed true that men and women began as side-by-side partners, equals, both exemplary human beings, if it is also true that that original situation was replaced with a battle, if it is also true that evil’s effect on the husband-wife relationship can be overcome, how can we make that happen? What do we need to do? wouldn’t you know it but God also provided an answer for that. In Ephesians 5:21, we read, “Place yourselves under each other’s authority out of respect for Christ.” So that’s it. We need to live life today as if the evil had never impacted the world. We need to think of ourselves as being equal. We need to recognise that submission is mutual. That both women and men can act with authority in every situation. Why should we do this? Because in doing so we show our respect for Christ. And of course Jesus doesn’t ask us to do anything that he hasn’t already done. He is the ultimate example of giving up everything so that God’s plan to heal the world of evil would happen. Rather than just sitting up in heaven as God’s equal hoping things would work out alright, he “he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). 

Let’s imitate Christ by working at removing evil’s influence in the world.

Now I realise that all of this seems pretty clear to me but you may be reading thinking that there are huge holes in what I have just said. If so, please let me know in the comments below!

Please also click the Follow link below to get the next instalments of this series in a timely manner.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Artem Podrez on Pexels.

There’s an odd story in the Bible of when King Nebuccadnezzar was transformed into an animal and back again. What does this story tell us about allegiances?

Posted on by

The most interesting wild animal in the bible story is of Nebuccadnezzar. It perfectly illustrates further biblical statements about swearing allegiance to the wild animal. In the story, Nebuccadnezzer one day thinks that he is all that. He sees everything that he has accomplished and praises himself for it. At that moment, he realises that he had misunderstood things because at that moment he began to live his life as a wild animal instead of a glorious king. Here is what the scriptures say:

“All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. Twelve months later, he was walking around the royal palace in Babylon. The king thought, “Look how great Babylon is! I built the royal palace by my own impressive power and for my glorious honor.” Before the words came out of his mouth, a voice said from heaven, “King Nebuchadnezzar, listen to this: The kingdom has been taken from you. You will be forced away from people and live with the wild animals. You will eat grass like cattle. And seven time periods will pass until you realize that the Most High has power over human kingdoms and that he gives them to whomever he wishes.” Just then the prediction about Nebuchadnezzar came true. He was forced away from people and ate grass like cattle. Dew from the sky made his body wet until his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers and his nails grew as long as birds’ claws.”

Daniel 4:28-33

It’s an odd story, isn’t it? Why is it included in the Bible? I suspect that quite often we want to find out if this is indeed true. Did this really happen to Nebuccadnezzer? What we often miss, though, in the search for historical accuracy, is that the story also has literary legitimacy. The story is here because it furthers the narrative of God as the centre of the universe and beyond. And that narrative is that God sees alternative rulers as wild animals (beasts) and all who ally themselves with them as being marked as such.

Now I don’t like to use terms like “mark of the beast” because the word “beast” has taken on theological significance rather than merely indicating a wild animal. Using it allows us to ignore our own situations because we can apply it to someone else’s world or time. I have written more on that here and here. But the principle is the same in that when the bible uses the concept of wild animal it is as a government, kingdom, or authority, in which people put their hope. People who have done so are said to have received the mark of the wild animal. As we read in Revelation 20:4,

“They had not worshiped the beast or its statue and were not branded on their foreheads or hands. They lived and ruled with Christ for 1,000 years.”

So, no, the mark of the beast isn’t the vaccine, or UPC codes, or numbers written on the sides of police cars in Israel (Yes, I have heard all of these explanations). Rather, it is a pledge of allegiance to a government, kingdom, or authority that isn’t God. In God’s eyes, this is rebellion because he is the true governor, king, or authority. All others are usurpers. 

Which brings us back to Nebuccadnezzar: He wasn’t actually all that. Instead, everything that he had and all his accomplishments were due to God’s love for him and not due to his own glory, but rather, “The holy ones have announced this so that every living creature will know that the Most High has power over human kingdoms. He gives them to whomever he wishes. He can place the lowest of people in charge of them.” ‭‭Daniel‬ ‭4‬:‭17‬ ‭GW‬‬

As an aside, isn’t it a little bit humorous that Nebuccadnezzar appeared to become a cow? I mean the text does say he “ate grass like cattle.” One would have thought that arguably the most powerful king of all time would manifest as a more wild, wild animal. Right?

So what ended up happing to Nebuccadnezzar? Did he learn a lesson from this? Did anything change in his life? Let’s read on and see:

“At the end of the seven time periods, I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up to heaven, and my mind came back to me. I thanked the Most High, and I praised and honored the one who lives forever, because his power lasts forever and his kingdom lasts from one generation to the next. Everyone who lives on earth is nothing compared to him. He does whatever he wishes with the army of heaven and with those who live on earth. There is no one who can oppose him or ask him, “What are you doing?” Just then my mind came back to me. My royal honor and glory were also given back to me. My advisers and nobles wanted to meet with me ⌞again⌟. I was given back my kingdom and made extraordinarily great. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, will praise, honor, and give glory to the King of Heaven. Everything he does is true, his ways are right, and he can humiliate those who act arrogantly.”

Daniel‬ ‭4‬:‭34‬-‭37

Nebuccadnezzar’s allegiance was changed. He now acknowledged the King of Heaven as supreme. Where does that leave us? Does that mean that we shouldn’t be concerned with the politics of our day? Does that mean that we should not participate in anything to do with earthly kingdoms? No. Our role in society is pretty clear. Jeremiah 12 lays out the terms of our engagement. We are to remain a part of society, to continue living our lives, to building a future for our families, and praying for our cities. What Nebuccadnezzar’s story does tell us is that to claim that our own systems are sufficient to make the world a better place, without acknowledging God’s role in the whole process, that our favourite political candidate or party isn’t really the answer. Rather we should live as if God were the head of government, the King, the authority. What would that look like?

It leads me to ask myself, “Where does my ultimate allegiance lie? Am I working towards seeing God’s kingdom fulfilled on earth?”

I know that this is a favourite topic of many of you. I also know that you probably have different view of the meaning of “beast” and the “mark of the beast.” Why not let us know your thoughts in the comments below?

If you are enjoying what you are reading, why not consider hitting Like or Follow?

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image is mine.

Nangungunang 10 na Tagalog post ng 2022 sa michaeljfast.com

Posted on by

Palaging kawili-wiling balikan ang nakaraang taon at tingnan kung saan nakarating ang pagsusulat ko. Noong 2022, nagkaroon ako ng pagkakataong magsulat ng 44,200 na salita na inisip ng 3881 na tao na sulit basahin. Nasisiyahan akong makipag-ugnayan sa marami sa inyo dito nitong nakaraang taon at inaasahan kong makita kung saan tayo dadalhin ng 2023. Narito ang isang countdown ng Nangungunang 10 posts na sinulat ko sa wikang Tagalog. Tulad ng napansin mo na nagsusulat din ako sa wikang Inglis. Upang makita ang Nangungunang 10 mga post sa Ingis ng 2022, mangyaring mag-click dito.

10. Sa pakikipag-usap sa katotohanan at pagguhit ng mga linya sa buhangin: Kailangan bang mag-alala sa akin ang katotohanan na ang lahat ng katotohanan ay pinag-uusapan? Ang problema kapag pinag-uusapan ang katotohanan ay madalas nating nalilito ang ating sariling katotohanan sa Ganap na Katotohanan kung sa katunayan ang isang pag-angkin laban sa aking katotohanan at aban sa Ganap na Katotohanan ay 2 magkaibang bagay.

9. Alam mo ba ang tagubilin ng Matthew 18 na “puntahan mo siya at kausapin nang sarilinan” ay hindi lamang ang tanging paraan upang harapin ang hindi pagkakasundo ng mga Kristiyano? Tanungin ang sinumang Kristiyano kung paano haharapin ang tunggalian at bubunutin nila ang Mateo 18 dahil inilalahad nito ang nakikita ng marami bilang ANG paraan para sa mga Kristiyano upang harapin ang interpersonal na kasalanan. Sa loob ng maraming taon ay inilatag ng simbahan ang proseso ng pakikipag-usap sa tao nang paisa-isa, kung gayon kung ang mga bagay ay hindi nagtagumpay magdala ng isang tao bilang saksi. Pagkatapos, kung ang mga bagay ay hindi pa rin nagtagumpay, dalhin ang usapin sa harap ng simbahan at kung hindi iyon gagana pagkatapos ay paalisin ang tao sa simbahan. Ito ay medyo pamantayan ngunit paano kung sabihin ko sa iyo na hindi lamang ito ang biblikal na paraan na ang mga tao ng Diyos ay humarap sa kasalanan? Mayroong talagang hindi mabilang na mga halimbawa ng iba pang mga paraan ng paggawa ng parehong bagay na maaaring mas may kaugnayan sa iba pang kultural na konteksto.

8. Meditation kapag may Omicron na: Malaking pag-asa mula sa Salmo 23 para sa panahon ng pandemya. Ito ang isang video meditation na ni-upload ko sa panahon ng Omicron kung kailan sa pakiramdam ko ang mga tao ay kinakabahan. Sana ito’y makapagbigay pag-asa sa mga taong dinamay ng panahon ng 4th wave. Ayon sa Salmo 23, kapag tayo’y dumaan sa natatakot na lugar, hindi tayo nagiisa — kasama natin ang Panginoon. Kapag kasama natin si Lord, hindi dapat tayo natatakot.

7. Alam mo na ba na meron sa Bibliya ang Pagpapagaling sa Pamamagitan ng Gamot?: Si Satanas, si Jesus, ang Templo, at ang COVID-19 (Part 2) May application ba kaya ang Lucas‬ ‭4:9-12 sa panahon ng COVID-19? 

6. Paano ko natutunan na ang pagbibigay pansin sa katarungang panlipunan ay pagtuklas kung paano ako’y makinig gamit ang mga tainga ng Diyos. May nakakagulat na lumalabas sa aking mga social media feed nitong mga nakaraang linggo. Nagkaroon ng mga debate tungkol sa papel na ginagampanan ng hustisya, o higit na partikular na hustisyang panlipunan sa buhay ng simbahan. Ito ay palaisipan sa akin dahil sa nakalipas na mga taon ang katarungang panlipunan at mga kaugnay na isyu ay naging sentro ng aking buhay at ministeryo. Ngunit sa palagay ko ay hindi ito palaging para sa akin. Naaalala ko maraming taon na ang nakalipas nang una kong marinig ang mga salitang “social gospel” na nagtataka kung ano ang ibig sabihin nito at kung bakit ito itinuturing na mahalaga sa ilan ngunit hindi mahalaga sa iba. Ang paunang pag-uusisa na ito ay humantong sa akin sa isang landas patungo sa pagbuo ng mga praktikal na teolohiya na tumutulong sa simbahan na makisali sa lipunan.

5. Ang ilang mga insight kung bakit ang mga pekeng balita at mga teorya ng pagsasabwatan ay halata sa ilan ngunit hindi sa iba. Isang pakikipag-usap sa isang kaibigan tungkol sa katotohanan.

4. Kapag pinagtatawanan tayo ng Diyos: Isang pagtingin sa ating mga sistemang pulitikal mula sa liwanag ng Awit 2. Ito na siguro ang pinakakinatatakutan ko. Bago ako tumayo sa harap ng isang grupo ay mayroon akong takot na pagtatawanan lang nila ako o na kutyain nila ako. Kaya isipin ang aking pagtataka kapag nalaman kong pinagtatawanan ako ng Diyos? Bakit ito’y nangyayari? Tingnan natin ang Awit 2.

3. Tiktok: Bakit ako sumali sa isang social media phenomena na puno ng mga tao mula sa ibang henerasyon? Oh. Nasa Tiktok na ako. Baka isipin mo na nagsimula na akong sumayaw o gusto kong bumagsak ang aking karera sa musika, huwag mag-alala. may paliwanag ako. Ang Tiktok ay nasa likod ng aking isipan mula pa noong isang klase na itinuro namin sa SEATS noong 2021 na nagrekomenda ng paggamit ng plataporma para sa ministeryo sa simbahan ngunit dahil wala akong ganap na karanasan sa Tiktok ay hindi ko naisip kung paano eksaktong gamitin ito. So anong nangyari para makumbinsi ako?

2. Alam mo na ba na meron sa Bibliya ang Pagpapagaling sa Pamamagitan ng Gamot? (Part 1) So paano ba ang theology of medical healing o teolohiya ng pagpapagaling sa pamamagitan ng gamot? Tama ba na hindi natin kailangang magpagamot dahil mas malakas ang ating Diyos o ang dugo ni Kristo? Siyempre maraming sinasabi ang Biblia patungkol sa supernatural healing pero meron ba’ng sinasabi ang Bibliya patungkol sa pagpapagaling sa pamamagitan ng gamot? Meron. 

1. Ok ba kung tawagang ko ang Pastor ko ng “Pas”? Ang pastor ay isang salita na binuo sa lipunan at kultura na iba ang kahulugan ngayon kaysa noong panahon ng Bibliya. Sa anumang lugar sa Bibliya ay inutusan tayong tawagin ang isang tao na isang “pastor.” Sa walang lugar sa Bibliya sa papel ng pastor isang propesyonal na tungkulin. (At habang tayo ay naririto, alisin natin ang paniwala na “ang pastor ang pinakamataas na pagtawag.”)

Mayroon ka bang paboritong post mula 2022? Bakit hindi magkomento sa ibaba at sabihin kung bakit?

Kung hindi mo pa sinamantala ang pagkakataong mag-subscribe, mangyaring gawin ito gamit ang mga link na ibinigay.

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ang ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Larangan ni Tim Mossholder sa Unsplash.

Top 10 English Posts of 2022 on michaeljfast.com

Posted on by

It’s always interesting to look back on the past year and see how writing went. In 2022, I had a chance to write 44,200 words that 3881 people thought worthwhile to read. I have enjoyed interacting with many of you on here in this past year and look forward to seeing where 2023 takes us. Here is a countdown of the Top 10 posts that I wrote in English. As you may have noticed I also write in Tagalog. To see the Top 10 Tagalog posts of 2022, please click here.

10. How I learned that paying attention to social justice is discovering how to listen with God’s ears. Something puzzling has been popping up in my social media feeds in the past little while. There have been debates about the role that justice, or more particularly social justice plays in the lift of the church. It’s puzzling to me because for the past number of years social justice and related issues have been central to my life and ministry.  But I guess it hasn’t always been that way for me. I remember many years ago when I first heard the phrase social gospel wondering what it meant and why it was considered important to some and unimportant to others. This initial curiosity led me down a path towards developing practical theologies that help the church engage society. 

9. What does it mean to be a man, part 2? Masculinities in the Philippines. In a previous post, I introduced the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. In this post I will expand on that in talking about how crossing cultures also increases the complexities surrounding the subject. Our specific focus will be on masculinities in the Philippines. 

8. My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the center of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library. Here are some of my thoughts about it.

7. Lucy Peppiatt’s Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. If you are like me certain things are important when making decisions. I like new ideas, especially new theological ideas. But one deal breaker for me is when new theological ideas have no basis in the bible. I want to see how the new idea interacts with the text before making my final decision on it. Here is a little about my journey through the thorny issue of men & women & the church. 

6. Is it ok to call my Pastor “Pas”? Pastor is a socially and culturally constructed word that means something different today than it did in the Bible times. In no place in the Bible are we commanded to call someone a “pastor.” In no place in the Bible in the role of pastor a professional role. (And while we’re at it let’s get rid of the notion that “the pastor is the highest calling.”)

5. My wife, Eva, is now blogging. I am pretty excited today because my wife’s new blog, Beneath My Shell, went live just a few moments ago. Eva blogs her thoughts about her life as a missionary midwife living in the Philippines. Please head on over a take a look at what Eva has to say. You will love her first story!

4. Did you know that Matthew 18’s instruction to “go, confront him when you are alone” isn’t the only Christian way to deal with conflict? Ask any Christian how to deal with conflict and they will pull out Matthew 18 because it lays out what many see as THE way for Christians to deal with interpersonal sin. For years the church has laid out the process of talk to the person individually, then if things don’t work out bring someone as a witness. Then, if things still don’t work out, bring the matter before the church and if that doesn’t work out then expel the person from the church. It’s pretty standard but what if I told you that this wasn’t the only biblical way that God’s people deal with sin? There are actually countless examples of other ways of doing the same thing that may be more relevant in other cultural contexts. 

3. What does it take to be a man? An introduction to masculinity studies. For the past year I have been promising some posts on masculinity. Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society.” While these definitions may seem simple at first, there is a lot to unpack. Here is an introduction to the topic.

2. 3 Types of Evil. Evil is much more complex than simply being personal. In fact there are three types of evil, or sin, that are discussed in the Bible: Personal evil, natural evil, and structural evil.

1. Emic vs Etic: Understanding how insider & outsider perspectives interact when doing theology. An example from the Philippines. There is a debate about the validity of using an emic approach in seeking to understand a culture on its own terms. In fact, this debate is behind the development of ethnoscience worldwide.  What is often missed in the debate is the reality that all forms of science are emic in that whatever frameworks or structures are developed are developed from the emic perspectives of a specific culture. They merely become etic once applied to another culture.  

Do you have a favourite post from 2022? Why not comment below and tell us why?

If you haven’t taken the chance to subscribe please do so using the links provided.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Ella Christenson on Unsplash.

Why the term “Toxic masculinity” is less an indictment against you as an individual, and is more a wakeup call to society as a whole. 

Posted on by

I responded to a question the other day on Twitter. I am trying to focus my engagement there to not be a knee-jerk response to everything that I disagree with because that tends to lead to me being quite negative in the rest of my life. So, I thought that since studying and discussing masculinities is my thing, that I would respond to this.

The interlocutor was asking questions about “toxic masculinity,” as follows: “Ok, so the text-book definition of “toxic masculinity” is actually just bad behavior whether you are a man or a woman. Correct?” The question came with a Poll that one could fill in as a way of answering the question.

“Yes, it is. Period.
No, you toxic … man!!!
Intern camp is awaiting
What is it? Food?”

The problem was, I didn’t see an answer that seemed to fit with how I understand the term. In fact, I am not sure I understood what some of them were referring to. Don’t worry, I find that I have a hard time understanding lots of polls and questionnaires. I also have to admit, reading the question and seeing the poll, I wondered if the questioner was trying to get rid of the idea of toxic masculinity by saying something along the lines of, “Oh. You know women are also toxic so why not just call people toxic. Why single out men?”

Rather than selecting of the questions in the poll, I replied, “Isn’t ‘toxic masculinity’ a type of masculinity that’s toxic? It’s just one of the variety of masculinities that exist in the world.” It was more of a feeler to see if we could get onto the same page.

The response was, “Correct, but the question was whether how we define toxic masculinity is just simply a bad behaving human regardless of gender? Therefore no need to have that term at all, right? Or are we going to have toxic femineity (sic) to go with it with the exact same definition otherwise?”

It seems that my first impressions were correct and that this was an attempt to paint all people with the same brush. It also indicated a concept of masculinity that is based on individual actions rather than societal norms.

Certainly, all people can be toxic and so on one level one could merely use that term to describe people’s actions. However, once we start talking gender, we move into a different realm because while individuals may believe and act in certain ways based on their own individual ideas, in reality gender is something that is societally defined. As I have said elsewhere, masculinity is “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990). It is a norm that is accepted at face value. Of course we know that there is more than one acceptable way of expressing gender but each of these ways is also determined by a society and not by individuals. The use of “masculinity” implies a societal norm that is modified by the word “toxic.” Thus, it’s the masculinity that’s toxic and not men per se. What it means when we tie it all together is that “toxic masculinity” is a way men can express their masculinity in toxic ways that are acceptable to society.

Toxic masculinity is therefore not merely men being toxic. Rather it’s men and women reflecting a way of being a man that is toxic. But it’s more than that — it’s expressing a harmful way of being a man that has become a norm in society. It includes such things as violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy. So, on that level it’s not appropriate to simply remove the “masculinity” from the term and include both men and women, unless of course women also express their femininity in toxic ways. Which is itself and interesting question that I honestly don’t have an answer to. What would be an example of toxic femininity I wonder?

The term “toxic masculinity” is really a wakeup call for society to reconsider what we feel is normal. Toxic masculinity cannot be eliminated by merely removing the word from the phrase. The only way to eliminate it is to change what we as a society think is acceptable.

So, are you upset with the term “toxic masculinity” because it doesn’t reflect who you are as an individual? Great! It should make us upset. Want to make things better? Call out things like the normalisation of violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy so that the toxicity can be made safe.

As always, I would like to hear your voice on this important topic. Does what I am saying make sense or have I missed the mark in some way. Please let me know in the comments below.

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by danilo.alvesd on Unsplash.

Pagkalalake at Maka-Diyos: I am creating a new series on Masculinities that will help us explore what it means to be men & how we can become better shapers of masculine cultures.

Posted on by

Basahin sa wikang Tagalog.

Are you as confused by the idea of masculinity as I am sometimes? It seems that every day I read something that either says men must be like this, men shouldn’t be like this, or men are toxic, men are too feminine, men aren’t allowed to be men anymore, and so on. And it’s a confusing issue. I tend to write from the perspective of the church and theology so that’s where I normally look first for solutions. I am also trained as a social scientist so I see the value of empirical research as well in seeking solutions.

This topic is important to me but I am at a loss at times to think about good answers to these questions. That’s why I am creating a multilingual and multiplatform series on masculinities that will help us all navigate this complex issue. This series will be called Pagkalalake at Maka-Diyos, a Tagalog phrase that can be translated as Masculinity and Religiosity. I have written about masculinities in a short series here and I am hoping the new series that will follow this post will add on that foundation. I write from the context of culture and mission in the context of the Philippines and Canada.

I have a couple of thoughts. Humans are made male and female. I realise that this is a disputed claim of late but please know that I am aware of the complexities of the topics of sex and gender, maleness and femaleness, masculinities and femininities, man and woman-ness, and so on. I need to go with how the creation of humanity is described in Genesis 1 and 2 as being male and female in the likeness and image of God.

What I want to know is what is unique about men as men? I mean, why did God make humans this way? Certainly there are areas of humanity that are common to all — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control — but for some reason God created humans as male and female. There is a level of plurality to humanity. What does that plurality look like? What is the significance of that plurality? What do men bring to the table that women don’t and vice versa?

It’s a harder question to answer than we might first think. On the simplest level, men and women work together to reproduce. The man provides the sperm and the woman provides the egg. When the two combine they form a child who grows in the womb of the woman and eventually is born into the larger world. But the fact that asexual reproduction occurs in other life forms on earth means that sexual reproduction isn’t a necessary part of reproduction. So God wasn’t forced into making humans male and female because it was an unavoidable law. So why then? What other reasons might exist?

The purpose of this series.

That is the purpose of this series. Part of it will look at various examples of masculinities in the Bible, to see if that book can provide us with some guidance. (I have already started this here.) I will also examine several topics that emerged from a brief question on my Facebook page. People suggested the following topics:

A lot of Filipinos work in jobs outside of the Philippines. They are called Overseas Filipino Workers and they provide a large economic boost to both their families and the national economy. One aspect of this type of work, however, is the fact that families are often separated, meaning that oftentimes both men and women must function as their counterparts. Several suggested that I explore these topics, including whether or not men become less masculine when they are forced to function as mother or when they work in stereotypically feminine jobs abroad?

Others were also interested in this gendered division of labour but among non-OFW families still in the Philippines and how this affects masculinity. How does performing domestic chores relate to popular knowledge encapsulated in expressions like “under the saya”? Or what if the wife is the chief breadwinner while the husband performs the majority of the domestic chores?

Others are interested in affairs of the heart, such as the pros and cons of being single are celibate or even the proper ways of courtship and dealing with a broken heart. On a similar note, what happens when the two lovebirds take the important step of marriage? How does masculinity play a role? What about mutual submission between husband and wife? What about in cases of abuse — does that nullify the need for submission?

Parenthood and the various roles in that process is also of interest to some. How about raising sons? What kinds of influences do the mother and the father need to have on their sons so that they can be prepared for adulthood?

Other want answers about men’s mental health. That includes exploring “the sensitivities of moving away from ‘you’re okay!’ and ‘I’m okay!’ and getting closer to ‘are you okay?’ and ‘am I really okay?'” as well as discussing issues such as emotions and picking our battles. Connected to mental health is physical health as well.

Others are interested in how masculinities relate to men and society as a whole including masculinity and the church, career, and past times such as video games.

Perhaps you can think of some more suitable topics for this series. If so, I would love it if you would leave a comment below.

You may be interesting in following this series. If so, please subscribe to this blog either via email or via the link below. I would love to have you as a part of this community.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Image by Papaioannou Kostas on Unsplash.

Paano ko natutunan na ang pagbibigay pansin sa katarungang panlipunan ay pagtuklas kung paano ako’y makinig gamit ang mga tainga ng Diyos.

Posted on by

Read in English.

May nakakagulat na lumalabas sa aking mga social media feed nitong mga nakaraang linggo. Nagkaroon ng mga debate tungkol sa papel na ginagampanan ng hustisya, o higit na partikular na hustisyang panlipunan sa buhay ng simbahan. Ito ay palaisipan sa akin dahil sa nakalipas na mga taon ang katarungang panlipunan at mga kaugnay na isyu ay naging sentro ng aking buhay at ministeryo. Ngunit sa palagay ko ay hindi ito palaging para sa akin. Naaalala ko maraming taon na ang nakalipas nang una kong marinig ang mga salitang “social gospel” na nagtataka kung ano ang ibig sabihin nito at kung bakit ito itinuturing na mahalaga sa ilan ngunit hindi mahalaga sa iba. Ang paunang pag-uusisa na ito ay humantong sa akin sa isang landas patungo sa pagbuo ng mga praktikal na teolohiya na tumutulong sa simbahan na makisali sa lipunan.

Naisip ko na ito ay maaaring isang magandang lugar upang ipaliwanag nang kaunti kung bakit nararamdaman ko na ang mga simbahan ay dapat na kasangkot sa mga ministeryo ng hustisya, kabilang ang kung ano ang sinasabi ng bibliya tungkol sa kanila, kung paano sila mabibigyang-diin ng simbahan, at kung paano sila tunay na nagpapakita kung sino ang Diyos. Sasamahan mo ba ako sa aking pagpapaliwanag?

Pagbibigay ng kahulugan sa Katarungang Panlipunan.

Una, magsimula tayo sa pagtukoy sa ating mga termino para lahat tayo ay nasa iisang pahina at matiyak na pare-parehong isyu ang pinag-uusapan natin. Ayon sa Oxford English Dictionary, ang ibig sabihin ng “sosyal” ay “may kaugnayan sa lipunan o sa organisasyon nito” at “hustisya” ay nangangahulugang “makatarungang pag-uugali o pagtrato.” Kapag pinagsama natin ang dalawang salita, nakakakuha tayo ng “katarungan sa mga tuntunin ng pamamahagi ng kayamanan, pagkakataon, at mga pribilehiyo sa loob ng isang lipunan.” Iyan ay tila medyo prangka bukod pa sa tila isang magandang ideya, hindi ba? Mukhang tinutugunan din nito ang isang serye ng mga isyu na binanggit din sa bibliya.

Ang hustisya sa Bibliya.

Mababasa natin sa Bibliya ang tungkol sa hustisya bilang pagtulong sa mga balo, mahihirap, at dayuhan.

Narito ang ilang ideya at talata (mula sa 443 na talata sa Bibliya na nagbabanggit ng hustisya) na maaari nating makipag-ugnayan pagdating sa hustisya:

Nais ng Diyos na alagaan natin ang mga biktima, mapang-api, pagsasamantala, mga ulila, mga balo, at mga inosente na pinatay: Malinaw na sinasabi sa Jeremias 22:3, “Ito ang sabi ng Panginoon: Mangangasiwa ng katarungan at katuwiran. Iligtas ang biktima ng pagnanakaw mula sa kamay ng kanyang nang-aapi. Huwag pagsamantalahan o lupitin ang dayuhan, ulila, o balo. Huwag magbuhos ng inosenteng dugo sa lugar na ito.”

Nais ng Diyos na magbayad tayo ng makatarungang kabayaran: Jeremias 22:13 “Nakakaawa ka Jehoyakim, nagtayo ka ng iyong palasyo sa pamamagitan ng masamang paraan. Pinagtrabaho mo ang iyong kapwa nang walang sweldo.”

Ang Diyos ay interesado sa mahihirap, at sa pagiging patas sa ekonomiya: Ezekiel 18:17 “hindi siya gumagawa ng masama at hindi nagpapatubo sa may utang sa kanya, tinutupad niya ang mga utos koʼt mga tuntunin, ang taong itoʼy hindi mamamatay dahil sa kasalanan ng kanyang ama. Patuloy siyang mabubuhay.”

Nais ng Diyos na unahin natin ang hustisya sa buong buhay natin: Amos 5:24 “Sa halip, nais kong makita na pinaiiral ninyo ang katarungan at ang katuwiran na parang ilog na patuloy na umaagos.”

Ipinakita sa atin ng Diyos kung paano isama ang pantay na paghahati ng ari-arian sa ating mga sistema. Ang Lupang Pangako ay hinati sa mga yunit ng lupain ng tribo na nilayon upang manatili sa bawat pamilya magpakailanman.

Ipinakita sa atin ng Diyos ang isang paraan upang maisama ang pagpapatawad sa utang sa ating mga sistema. Mayroon ding kakaibang sistemang ito na tinatawag na Taon ng Jubileo. Tiniyak ng taon ng Jubileo na ang mga panggigipit sa ekonomiya na naging dahilan upang ibenta ng mga tao ang kanilang mga ari-arian o maging ang kanilang mga sarili ay makakakuha ng ginhawa kada 50 taon. Ang kagiliw-giliw na tandaan ay na, habang ang bibliya ay nagtatala ng promulgasyon ng batas na ito, hindi namin nabasa kung paano ito aktwal na ipinatupad.

Binanggit ni Jesus ang kanyang pangunahing layunin bilang nakatuon sa mga dukha, bilanggo, bulag, at makasalanan. Ito ay pinakamalinaw na sinabi sa kanyang unang sermon sa Lucas 4, kung saan sinipi niya si Isaiah. Nakikita rin natin ito sa kanyang patuloy na pagbibigay-diin sa mga bagay tulad ng pagpapagaling sa maysakit, pagbangon ng patay, pagpapakain sa mga nagugutom, at pagdidisipulo sa mga maniningil ng buwis, mga kalapating mababa ang lipad, at mga makasalanan.

Hindi ko alam tungkol sa iyo ngunit para sa akin ang bibliya ay interesado sa “katarungan sa mga tuntunin ng pamamahagi ng kayamanan, pagkakataon, at mga pribilehiyo sa loob ng isang lipunan.”

Ang Pag-aalis ng Kahirapan bilang Social Agenda ng Simbahan.

Binanggit din ng Bibliya ang kakaibang sitwasyon ng mga mahihirap na laging kasama natin ngunit wala nang dukha sa atin. Sinasabi ng Deuteronomio 15:4, “Kailangang walang maging mahirap sa inyo sa lupaing ibinibigay sa inyo ng Panginoon na inyong Dios na inyong aangkinin, dahil tiyak na pagpapalain niya kayo,” Pagkaraan ng ilang mga talata, mababasa natin sa v11: “Hindi maiiwasan na may mahihirap sa inyong bayan, kaya inuutusan ko kayong maging lubos na mapagbigay sa kanila.”

Kaya, sa isang banda ay palaging may dukha sa lupain ngunit sa kabilang banda ay hindi dapat walang mahirap sa lupain. Ang parehong mga talata ay hinihikayat ang iba na tumulong sa pag-alis ng kahirapan sa pamamagitan ng pagkabukas-palad at maging ng Jubileo. Ito ay, ayon kay Dr. Jun Vencer, ang evangelical agenda.

Ang mas kumplikado sa atin ngayon ay ang kahirapan ay hindi lamang pang-ekonomiya. Sa katunayan, sa ulat ng Asian Development Bank tungkol sa kahirapan, natuklasan namin na ang kahirapan ay may labing-apat na pangunahing tagapagpahiwatig, isa o dalawa lamang sa mga ito ay pang-ekonomiya. Nagbibigay iyon ng sapat na pagkakataon para sa simbahan na makisali sa mundo sa ilang antas, kabilang ang pangunahing kaligtasan, seguridad, at pagpapagana.

Simbahan bilang sentro ng Diakonia.

Higit pa rito, ang pangunahing pagkakakilanlan ng simbahan ay nasa tungkulin nitong diakonia, na paglilingkod sa Diyos at kapwa. Kasama sa serbisyong ito ang mga bagay na may label dito bilang “katarungang panlipunan” ngunit siyempre higit pa doon.

Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit ang simbahan sa buong panahon ay nababahala sa mga bagay na inaalala ng Diyos – mga ulila at mga balo, pagpapakain sa mga mahihirap, pagpuna sa mga kasalanan at kasamaan ng lipunan — at kung bakit ito ay tumutulong sa panahon ng natural na kasamaan tulad ng mga bagyo at lindol, gayundin ang pagtulong sa mga tao harapin ang kanilang sariling mga personal na bersyon ng kasamaan.

Hindi ako sigurado kung ano ang nangyari sa kasaysayan ng simbahan o sa pag-unlad ng teolohiya na nag-akay sa simbahan palayo sa mga katotohanang ito.

Lahat ng Katotohanan ay Katotohanan ng Diyos.

Ang isa sa mga isyung nakita kong itinaas ng iba ay ang katarungang panlipunan ay maaaring nasa tamang lugar ang kanyang puso ngunit dahil si Jesus ay hindi bahagi ng equation ito ay hindi biblikal. Ito ay isang magandang panahon upang pag-usapan ang tungkol sa isang ideya na una kong narinig sa Canadian Baptist Seminary (napakaraming taon na ang nakalipas). Medyo matagal bago ko na-appreciate ang sinasabi nito. Ang ideya ay na “lahat ng katotohanan ay katotohanan ng Diyos.” Ito ay hango sa dalawang katotohanan sa Bibliya: Si Jesus ay sinasabing ang … “katotohanan” at si Satanas ay sinasabing “Ang ama ng kasinungalingan.” Ibig sabihin, kung ang isang bagay ay totoo, ito ay mula sa Diyos, anuman ang pinagmulan. Ang ibig kong sabihin dito ay kahit na hindi ito tahasang mula sa Bibliya maaari pa rin itong maging totoo. Nangangahulugan din ito na kung ito ay mali, kung gayon ito ay mula sa diyablo.

E ano ngayon?

Ang ibig sabihin ng lahat ng ito ay kailangan nating gumugol ng oras sa pagtutok sa mga tamang bagay. Pinaghihinalaan ko na maraming mga Kristiyano na tutol sa hustisyang panlipunan ay gayon dahil ang mga nagsasagawa ng katarungang panlipunan ay gumagawa ng isang mas mahusay na trabaho ng pagiging simbahan kaysa sa simbahan! Kami bilang simbahan ay nakatutok nang napakatagal sa buhay sa kabilang buhay na kung minsan ay hindi namin pinapansin ang buhay dito at ngayon. Nakikita natin ito sa ating paraan ng pag-eebanghelyo — “Kung mamamatay ka ngayon alam mo ba kung saan ka pupunta?” Binabalewala nito ang ideyang “Kung ipagpapatuloy mo ang iyong buhay ngayon alam mo ba kung paano mo ipapakita ang pag-ibig ng Diyos sa mundo?”

Mga tainga ng Diyos.

Nais kong tapusin ang lahat sa pamamagitan ng pag-iisip kung paano, sa Exodo 3, mababasa natin ang tungkol sa pagdinig ng Diyos sa mga daing ng Israel para sa katarungan at pagsisimula ng mga aksyon na kalaunan ay humantong sa kanilang pagtakas mula sa Ehipto. Kaya naman ang pamagat ng post na ito ay natutong makinig sa pandinig ng Diyos.

Napagtanto ko na hindi lahat ay maaaring sumang-ayon sa aking pananaw sa katarungang panlipunan at sa simbahan. Kung mayroon kang ibang pananaw, gusto kong basahin ang tungkol dito sa mga komento sa ibaba. Gusto kong marinig lalo na ang iyong opinyon sa kung ano ang sinasabi ng Bibliya tungkol dito.

Kung may nakita kang kapaki-pakinabang sa alinman sa mga ito, mangyaring huwag kalimutang i-follow at i-like ang blog na ito.

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng mga kaibigan!

Larawan ni Nawartha Nirmal sa Unsplash.