Category Archives: diakonia

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.

How I learned that paying attention to social justice is discovering how to listen with God’s ears.

Posted on by

Basahin sa wikang Tagalog.

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 life 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.

I thought this might be a good venue to explain a little bit why I feel that churches should be involved in justice ministries, including what the bible has to say about them, how the church can emphasize them, and how they truly reflect who God is. Will you join me in my explanation?

Defining Social Justice.

First, let’s begin with defining our terms so that we can all be on the same page and ensure that we are talking about the same issues. I guess we can just take each word in order and then look at how they are used together. According to Oxford, “social” means “relating to society or its organization” and “justice” means “just behaviour or treatment.” When we put the two words together we get “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” That seems pretty straightforward in addition to seeming like a pretty good idea, doesn’t it? It also seems to be addressing a series of issues also addressed in the bible.

Justice in the Bible.

In the Bible we read about justice as helping widows, the poor, and the foreigner.

Here are a couple of ideas and verses (out of the 443 verses that mention justice) that we can interact with when it comes to justice:

God wants us to care for victims, oppressors, exploitation, orphans, widows, and innocents who have been killed: Jeremiah 22:3 clearly states, “This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don’t exploit or brutalize the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Don’t shed innocent blood in this place.”

God wants us to pay fair wages: Jeremiah 22:13 “Woe for the one who builds his palace through unrighteousness, his upper rooms through injustice, who makes his fellow man serve without pay and will not give him his wages,”

God is interested in the poor, and in economic fairness: Ezekiel 18:17 “He keeps his hand from harming the poor, not taking interest or profit on a loan. He practices My ordinances (ie. justice) and follows My statutes.”

God wants us to prioritise justice with our entire lives: Amos 5:24 “But let justice flow like water, and righteousness, like an unfailing stream.”

God shows us how to incorporate the equitable division of property into our systems. The Promised Land was divided up into tribal land units that were intended to stay with each family in perpetuity.

God shows us one way to incorporate debt forgiveness into our systems. We also have this rather strange system called the year of Jubilee. The year of Jubilee ensured that economic pressures that caused people to sell their properties or even themselves would get relief every 50 years. What’s interesting to note is that, while the bible records the promulgation of this law, we never read about how this was actually implemented.

Jesus talked about his main purpose as targeted towards the poor, the prisoners, the blind, and sinners. This is most clearly stated in his first sermon in Luke 4, where he quotes Isaiah. We also see this in his seemingly continual emphasis on things like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and discipling to tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners.

I don’t know about you but it sure seems like the bible is interested in “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.”

Eliminating Poverty as the Social Agenda of the Church.

The bible also mentions the curious situation of the poor always being with us and there being no more poor with us. Deuteronomy 15:4 says, “In any case, there shouldn’t be any poor people among you, because the Lord your God will certainly bless you in the land he is giving you as your own possession.” Just a few verses later we read in v11: “There will always be poor people in the land. That’s why I command you to be generous to other Israelites who are poor and needy.”

So, on the one hand there will always be poor in the land but on the other hand there shouldn’t have to be poor in the land. Both verses encourage others to help eliminate poverty through generosity and even Jubilee. This is, according to Dr. Jun Vencer, the evangelical agenda.

What makes the issue more complex for us today is that poverty is not merely economic. In fact, in the Asian Development Bank’s report on poverty, we discover that poverty has fourteen core indicators, only one or two of which are economic in nature. That gives ample opportunity for the church to engage the world on several levels, including basic survival, security, and enabling.

Church as center for Diakonia.

Going beyond this, the basic identity of the church is in its function of diakonia, which is serving God and kapwa (“myself in the Other”). This service includes the stuff labelled here as “social justice” but of course goes beyond that.

That is why the church throughout the ages has been concerned with the things God is concerned with — orphans and widows, feeding the poor, critiquing society’s sins and evils, and why it helps during natural evils like typhoons and earthquakes, as well as helping people deal with their own personal versions of evil.

I am not sure what happened in the history of the church or in the development of theology that has led the church away from these realities.

All Truth is God’s Truth.

One of the issues I have seen raised is that social justice may have its heart in the right place but since Jesus isn’t a part of the equation then it’s not biblical. This is a good time to talk about an idea that I first heard about at Canadian Baptist Seminary (so many years ago). I should also point out that it took me quite a while to appreciate what it was saying. The idea is that “all truth is God’s truth.” This is derived from two biblical truths: Jesus is said to be the … “truth” and Satan is said to be “The father of lies.” That means if something is true then it is from God, regardless of the source. What I mean by this is that even if it’s not explicitly from the Bible it can still be true. It also means that if it is false, then it is from the devil.

So what?

What all this means is that we need to spend time focussing on the right stuff. I suspect that many Christians who are opposed to social justice are so because those practicing social justice are doing a better job of being the church than the church is! We as the church have focussed for so long on the life hereafter that we have sometimes ignored the life here and now. We can see this in our method of evangelism — “If you were to die today do you know where you will go?” It ignores the idea of “If you were to keep living your life today do you know how you would reflect God’s love in the world?”

God’s Ears.

I would like to wrap this all up by reflecting on how, in Exodus 3, we read about God hearing Israel’s cries for justice and beginning actions that eventually led to their escape from Egypt. That’s why this post is entitled learning to listen with God’s ears.

I realise that not all may agree with my take on social justice and the church. If you have a different perspective I would love to read about it in the comments below. I would especially love to hear your take on what the Bible says about it.

If you have found any of this useful, please don’t forget to follow and like this blog.

Remember sharing is what friends do!

Image by imdadul hussain on Unsplash.

Did you know that church polity is more a reflection of political realities than some kind of biblical prescription? Did you also know that in the grand scheme of things it really isn’t a big deal what your church’s polity is?

Posted on by

Have you ever thought about your preferred form of church polity? Church polity basically means the ways church organise themselves. There are four main types of church polity: Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Hybrid.

Episcopal. This word is derived from the the Greek word episkopos, which basically means overseers or bishops. As you might have guessed, these churches often have people serving in the role of Bishops. Churches in this tradition include Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist. They find biblical support in Acts 6:6; 14:23; and Galatians 1:19; 2:9. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because of Apostolic succession.

Reformed. The picture at the top identifies this as “Reformed” but a better term might be Presbyterian, derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which means basically elders. Presbyterian, Lutheran and Reformed churches all have this polity. The find biblical support in Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; and Titus 1:5. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they follow Apostolic teaching.

Congregational. Congregational churches put the congregation at the top of any organisational chart because it is the congregation that makes the decisions for the church. Churches in this tradition include Baptist, Mennonite, Evangelical Free, Congregational. They find biblical support in Acts 15:12, 22-25; Colossians 1:18; and 1 Peter 2:9. Like the Presbyterian system above, they claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they follow Apostolic teaching.

Hybrid. A blending of the above three. Churches in this tradition include many Pentecostal and charismatic groups. Because they are a blend, they find biblical support in the verses used by the other three traditions. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they exhibit the Apostolic signs.

As we can see, each of these systems has a series of biblical supports that they use to prove that theirs is the true biblical way. Of course that means that, if each of them has biblical proof, each one of them is biblical! It also means that none of them is actually prescribed by the Bible.

My missions professor in seminary, Dr. Vern Middleton, made an observation about church polity that has stayed with me until today. According to his observations a church’s polity is more a reflection of the political situation at the time the church was initially formed than it is of any biblical influence. Thus the Episcopal system was developed largely when Emperors, Kings, and Queens ruled; the Presbyterian system was developed largely when city and state councils ruled; the Congregational system was developed largely when democratic systems ruled; and Hybrid systems have developed only in the past 100 years or so. For example, in the Philippines many evangelical churches — even while being from a congregational tradition — often incorporate features from Episcopal systems because of the country’s long relationship with the Roman Catholic church.

More to the point, the term “New Testament church” should actually be the “New Testament churches“ because there was more than one of them. We often assume that the New Testament church is the one in Jerusalem as described in Acts. But what then about the other churches — in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, etc? Are they not also New Testament churches? What also of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3? Are they not also New Testament churches?

More importantly, does polity really matter? We often argue and act against other ways of doing things regardless of whether they matter or not. Oftentimes it’s merely an issue of preference or habit.

What really matters is functionality. Functionality is one of the main organising frameworks that I use in this blog so it shouldn’t be strange to us. In a nutshell, we propose that a church begin measuring its functionality using the fourfold matrix of kerygma, koinonia, diakonia, and marturia. Here is an example of what this looks like in real life.

I want to hear your voice. That’s why feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image from Vencer, A. (2004), DAWN Vision and Strategy (DAWN Ministries Leadership Development).

How can the church partner with the world while maintaining its identity? By imitating Jesus’ Changing Water into Wine. Lessons from Thomas Aquinas.

Posted on by

“All truth is God’s truth.”

I can’t tell you how many times I heard this while I was in seminary. And that was a good thing because I needed to hear it. I had spent the years leading up to seminary developing my understanding of truth that was pretty much limited to what the Bible (or at least my interpretation of the Bible) had to say. Any claims to truth outside of the Bible were suspect for me.

I even remember a time in a class I took at USask on Religious Perspectives on Death and Dying when I had to comment (in a test) on the validity of the fictional Death of Ivan Illich to my understanding of death and dying. My reply was that since it was fiction it wasn’t true! Wise Professor Robert Kennedy pointed out that truth can be found in a variety of areas of life including fictional accounts.

And it appears this debate isn’t all that new. The other day I took a look at Mitchell Atencio’s interview Why Nathan Cartagena Teaches Critical Race Theory to Evangelicals with Nathan Cartagena on Sojourners and saw a great idea from Thomas Aquinas.

In 1261, a few years before I went to seminary, Thomas Aquinas wrote a commentary on Boethius’ On The Trinity. Apparently some agreed with my early ideas — that blending God’s Truth with rational truths somehow muddies the mixture. Article 3 of Super Boethium De Trinitate by Thomas Aquinas answers this question in a very interesting way:

“5. It may be said: No conclusive argument can be drawn from figurative speech, as the Master (Peter Lombard) says. Dionysius also says in his letter to Titus that symbolic theology has no weight of proof, especially when such interprets no authority. Nevertheless it can be said that When one of two things passes into the nature of another, the product is not considered a mixture except when the nature of both is altered. Wherefore those who use philosophical doctrines in sacred Scripture in such a way as to subject them to the service of faith, do not mix water with wine, but change water into wine.”

Part of the problem that I faced in the early years of my theological formation was that I somehow believed that the world was divided into two parts: Sacred and Secular. As as young Christian I was warned about the dangers of the world — the danger that I would become worldly. This came out in many areas, including concepts like Christian music, Christian schools and colleges, and Christian bookstores. There was also the idea that people needed to leave the world and join the church. Interestingly there was never an idea that through my influence the world would become holy.

How can we apply Aquinas’ concepts of changing water to wine to the whole sacred-secular debate? The sacred-secular debate keeps the two worlds apart because of fear of contamination — but a contamination that always goes from good to bad. Aquinas says that in order for two ideas to mix that they both need to change. When it comes to God’s truth however, the end result is not a mixture of good and bad but a transformation of the bad into good, much in the same way that Jesus changed water into wine.

So, that brings us to current issues where this can be applied. I can think of three examples. When I was younger the bad guy was psychotherapy. Psychotherapy was bad for reasons that I can’t remember. Fortunately today I have personally benefitted from people who have been successful in blending the truths of God that can be found in psychotherapy with the truths of God found in scripture and have applied those truths into my life.

Christians have also had a love-hate relationship with science throughout the years. Some have suggested that vaccine hesitancy among some Christians is a direct result of the religion-science debate. The argument seems to go along the lines of, “Science promotes evolution that directly goes against the creation accounts of the Bible. If then scientists tell us that vaccines are ok that must mean that they aren’t ok.” What we as Christians often forget, though, is that the early scientists were in fact men and women of faith who desired to know more about God’s creation and started an in-depth study of it.

There has been a lot of talk of late in the church about Critical Race Theory. And that is in fact with the Nathan Cartagena interview is about. The main objection appears to be something like, “CRT is bad because it is Marxism.” Once again the fear of the world influencing the church rather than the church influencing the world rears its ugly head. What we often forget is that justice is one of the key aspects of the Kingdom of God but since it has been neglected so much by the church we need the expertise of those who have thought about justice issues in depth.

Of course I am not advocating an uncritical approach to these issues. As Aquinas himself tells us to “subject [rational philosophies] to the service of faith.” But what I am advocating is that Christians tap every resource available as we seek to turn the water of the world into the wine of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, establishing the values of the kingdom of God, serving God and neighbour, and testifying to God’s truth.

After all, Jesus promises that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against the church. Why should we act as if it already has?

Feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by Klara Kulikova on Unsplash.

Church, modified.

Posted on by

Church.

It doesn’t matter what you add to the word or how you modify it, it still means the same basic thing.

  • Underground church is a church that remains as hidden as possible due to persecution.
  • Local Church is a church in one community.
  • House church is a church that meets in someone’s house (or office, or third place).
  • Universal church is the church that has existed, exists today, and will exist in the future.
  • Indigenous church is a church that is contextualized to a certain society.
  • Persecuted church is a church that is being persecuted by another religion or by the government.
  • Mega Church is a really big church.
  • Cell Church is a really small church.
  • Online church is the online portion of a local church, whether live or prerecorded.
  • Virtual church is where every aspect of the church exists in the virtual world.
  • Live-streamed church is when a church broadcasts it’s Sunday morning services live online.
  • In-person church is when people gather for face-to-face meetings.
  • Church at home is when families worship at home.

But guess what? It’s all still church.

So what does that mean?

We should continue to be the church regardless of which modifier we pick.

  • We should continue to proclaim the good news the Jesus is our king.
  • We should live out the values of the Kingdom of God.
  • We should love God and love our neighbour.
  • We should bear witness to the truth.

How will you be the church today?

Feedback is always welcome!

Image by Skull Kat on Unsplash.

Of monuments and unmarked graves: Is it right to commemorate those responsible for the residential school system while ignoring its victims?

Posted on by

There have been many calls over the past years to either remove statues/honours or preserve them. Most recently in Canada these include people connected to the Indian Residential School System, including statues of Sir John A. MacDonald, the university named after Egerton Ryerson, and the honorary degree given to Bishop John O’Grady by the University of British Columbia. Those on social media who oppose removing memorials see them as a part of history that shouldn’t be changed.

How can we navigate issues like this? One good place to start is by understanding the difference between the Past and History — and no, they aren’t the same thing.

The events of the Past are unchangeable. The past rolls on continuously and inexorably. But there is no DVR or VHS for the past. The only thing that can be changed is the future. As Jose Rizal said, “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinangalingan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan.” [“Whoever doesn’t know how to look to where they came from will not arrive where they are going.”]

History, on the other hand, is different from the Past. History is the interpretation of the events of the past. Because it is interpretation it is subject to change and reassessment.

Now let’s apply these ideas to statues. Is a statue the past or is it history? It’s history because it is the commemoration of a person deemed significant in the past. As Charlottetown, PEI, Coun. Greg Rivard says, “I don’t think removing a statue erases any history. A statue is symbolic of something, and I don’t think right now that the statue is symbolic of the right things.”

What about a grave? Is a grave the past or is it history? Graves are the past. This is because in most cases, actual people are buried in a grave. There are of course many types of grave. There are marked graves, complete with gravestone and epitaph. There are commemorative graves — for example the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier — where the person buried within is unknown but is representative all those who died for their countries but remain unidentified. Then there are mass graves or unmarked graves. Mass graves generally hold the bodies of those who have died in a tragedy.

Now what about when the victims of those memorialised and commemorated with statues are buried in unmarked graves? In May 2021, the unmarked graves of 215 First Nations children, whose deaths were undocumented, were discovered on the grounds of a former Residential School in Kamloops, BC. It doesn’t seem right to continue to commemorate or memorialise those responsible for the residential school system when these children have been abandoned and forgotten does it?

But it is one thing for this to be socially reprehensible. We also need to ask what the Bible says about stuff like this. I can think of two ideas in the Bible that apply here.

The Bible has a high regard for children:

Psalm 127:3 says, “Children are an inheritance from the Lord. They are a reward from him.”

Jesus had a high regard for children, even when society seemingly didn’t. We see this a couple of times, including Mark 10:13-16 that says, “Some people brought little children to Jesus to have him hold them. But the disciples told the people not to do that. When Jesus saw this, he became irritated. He told them, “Don’t stop the children from coming to me. Children like these are part of God’s kingdom. I can guarantee this truth: Whoever doesn’t receive God’s kingdom as a little child receives it will never enter it.” Jesus put his arms around the children and blessed them by placing his hands on them.”

Matthew 18:2-5 says, “I can guarantee this truth: Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.”

Caring for widows, orphans, and foreigners is important to God:

James 1:27 says, “Pure, unstained religion, according to God our Father, is to take care of orphans and widows when they suffer and to remain uncorrupted by this world.”

The Bible even has harsh words for those who don’t treat children appropriately:

“These little ones believe in me. It would be best for the person who causes one of them to lose faith to be drowned in the sea with a large stone hung around his neck” (Matthew 18:6).

A millstone around the neck certainly isn’t commemoration is it?

Feedback is always welcome!

Image by NeONBRAND on Unsplash.

Nightmares vs Daydreams: Which do you think are more dangerous?

Posted on by

People often said when I was younger that I lived in a dream world — and that was true. I did spend a lot of time dreaming of an imaginary world. It is strange, however, that daydreams are often thought of as being a trivial waste of time. “It’s better,” they say, “to live in the real world.” What is also interesting is that we often think of nightmares as dangerous We worry about nightmares. We try to stop nightmares. We even make movies about them that frighten us into even more nightmares!

In reality, we should really spend more time concentrating on daydreams. Nightmares, after all, only last for a few brief moments. It’s the dreams that we have while awake that are truly dangerous because we can dream them for a lifetime, and in the end make them come true. 

As TE Lawrence says, 

“All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.”

Here are my daydreams:

  • I dream of a world where the rule and leadership of Jesus makes the world a better place. A place where the poor hear good news, where prisoners are made free, where the blind can see, where the oppressed are set free, and where the Lord looks with favour on all people. 
  • I dream of a world where the values of the world are the values of God’s kingdom. 
  • I dream of a world where we love each other like we love ourselves. This is best expressed by the Tagalog word kapwa, or “shared being.” 
  • I dream of a world where the truths we shape is the Truth that is revealed to everyone by God, applied to our own cultural and local contexts. 

It is easy to dream such dreams. It is harder to make these dreams come true. But as the old saying goes, “Begin with the end is sight.” 

Keep on daydreaming!

Photo by Jonathan Mabey on Unsplash.