Category Archives: Jose de Mesa

Following up on BGCC Celebration 2024: How Jose de Mesa’s Hermeneutics of Appreciation provides a practical way for Canadian churches to engage society

Posted on by

In May 2024, I had the privilege of speaking at the BGC Canada Celebration in Calgary. Because the theme of the conference centred on Mordecai’s words to Esther “for such a time as this,” one of the sessions I gave was basically laying out the framework that SEATS has been developing for the past 20 years on how the church can engage society “in such a time as this.” The session covered two aspects. The first aspect was the theology of evils, which I’ve written about many times on this blog. The other aspect looked at the functional church, which we see as essential to our identity in the church and society. 

The session was more of a download, laying everything out in a long, complex, complicated system. I apologise if it was a little bit inaccessible because of that. I also wasn’t as clear in stating it during my talk, but I think that Canada is now a mission field and as Jesus’ followers we need to approach it as such.

This reality was made clear by many other presentations at the conference that talked about ways Canadians perceive the world. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Rick Hiemstra was very clear in providing statistics and surveys to help us understand the way Canadians think. And all of these reinforce the idea that Canada is a Mission field.

What does it mean to say that Canada is a Mission field?

Before we go further, I want to highlight that current missions theory sees all parts of the world as the “mission field.” Yet, we often still think of missions as someone leaving their own home to go to another place.

I understand that there are two ways we could define “Canada is a mission field.” One way is “the world is coming to Canada so they’re at our doorstep so we can present the gospel to them.” And this certainly may be true.

BGC Canada addressed this about 30 years ago when we formed GLOBAL Ministries. The tagline at the time was “across the street, around the world.” This was a recognition that people are coming to Canada, which presents an opportunity for us to reach out to them wherever they might be. Eva and I were privileged to be selected for that team at the very beginning and are grateful to continue serving in Southeast Asia. We also know that many of you also are finding ways to reach “across the street” as well as “around the world.” We’re happy to be together on the same team in doing this!

The problem is this is only half the story. It is true that Canadian missionaries have had a tremendous impact on the world as they followed God‘s call to bring the message of his good news around the world. But there’s more to the story.

The other way of defining “Canada is a mission field” is by recognising that new immigrants to Canada are bringing their Christian faith to a place that is no longer Christian. I particularly enjoy the fact this includes Filipinos. For many years now the Philippines has been the number one source of new Canadians. One way this impacts Canada is by Filipino Christians coming to work in Canada, moving to small towns with dying churches, and injecting new life into those churches. Alison Marshall from Brandon University has written a lot on this specific subject.

So what are the implications of “Canada is a mission field”?

Given the fact that Canada is now a Mission field I thought it important to discuss some ways we can think about this. What can I do as I live in my Canadian community, pastor my Canadian Church, and dream about reaching Canada for Christ? How can I tweak the perceptions I have about the world and about Canada and about the gospel so that they can become more understandable to one another? What are some practical ways that the Canadian church can engage society?

It may also mean that the way we’ve traditionally done things may not work anymore. We may need to think about what the church will look like in the next generations.

If Canada is a mission field, we need to approach Canada as if it’s a place we do not understand or we’re not familiar with. We’re unaware of the culture. We’re unaware of the language. We’re unaware of the practices. This means we must come in with a fresh mind asking, “How can we help the people of this place connect with God on an understandable level?“ And “How will my journey with these people help me draw closer to God, myself?”

(I should mention as an aside that while the immediate context of my talk was Canada, since I was invited to a Canadian conference, these principles apply to any culture around the world. So those who are thinking about doing missions in it any other country can figure out ways to make these relevant to their new context as well.)

Jose de Mesa’s Hermeneutics of Appreciation is a usable framework for Canadian churches wanting to go “across the street.”

What comes to mind immediately is Jose de Mesa’s hermeneutics of appreciation as a framework for how the church can engage society. (I have already written a bit on de Mesa’s ideas, here.) de Mesa developed this framework in the 1970s. He was a contemporary of other Filipino academics who collectively realised that the Western-based systems of history, psychology, and anthropology were inadequate in describing the Philippine situation. They worked at reconstructing these ideas using the Philippine context as a base. Jose de Mesa approached the area of theology in the same way.

De Mesa’s insights into how Christianity entered the Philippines is helpful for us as we think about how the church of Jesus Christ can re-enter Canadian society. He developed a hermeneutic of appreciation for use when Jesus’ followers from one culture approach people from another. I thought it might be useful to see how his four hermeneutical steps may apply to the church in Canada today with the hope that this may serve as a model for us to use in the church today.

It’s important for us to remember at this point that de Mesa was largely reacting to issues he observed as a cultural insider to how the gospel was and is understood in the Philippines — his approach is in direct opposition to a hermeneutic of suspicion. It’s also important to realize that de Mesa writes as a deeply devoted Christian who sees Jesus as his Saviour and the Saviour of his nation. But having said that, it’s important to realize that there is a critique in this hermeneutic – a critique that’s useful in helping us understand our own ways of approaching others with the gospel.

Attitude #1 Presume the cultural element or aspect under consideration to be positive (at least in intent) until proven otherwise.

A lot of the stuff we do in churches is cultural, even though we assume it’s biblical. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is sometimes a blending of how we interpret the Bible with how we view the world. What sometimes happens as we go somewhere else and see how other people live is that we immediately assume that they are doing things for all the wrong reasons. We understand that sin enslaves the entire world and we assume that those who have not yet heard about Jesus Christ are also slaves themselves. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that everyone does is done for bad reasons.

Sometimes these things are just different cultural preferences. I remember reading Peace Child by Don Richardson. You may have read the book or seen the movie. It’s a powerful example of how a missionary to New Guinea found a redemptive analogy within his mountain tribe. Richardson’s thesis is that every culture contains what he calls redemptive analogies. Richardson even goes through and illustrates other examples of redemptive analogies that he has found in other times and in other parts of the world. More on this below.

Richardson‘s theology incorporates the ideas that “all have sinned fall short of the glory of God” with the idea that “God has placed eternity in the hearts of humans.” He ties the two together by saying that God has hidden clues in each society and culture that help people move from sinners towards eternity.

We won’t find Redemptive analogies if we approach a culture from the idea that we are right and they are wrong — if we approach another culture with the idea that these are all pagan people with no connection with God and that we are the first voice of God that people have heard. This is actually against what scripture teaches. Typically theology refers to two types of revelation: One of them is general revelation where God makes himself known to all people through means not limited by language — including emotion, conscience, and will (Ps 19:1-2; Job 12:7-10; De 8:18; Pr 16:9; Pr 20:27; Ge 3:7-8). The other is special revelation where God makes himself known specifically through his word — both Living and written (Is 53:5-6; Mic 5:2; De 6:6-7; Ps 119:105).

Popular advice states that we should avoid two topics of discussion in life: religion and politics. Why is that? Because we tend to argue and fight over them don’t we? To apply de Mesa’s framework here we would need to seek understanding of the Other rather than to push the rightness of our own belief. This is scary, isn’t it? Because we must relinquish  power in order to do that. But yet it’s only through vulnerability that we can connect with others in the world around us, isn’t it? 

Presuming that the culture element is positive rather than negative also acknowledges the fact that God is already at work in an among that culture, and some of the things that God has revealed to them may come out through the culture.

Attitude #2 Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view. 

Sometimes when it comes to presenting the gospel we take an exclusivistic approach. An exclusivistic approach means that we know what’s right and nobody else does. We need to present the gospel to Them. This leads us to approach people as if They are wrong and We are right. That’s because the exclusivistic approach is the approach of the Outsider.

I had a conversation the other day with a close friend and colleague is also a pastor. We were discussing preaching and the role of the preacher in the message. We reminded ourselves that the first audience of any sermon is the preacher themself. But there’s also an aspect in the Bible where through the prophets God tells people that they are wrong. The key to remember is that the prophets also recognize themselves as being wrong too. For example, Isaiah says “every word that passes through my lips is sinful,” indicating his desire to be disqualified from this ministry. In the same way, we too as preachers need to recognize our own complicity in sin. Other people are not the only sinners in the world. We, too, are included in that. So when we approach the subject of sin and repentance, we need to approach it in an inclusivistic way. Meaning rather than saying, “You are all a bunch of sinners and need to repent,” we say, “We are all sinners and we all need to repent.” There’s an inclusive aspect to the Gospel.

This is what de Mesa is talking about in his “Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view”

So we use inclusivistic language — words like us and we — and find ways how we too need to hear God’s gospel in the situation. We also assume that God has been at work in the world before we arrive with his message. Back to Richardson’s redemptive analogies. He describes examples such as the peace child of his tribe in New Guinea, and the banana tree/book among other tribes. He even mentions Paul’s recognition of the Athenian “altar to the unknown God” as an example. Bruce Olsen, in his autobiographical Bruchko, describes waiting five years before finding the culturally-appropriate way to present Jesus to his tribe in Colombia. These redemptive analogies provide bridges into a culture to help them understand the goodness of who God is and help introduce them to his special revelation for all humans.

What redemptive analogies do we find around us? What ways has God prepared Canadians to understand and accept the good news? What artifacts in Canadian cultures bridge us to God?

For example, Canadians have a deep connection to the land. This includes First Nations, Inuit, Metis, and Settler cultures (I should point out here that I have family connections with each of these four groups). It’s important to realize that there’s a word that’s sometimes translated land in the Bible and other times translated as earth. But connection to the earth is often among disputed among Christians, isn’t it? I remember a younger me pushing against the idea of creation care because it seemed like it was worshiping nature rather than worshiping God. I thought that as humans we were supposed to “subdue” creation. However, connection to land is one of the key aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only is that a main part of ancient Israel‘s connection with him, but it also emerges when others are trying to understand God. It’s especially significant in God‘s conversations with Job where God clarifies and reveals himself to Job through the land. Perhaps understanding this connection with the land or earth is a redemptive analogy for Canadians.

Another example for Canadians may be our internationally-acknowledged kindness. Kindness appears to be under attack today. I’ve seen pushback against the concept of empathy and also against being a “nice man.” In fact, I engaged in a short dialogue on X with someone the other day who was advocating that men should no longer be “nice.” However, kindness is a key part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, the reason that we are saved is because God showed his kindness to us. And the evidence of the fact we are saved includes, among other things, kindness towards others. Perhaps kindness is another redemptive analogy for Canadians. 

Can you think of any more redemptive analogies for Canadians or even for your own culture?

Attitude #3 Go beyond cultural stereotypes.

When I was in Grade 5 at Lorne Haselton School in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the Gideons came and presented each of us with a New Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs. I remember mine was red. Afterwards, at recess, we were discussing these New Testaments, and one of my classmates came up to me to talk about it, and I blurted out to him, “What are you gonna do, rip it up?” And he had this look of confusion on his face. I think about that interaction a lot and wonder, “What was it that caused me to assume that my classmates who didn’t go to church would just be interested in ripping up the Bible?” Well, I think it’s because there was a cultural presupposition when I was growing up that the world was divided into Believers and Unbelievers. Believers did everything God wanted them to do, and Unbelievers did nothing that God wanted them to do. And so, I assumed that a Unbeliever receiving a New Testament would just be interested in getting rid of it because it was something good. Of course, looking back on this and on my Grade 5 self, I realize that I was deeply mistaken and that my cultural presuppositions towards those who were not-yet-Christians were wrong.

One of the key influences in my life was Les Goertz’ book, The Not-Yet-Christian. Goertz approaches the issue with the understanding that people are on a journey towards God. People who come from a point of being originally righteous in Genesis 1, but subsequently slaves to sin, are on a journey back towards that original identity. The idea of looking at someone as a not-yet-Christian reminds us of the hope that at some point someone’s relationship with God will become better — even as my own relationship with God hopefully becomes better over time.

Attitude #4 Use the vernacular as a key to understanding the culture in its own terms. 

I took my first ancient Greek class in university. It was actually Attic Greek. I did this in anticipation of attending Canadian Baptist Seminary after I graduated. (I had heard horror stories of crash Greek and wanted to avoid that experience.) When I got to seminary I was able to skip crash Greek and go straight into Greek exegesis. One of the things I remember learning in studying Greek was that there was a lot of belief that we could find the specific meaning of each of these words. And so we used various grammatical forms, we looked at various words, and determined various definitions for them. But a couple of cracks appeared in the picture as I was studying Greek. One of them was that we weren’t actually defining the words we were translating. Rather, we were giving them glosses. A gloss is a something shiny that looks good and helps us think that we understand something but hides something deeper and non-understandable beneath it. A number of years later in my career, I moved to the Philippines and learned Tagalog — a language I now use to conduct most of my daily affairs. And what I learned was that there is no such thing as a simple transition from one language to another. All translation is betrayal simply because there is no one-to-one relationship between languages! Some languages don’t have the words used in other languages, which often makes it difficult to transmit ideas from one language to another.

Further complicating things is that we often think of text as relating to words and thus the term vernacular as relating to the spoken language specific to a certain context. However, Hanks tells is that text goes beyond merely written word and looks at the systems and structures of a society. “… text can be taken … to designate any configuration of signs that is coherently interpretable by some community of users.”

There’s a current program for Missionary Kids or Third-culture kids when they end up coming to Canada at the end of their schooling and whatever country they grew up in. One of the aspects of this Reboot program is introducing these young people to Canadian culture. This includes introduction to the vernacular, where they learn such things as the true meaning of the phrase, “Netflix and chill” — a term that when interpreted at face value is NOT correct.

In some ways it appears that the church in Canada has lost its grasp of the vernacular. Why do I say this? A year or two ago there was an Angus Reid poll that came out where one of the surprising findings was that — at least among a certain segment of Canadian society — the church is viewed as “damaging to society.” Which is odd, isn’t it? After all, the message the church isn’t one of danger, but love and salvation and a God who wants a relationship and wants the oppressed to be freed and wants the blind to see and wants to lame to walk and wants the prisoners to be set free. So then how come, all of a sudden, there is this idea that the church is something that’s damaging to society? It may be because we’ve lost a grasp of the vernacular.

Now some people are going to complain and say, “My church isn’t like that.” I realize that and I agree with you. However, in the mind of people outside the church, they label us ALL as Christians — in the same way that we label people outside the church as Pagans. There is a little understanding of the nuanced denominationalism that we understand as Insiders. We are all guilty of generalising when it comes to identifying others. Lila Abu-Lughod says some good stuff about generalization and advocates for focussing on particularities instead. But that’s a conversation for another day.

What I’m saying is here is that if our basic core message is misunderstood, it’s probably for one of two reasons: Either we’re not getting it right, or we’re not making it understandable in the vernacular of the day.

What’s the next Step?

What’s your take on this? Does the Canadian church have some work to do in the future? Are there redemptive analogies that would be beneficial for helping the church engage society?

Whether you agree, disagree, or have a fresh perspective, drop a comment and let’s discuss!

If you enjoyed this post, why not share it with your network? Remember, sharing is what friends do!

Photo by Matheus Viana on Pexels.

Some insights on why fake news and conspiracy theories are obvious to some but not to others.

Posted on by

Basahin sa wikang Tagalog.

I have been enjoying Alexandre Horowitz’ On Looking: A Walker’s Guide to the art of Observation. It is an eye-opening (see what I did there?) book on how to better pay attention to our communities. One particular part caused me to reflect on the current debate about truth. What is true? What is false? What makes something or someone trustworthy? Why do some believe “conspiracy theories”? Why do others believe “science”?

Horowitz talks about grandmasters in chess and relates it to how we pay attention to something. Here is the quote:

“Grandmasters remember phenomenal amounts of chess. It is estimated that a typical chess master remembers on the order of 50,000 to 300,000 “chunks”—arrangements of five to seven pieces placed normally, not randomly, on a board. They might know, unconsciously, 100,000 opening moves. These memory stores allow them to recall the precise positions of a large number of pieces on a series of games in progress, having seen them once. Sometimes this ability even extends to random piece placements, since a randomly placed piece is surprising, and distinctive, to someone who can see the logic in the piece placement of a game underway. By contrast, when a novice chess player looks at a board, he sees a jumbled arrangement of black and white pieces. If he is attentive, he might later be able to remember a few squares of the board, or a handful of pieces neighboring one another. Nothing else. The difference is that the scene is meaningful to the chess master but not to the novice. To the expert, every piece relates to the others, and every arrangement of pieces on a board relates to previous boards the player has seen or made. They become as familiar as the faces of friends.”

Nahati sa dalawa: Isang master ng chess at isang baguhan. Magkaiba ang kanilang mga alam pagdating sa chess. When I posted the quote on Facebook, my friend Aaron, who also was provoked by the quote, responded.

“As I read this, I thought of a variety of things:

The earliest victims of fake news were Adam and Eve.

Where is the problem, with the “novices” or those who spread fake news and conspiracies? Is there anything we can do to combat this problem? Or it is just unavoidable because we each have our own “mastery” in life and associated with it that we will not be able to master all aspects of the world. For example, some people are good at technology, while others of us are good at history, politics or law. Those who are good at technology may not have “mastery” in politics or law, so they can also fall victim to fake news about it.

Scientists acknowledge that their “mastery” is to discover, improve our knowledge and find answers to questions such as where we came from. The church, on the other hand, also has “mastery” properties such as the strengthening of faith. But there are times when the teaching of the church does not match the teaching of science. Both have mastery, but there are differences. And if there are differences, who are we to believe? And if science has proofs of their findings and the church refuses to accept and continues to enjoy existing teachings that are contrary to the findings of science, who are we to believe? If science has proof but those in the church still believe differently, isn’t it like we are the ones spreading fake news to the members of our church?

These are just thoughts I just want to share. The curiosity of my mind is likely to attack again.”

Great, isn’t it? It caused me to start thinking again so here are my responses to him:

“Thanks for the reply. Your mind is really flowing. I think we will find the answer in the flow of the mind 😉 It is true that Adam and Eve must have been deceived-that is at least what the bible teaches about Eve. Adam knew very well what he was doing wrong.

When it comes to the idea of mastery, one part is experience. Chess masters will probably be good because they have a certain something. But they are also good because of the practice they do every day. I think, even though I know almost nothing about chess other than the basics of the pieces and layout, when I play every day, I will probably also have mastery somehow. Or if not mastery and at least I have an appreciation for the mastery of the master.

For us, it is important to give appreciation to people who are on the other perspective. Often, what we do is purely imaginary. We think that they are stupid. We think they don’t know. We think whatever. But how can we say that when we have no appreciation? There are reasons why those in favor of science are in favor of science. And those in favor of conspiracy theories etc. are in favor of that. We must first find out where they are. We will probably find the solution by talking.

This is the framework given to us by Ka Jose de Mesa when it comes to appreciation:

Attitude #1: Presume the cultural element or aspect under consideration to be positive (at least in intent) until proven otherwise.

Attitude #2: Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view.

Attitude #3: Go beyond the cultural stereotypes.

Attitude #4: Use the vernacular as a key to understanding the culture in its own terms.

Issues such as the conflict between science and faith are likely to be answered as well.

You? What do you think? Is this a solution to our problem of fake news? What would you add? Please use the comment box below. 

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Rafael Rex Felisilda on Unsplash. 

Ang ilang mga insight kung bakit ang mga pekeng balita at mga teorya ng pagsasabwatan ay halata sa ilan ngunit hindi sa iba

Posted on by

Read in English.

Natutuwa ako sa aklat ni Alexandra Horowitz na On Looking: A Walker’s Guide to the art of Observation. Ito ay isang pagbubukas ng mata (nakita mo na ba ang ginawa ko doon?) na libro kung paano mas bigyang pansin ang ating mga komunidad. Isang partikular na bahagi ang naging dahilan upang pagnilayan ko ang kasalukuyang debate tungkol sa katotohanan. Ano ang tunay? Ano ang huwad? Ano ang ginagawang mapagkakatiwalaan ang isang bagay o isang tao? Bakit may mga naniniwala sa mga “conspiracy theories”? Bakit ang iba ay naniniwala sa “agham”?

Pinag-uusapan ni Horowitz ang tungkol sa mga grandmaster sa chess at iniuugnay ito sa kung paano namin binibigyang pansin ang isang bagay. Narito ang quote:

“Natatandaan ng mga grandmaster ang napakalaking dami ng chess. Tinatantya na ang isang tipikal na master ng chess ay naaalala sa pagkakasunud-sunod ng 50,000 hanggang 300,000 “chunks”—mga pagsasaayos ng lima hanggang pitong piraso na inilagay nang normal, hindi random, sa isang board. Maaaring alam nila, nang hindi namamalayan, 100,000 pambungad na moves. Binibigyang-daan sila ng mga memory store na ito na maalala ang mga tumpak na posisyon ng malaking bilang ng mga piraso sa isang serye ng mga laro na isinasagawa, na nakita ang mga ito nang isang beses. Minsan ang kakayahang ito ay umaabot pa sa mga random na placement ng piraso, dahil nakakagulat ang isang random na inilagay na piraso , at katangi-tangi, sa isang taong nakakakita ng lohika sa paglalagay ng piraso ng isang laro na isinasagawa. Sa kabaligtaran, kapag ang isang baguhang manlalaro ng chess ay tumitingin sa isang board, nakikita niya ang isang pinagsama-samang pagkakaayos ng mga itim at puting piraso. Kung siya ay matulungin, siya baka mamaya maalala ang ilang mga parisukat ng pisara, o isang dakot na pirasong magkatabi. Wala nang iba. Ang kaibahan ay ang eksena ay makabuluhan sa master ng chess ngunit hindi sa baguhan. Sa eksperto, e ang mismong piraso ay nauugnay sa iba, at bawat pagsasaayos ng mga piraso sa isang board ay nauugnay sa mga nakaraang board na nakita o ginawa ng manlalaro. Nagiging pamilyar sila gaya ng mga mukha ng magkakaibigan.”

Nahati sa dalawa: Isang master ng chess at isang baguhan. Magkaiba ang kanilang mga alam pagdating sa chess. When I posted the quote on Facebook, my friend Aaron, who also was provoked by the quote, responded.

“Habang binabasa ko ito, naisip ko itong iba’t-ibang bagay:

Ang pinakaunang biktima ng fake news ay si Adam at Eve.

Nasaan nga ba ang problema, sa mga “novice” o sa mga nagpapakalat ng fake news at conspiracies? May magagawa ba tayo para malabanan ang problemang ito? O sadyang hindi ito maiiwasan dahil may kanya-kanya naman tayong “mastery” sa buhay at kaakibat nito na hindi natin magagawang maging master ng lahat ng aspeto sa mundo. Halimbawa, may mga taong magaling sa larangan ng teknolohiya, samantalang may iba sa atin ang magaling sa kasaysayan, pulitika o kaya batas. Ang magaling sa teknolohiya ay pwedeng walang “‘mastery” sa pulitika o batas, kaya sila ay maaaring maging biktima rin mga fake news na tungkol dito.

Ang mga scientists ay ina-acknowledge natin na ang “mastery” nila ay ang pagtuklas, pagsasabuti ng ating karunungan at paghahanap ng mga kasagutan sa mga katanungan tulad ng saan nga ba tayo nagmula. Ang simbahan naman ay may mga angking “mastery” din tulad ng pagpapatibay ng pananampalataya. Ngunit may mga pagkakataong hindi nagtutugma ang turo ng simbahan sa turo ng agham. Parehong may “mastery”, ngunit may mga pagkakaiba. At kung may mga pagkakaiba, sino nga ba ang paniniwalaan natin? At kung may mga proofs ang agham sa mga natuklasan nila at ayaw tanggapin ng simbahan at patuloy na tinatangkilik ang nakagisnang katuruan na salungat sa natuklasan ng agham, sino ba dapat nating paniwalaan? Kung may proof na ang agham pero iba pa rin ang paniniwala ng mga nasa simbahan, hindi ba parang tayo mismo ang nagpapakalat ng fake news sa mga myembro ng ating simbahan?

Galing, diba? Napaisip ulit tuloy ako kaya it ang mga tugong ko sa kanya:

Ito ay pawang mga thoughts lamang na gusto ko lang ibahagi. Umaatake na naman malamang ang pagiging curious ng aking isip.

“Salamat sa tugon. Maganda talaga ang agos ng isip mo. Sa palagay ko hahanapin natin ang sagot sa pag-agos ng isip 😉 Totoo naman ciguro na niloko sina Adan at si Eva — yun at least ang turo ng bibliya patungkol kay Eva. Alam na alam ni Adan kung anong ang kanyang pinapasukang mali.

“Pag dating ng ideya ng mastery, isang bahagi ay karanasan. Malamang magagagling ang mga chess masters dahil meron silang certain something. Pero magaling din sila dahil sa mga practice na ginawa nila araw araw. Sa palagay ko, kahit halos wala akong alam sa chess bukod sa mga basics ng mga pieces at layout, kapag araw-arawin ko ang paglaro, malamang magkakaroon din ako ng mastery kahit papaano. O kung hindi mastery at least meron akong appreciation sa mastery ng master.

“Para sa atin, mahalagang bigyang appreciation ang mga tao na nasa kabilang perspektibo. Kadalasan, puro akala pala ang ating ginagawa. Akala natin bobo. Akala natin hindi marunong. Akala natin kung anu-ano. Pero paano ba natin masabi yun kapag wala tayong appreciation? May mga dahilan kung bakit ang mga pabor sa agham ay may pabor sa agham. At ang mga may pabor sa conspiracy theories atbp ay may pabot diyan. Alamin muna dapat natin kung nasaan sila. Malamang matutuklasan natin and solusyon sa pamamagitan sa pakikipag-usap.

“Ito ang gabay na binigay sa atin ni Ka Jose de Mesa pagdating sa appreciation:

Saloobin #1: Ipagpalagay na ang elemento ng kultura o aspetong isinasaalang-alang ay positibo (kahit sa layunin) hanggang sa mapatunayang hindi.

Saloobin #2: Magkaroon ng kamalayan sa iyong sariling mga pagpapalagay sa kultura at tanggapin ang pananaw ng tagaloob.

Saloobin #3: Higit pa sa mga stereotype ng kultura.

Saloobin #4: Gamitin ang katutubong wika bilang susi sa pag-unawa sa kultura sa sarili nitong mga termino.

Malamang masasagot din ang mga isyu katulad ng paglalaban ng agham at pananampalataya.

Ikaw? Ano ba sa palagay mo? Solusyon ba kaya ito sa problema natin sa fake news? Ano ba’ng idagdag mo? Pakisulat sa mga comments sa ibaba.

Ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng magkakaibigan

Larawan ni Rafael Rex Felisilda sa Unsplash.

Denying the Metanarrative is a good thing, but the process of denial is a bit more complex than we sometimes think.

Posted on by

One of the tenets of postmodernism (if indeed it can be said to have tenets) is the denial of the metanarrative. A metanarrative is “an overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.” For many, these metanarratives provide a framework for understanding the world. What’s sad is that sometimes these same metanarratives also provide a framework for oppression and hardship, if you happen to be on the wrong side of the narrative.

Postmodernism has it detractors, mostly people who adhere to a different philosophical system (cough ‘Modernism’ cough). One of their complaints is that denying a metanarrative is a metanarrative in and of itself. Apart from being a bit of a copout because it doesn’t seek understanding, this argument misses the point because it presumes that denial is single-stage process.

For example, in the 1970s, a number of Filipinos devoted their lives to overturning the metanarrative that basically denied their place in the world. Zeus Salazar started telling a new history with his Pantayang Pananaw. Virgilio Enriquez started telling a psychology story with his Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Pospero Covar started telling a new anthropology story with his Pilipinolohiya. Jose de Mesa started telling a new theology story with his work on contexualisation. These four men began telling stories that overturned the metanarrative that prioritised the West and saw places like the Philippines as “deviant.” In retelling the story with indigenous languages, using indigenous concepts, and respecting indigenous knowledge, they were able to open up a new chapter to a previously incomplete metanarrative. We have a lot to thank these pioneers for. And people are continuing the process today in ways that include anti-colonialism and post-structuralism.

But the process must necessarily continue past that point because, even though these guys fulfilled an essential service way back when, that service has now led to claims of essentialism among them. Essentialism meaning a specific definition of what ‘Filipino’ is. In their efforts to make the Filipino voice heard, they by necessity saw that voice as one voice. It was the Filipino voice.

What we realise today is that the Filipino voice is perhaps best characterised as “voices.” The Philippines is an archipelago of just over 7,400 islands of varying sizes, shapes, and populations. There are just over 180 languages in use on a daily basis. Filipinos are also present in all the countries of the world and live in both the most populated and least populated areas of the world. Filipinos are both fiercely nationalistic and regionally loyal. The family is the basic building block of society. All of this creates a rich diversity of identities. I like how Dr. Exiomo puts it: “Being can be expressed in many different ways.”

In other words, the metanarrative still needs to be denied because it doesn’t accurately tell everyone’s story in the proper way. It’s a continuous process of editing and revising that will ultimately lead to a fulfilled humanity.

Where do you fit into the metanarrative? Where does the metanarrative fail you? Feel free to let us know in the comments below!

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Jakayla Toney on Unsplash.

Speaking into truth & reconciliation, how would you apply Jesus’ words, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”??

Posted on by

Last week I posted some thoughts on truth and reconciliation on Canada’s National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. My thoughts centered around Mark‬ ‭9:42-50‬ ‭GW‬‬, and how these verses about protecting children’s faith is in the context of the verses that talk about dealing with sin our lives. If your hand cause you to sin cut it off. If your foot causes you to sin cut it off. If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out. I realize that the sins of the hand, the foot, and the eye are central to the legacy of the abuse suffered through Indian Residential Schools.

Krystal Wawrzyniak, one of my colleagues at BGC Canada and currently seconded to Indian Life Ministries, asked, “I’m curious about your thoughts surrounding the application of ‘if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off,’ or the foot or eye. Speaking into truth and reconciliation, how would you apply this??” I did respond to Krystal on Facebook but thought it might be a good idea to flesh out some of my ideas in another blog post.

First off I need to say that the best approach is to listen because it’s only through listening to Others’ stories that we can both understand them and see the things that need to be changed in ourselves.

It’s also important to examine ourselves to see if we can find areas that need change. This happens through reflection and through listening. I think that because few of us were directly involved in the Indian Residential School system (the last school closed in 1996) we can’t simply call for repentance on a personal level. The areas where change needs to happen (ie. the parts that need to get cut off) are the systems and structures that still exist in our society — including our churches and theology — that are a part of the framework that led to Indian Residential Schools. These need to be excised from our identity as both Christians and Canadians.

On the national level this might include how the doctrine of discovery and the Treaty of Tordesillas — which blended religious and commercial interests — continues to impact Canadian institutions such as the Indian act, unclean water on First Nations, and unequal access to health care. Other issues include how the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the Overrepresentation of Indigenous People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System reveal problems with the justice system.

On the theological level we need to revisit our understanding of God’s prevenient grace, get rid of our theological superiority that prioritises theologies from the Global North over and above those of the Global South, and read the Bible through the eyes of the Other. Jose de Mesa’s hermeneutics of appreciation is a good starting point for this and will teach us how to listen.

Ka Jose de Mesa (1946-2021) was a Filipino lay theologian who worked for many years on issues surrounding contextualisation and theology. In his Mga aral sa daan: Dulog at paraang kultural sa Kristolohiya he develops a hermeneutics of appreciation as a way to correct errors he saw in how the church crossed cultures.

The “Hermeneutics of appreciation” is presented as a series of attitudes that serve as guides for those engaging in cross-cultural interactions. How can we apply them to the Indian Residential School issue?

Attitude #1: Presume the cultural element or aspect under consideration to be positive (at least in intent) until proven otherwise. Indian Residential Schools were designed to do the exact opposite of this — to remove all traces of “Indian” from the children who were forced to attend. There is certainly nothing positive about this. A better approach would be to recognise that the Kingdom of God consists of people from “every nation, tribe, people, and language” and that includes First Nations and Metis peoples.

Attitude #2: Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view. When we look back at some of the statements made by the proponents of the Indian Residential School system we can’t help but wonder what they were thinking? To people living and thriving in the postmodern world of 2021’s Canada, the ideas of our forefathers are more than odd — they are offensive. But did they know that? Did they realise the meaning of statements like “Kill the Indian, save the man” and that ideas of assimilation were actually cultural genocide? It’s hard to believe that they didn’t realise these things. Knowledge of de Mesa’s Attitude #2 would have gone a long ways towards developing a true understanding between the various cultures.

Attitude #3: Go beyond the cultural stereotypes. It is obvious that the use of terms such as “Indian problem” and “dirty Indian” that stereotypes were the only standard of practice in these schools. As Duncan Campbell Scott said when developing his policies, “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that the country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. . . . Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.”

Attitude #4: Use the vernacular as a key to understanding the culture in its own terms. Indian Residential Schools made a concerted effort to eliminate the various languages of the First Nations. A deeper understanding of language always leads to a deeper understanding of culture.

Unfortunately, nothing about the experience that First Nations and Metis peoples have had with either the government or the church in Canada seems to reflect these attitudes. Let’s hope that we can work towards changing some of these attitudes as we work towards truth, healing, and reconciliation.

Help is available. Call the 24-hour national Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line: 1 (800) 721-0066.

Feedback is always welcome. 

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by Liviu Florescu on Unsplash.

Scripture is taken from GOD’S WORD®.
© 1995, 2003, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020 by God’s Word to the Nations Mission Society. 
Used by permission.