The worst foes || John Pesebre

(Credit)

too many beaches
too many trenches
too many bandages
a plot you recount
only to blow yourself up
inside a foxhole

the worst foes are those
that fight with you in the foxhole
who wreck your gun
and pull the pin on you

Pesebre: a poem || John Pesebre

(Credit)

a dawn of tears melts me
and i see the the sun tarry
to look at a world of pain
and unrequited love

a world that is awake with tears
and asleep in threat of bad dreams
from freaks, ogres & incubi
no rest for the weary

as that li'l babe in the manger
came to this world as King
yet laid not in wool, but hay
asleep not in a crib, but a trough

He came into this world
but His own knew Him not
accustomed to pain, He labored
to call His own with tears and blood.

-----
* Lucas 2:16 "Así que fueron de prisa y encontraron a María y a José, y al niño que estaba acostado en el PESEBRE."

Important principles when engaging in a discussion || T. Edward Damer

(Credit)

From T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001), 5-6.

1. The Fallibility Principle

When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one's own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

2. The Truth-Seeking Principle

Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to ex­amine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.

3. The Clarity Principle

The formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of lin­guistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

5. The Principle of Charity

If a participant's argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.

6. The Relevance Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.

7. The Acceptability Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

8. The Sufficiency Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide rea­sons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.

9. The Rebuttal Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.

10. The Resolution Principle

An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative posi­tions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and accept­able premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the suc­cessful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.

11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.

12. The Reconsideration Principle

If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
The first three of these principles are commonly regarded as standard prin­ciples of intellectual inquiry. They are almost universally understood as underlying our very participation in serious discussion.

Upon reading Andrew Sullivan's "I Used to be a Human Being" || John Pesebre

The first thing I did
after reading Sully's NYmag piece
was go to our fridge
and take out everything
esp those pieces of cereal
stuck inside the fridge drawer;
then I got a good cloth
and scrubbed the hell out of it,

until the fridge was as dead silent

and clean.

Then I picked all the real food
and slowly put them in
making a mental note where
a potato for example
would direct me to
gratitude


read Andrew Sullivan's "I Used to be a Human Being".

#neighborology and the other side of the Anabaptists || John Pesebre

While many in recent memory, especially progressivist, postmodern evangelicals have attempted to whip on Protestantism with a moral argument such as this one, these arguments serve as propaganda and characterizations that are ill-informed or even motivated to show the entire picture.

The old Anabaptists were not your typical helpless old widow in one corner.

One of them Thomas Muntzer wrote to Martin Luther, "I would like to smell your frying carcass." Dr. Peter Hammond writes,
"In 1525, Muntzer was successful in rousing up many of the peasants of central Germany in the bloody, so-called Peasants Revolt, which it should be noted attracted several nobles to his side. "Let your swords be ever-warm with blood!" Muntzer exhorted his faithful followers. Muntzer's army of Anabaptists struck terror throughout the countryside, robbing, burning and destroying the property of the faithful, killing many thousands."

In the _Socialist Phenomenon_, Igor Shaferavich writes,
"Armed Anabaptists broke into houses and drove out everyone who was unwilling to accept second baptism. Winter was drawing to a close; it was a stormy day and wet snow was falling. An eyewitness account describes crowds of expelled citizens walking through the knee-deep snow. They had not been allowed even to take warm clothing with them. Women carrying children in their arms, old men leaning on staffs. At the city gate they were robbed once more."

So if ever you would see people such as those belonging to the postmodern wing of Philippine evangelicalism like #neighborology issue a moral argument such as this one, ask him, "Are you presenting the entire picture or are you characterizing based on selective information?"

Also, if one would allege that the Anabaptist deaths were carried out by Protestants, one would have to account why many of them perished under King Ferdinand of Austria who was a Holy Roman Emperor.

In his book Mennonites in Europe (Amazon), John Horsch writes,

[Ferdinand] commissioned a company of executioners to root out the Anabaptist faith in his lands. Those who were overtaken in the highways of fields were killed with the sword, others were dragged out of their houses and hanged on the door posts. Most of them had gone into hiding in the woods and mountains. In a forest near Lengbach seventeen were put to death. 

In the province of Swabia, in South Germany, four hundred mounted soldiers were, in 1528, sent out to put to death all Anabaptists on whom they could lay hands. Somewhat later the number of soldiers so commissioned was increased to eight hundred, and then to one thousand.

In various provinces an imperial provost marshal by the name of Berthold Aichele, with his assistants, put many Anabaptists to death. On Christmas day, 1531, he drove seventeen men and women into a farmhouse in Württemberg and burned the building together with the inmates. 

Three hundred and fifty Anabaptists were executed in the Palatinate before the year 1530.  

At Ensisheim, "the slaughterhouse of Alsace," as it was called, six hundred were killed within a few years. 

Within six weeks thirty-seven were burned, drowned, or beheaded at Linz, in Austria. 

In the town of Kitzbüchl in the Tyrol, sixty-eight were executed in one year.  

Two hundred and ten or more, were burned in the valley of the Inn River. 

The number of Anabaptist martyrs in the Tyrol and Görz, was estimated at one thousand at the end of the year 1531.

for more information on this go to "Were Anabaptists Persecuted for Their Faith" by Dr. William Hammond

Wisdom and modernist instrumentalization || John Pesebre

(Credit)

"Thus, then, all action originates in purpose,—that is to say, in the choice of means to a given end, not in the mere conception of, or impulse towards that end,—purpose consisting in impulse towards an end, followed by an analysis of that end into its means." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Yung #neighborology pala kung hindi lang sana nagka blanket disdain at demonization ng modernity ay makakatagpo ng recuperation na organic sa Western thought concerning yung "instrumentalization of reason."

Dito si Aristotle mismo nagsa suggest ng analysis ng end at means. Ayaw nung Frankfurt School na yung "means" ang affair ng "analysis" natin imbes isama yung end (cf Adorno & Horkheimer). Etong neo-marxist critique na ito should be taken seriously, and Christianity is not bereft of solution considering na sa Christian ethics napakahalaga ng "end" ("glorify God," WSC, 1). Instrumentalization kasi napakalaking problema sa Christianity ngayon kaya napaka constant ng gamitan -- even ang Diyos ginagamit as a means, as an instrument.

Etong section na ito sa Nicomachean ay Book 6 on "intellectual virtue." A good deal ng Book 6 asserts yung ina assert lang din ng New Testament na word and deed, o yung sabi ni James na wag daw maging hearers of the Word but doers. Basically ang sabi ni Aristotle dito is that reason has to have an end at yun ang virtue, hindi lang abstraction. Yan ang ultimate end niya na sa atin ay immediate lang pero we don't devalue that.

Recall that para sa Judeo-Christian religions merong dominant na Hebrew concept called "chokmah" (wisdom; skill) na may outworking sa practical. The nearest NT Greek word is "phronesis." Eto ang term ni Aristotle for practical wisdom.

So contrary to #neighborology's claims to rescue Christianity from the pits of modernity, it is actually doing her disservice by alienating her sa thought tradition niya at papalitan ito ng illusory progressivist thought na naka angkla sa postmodernity. Gusto ng mga proponents niya to disentangle us from a tradition na hindi perfect but already has a self-critical mechanism.

Anti-Duterte Intellectuals' Meltdown || John Pesebre

(Credits)

Nang manalo si Duterte at nagkaroon ng malaking following si Mocha Uson, may tumipak sa realidad ng public discourse -- eto yung bukod sa nawala na ang kapangyarihan sa mga intellectual elites ang pag create (or manufacture) ng narrrative, they are also running the show on the periphery.

Kumbaga yung mga nasa hegemonic status dati, nasa periphery na. Na subvert.

At mukhang ngayon nangangapa pa rin sila sa kung saan sila magsisimula ng phenomenolohiya nila. Gusto nilang mag analyze ng consciousness ng ibang tao, kasi tila yata hindi nila alam kung paano nila ia-analyze ang consciousness nila.

So heto ngayon ang application nyan:

1) when they engage yung katunggali nila, sasabihin nila na mga "baliw," "dutertards," "brain damage." Yan ang analysis nila malimit. Tandaan ninyo ha, mga intellectuals yan.

2) dahil ayaw nilang i-subject ang consciousness nila kasi nga nakakahiya kasi intellectuals sila na natalo, they will stick with their old post-EDSA tactic of upholing their moral uprightness and intellectual virtues. Tulad ni Randy David at mga Inquirer opinion makers, ang reference na naman ay yung Martial Law. na istak na ang taktika doon kasi nga akala nila sila yung nagpanalo doon at yun yung LAURELS nila.

to summarize in one word yung dahilan kung bakit napaka-mediocre ng diskurso nila: NAWALAN NA SILA NG KAPANGYARIHAN TO CONTROL NARRATIVES.

Apologetics as intellectual virtue || John Pesebre

(Credit)

If apologetics is a branch of theology, then Wollebius is on point --

Theology consist of both contemplation and action. It is both wisdom and prudence; wisdom in that it apprehends principles through divinely illumined intelligence and reaches conclusions from them through knowledge; and prudence, in that it guides the human soul in its actions.*

All too often IMHO Christians think that apologetics rests solely as a theoretical discipline and should just stay there. From time to time we see that apologia, if we follow the direction of Aristotle's categories of intellectual virtues, journeys from "theoria" to "phronesis" (practical wisdom) as is the case in 1 Peter 3:15.

If I were to write a manifesto on apologetics for the Philippine evangelicalism I will emphasise that with apologetics you weave a life that insists on a human trait that is not only necessary for right thinking but for right action.

-------------
* Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae_, Reformed Dogmatics, 8

Without any cheering support from the blood of Christ: On spiritual self-flagellation || John Pesebre

(Credit)

Oh God of unsearchable riches,

Before thee I am nothing but vanity, iniquity, perishing;

Sin has forfeited thy favour,

stripped me of thy image,

banished me from thy presence,

expos. ed me to the curse of thy law.

From the Valley of Vision

A Christian's very being is found in the Being of God. Such realization is not a realization of utility, but of necessity. Holiness also has a being rooted in that identity; when we sin, our holiness creates an incidence in our consciousness as we reflect on our being because that sin is incidental to our actions -- it is directly connected. My identity is directly connected to that sin but I must alienate myself from it through the grace of repentance that God mercifully given as a spiritual duty that will alienate myself from that sin. Without this grace of repentance, we will take matters into our own hands. Without the grace of repentance we will meander to "worldly sorrow [that] brings death" (2 Cor. 7:10)

Why do we have remove ourself from this sin?

Because sin attempts to be an autonomous theory of identity for you. It puts itself into your narrative, to create an estrangement from your real identity in God. The Psalmist cries out to be estrangemed from this sin,

Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD. Lord, hear my voice let thine ears by attentive to the voice of my supplications. (Psalm 130:1, 2)

John Owen reflects on this verse saying,

The moral use of the word, as expressing the state and condition of the souls of men, is metaphorical. These depths, then, are difficulties, or pressures, attended with fear, horror, danger, and trouble.

Our initial impulse in this estrangement is to get rid of it, just as we would get rid of a tumor. But we get rid of it with a feeling of shame, guilt and self-loathing. This might be what you will expect a true believer to do: to rend his heart and not his garments (Joel 2:13) -- a picture of tingling pain that sin creates. We expend all our efforts to rid oursves of it. Being destitute of the Gospel, we will self-flagellate.

Owen puts it this way, "[The soul] plunges itself into the curse of the law and flames of hell, without any cheering support from the blood of Christ."

Thus for our succour, we continue with the prophet Joel and read the entire verse --

Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.

A Christian might self-flagellate himself after sin because sin has exposed him to the curse of the law and would like to forge a debilitating sense of estrangement and separation from the shame and emptiness of that sin. It is at this point that sin secures us in its grip. It is a consciousness destitute of the grace of God in forgiveness and mercy.

"Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." Hebrews 4:1

---------------
Suggested Puritan reading
John Owen, The Soul in the Depths of Sin
Ralph Venning's The Sinfulness of Sin

Death penalty in current Philippine discussions || John Pesebre

One of the ways the the democratic discourse takes an unfortunate turn is when those against the death penalty characterize those who are in favor as idiots and blood thirsty orcs from Lord of the Rings. I have seen a number of this social rhetoric in social media and heard a few conversations.

This statement quoted above from the book Is Death Penalty Just? by Carla Mooney gives you an idea that your pro-death-penalty opponents are also after justice and an efficient justice system in the country.

It is all too common in democratic discourse dito sa Pinas to see people present CHARACTERIZATIONS rather than ARGUMENTS. You characterize when you just portray a dissenting view (and oftentimes dismiss him/her as lacking intellectual virtue); you argue when you present conclusions based on premises.

The great French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne said,

I find I am much prouder of the victory I obtain over myself, when, in the very ardor of dispute, I make myself submit to my adversary’s force of reason, than I am pleased with the victory I obtain over him through his weakness.

I do not for a moment affirm that there are no trolls and irritants. Of course there are. However, I hope it is not the case that we imbibe the vices of our opponents and then start a domino effect -- displaying our rage as the end-all-be-all of our existence for people to see despite the presence of competent counter-argument.

The award-winning American writer Neil Stephenson, author of the critically acclaimed novel Cryptonomicon where he humors us with this,

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.

John Hendryx on the affections || John Pesebre

Sheep following their shepherd. (Credit)

True religion consists, in large part, in the affections ... and this begins with the initial step of saving faith all the way through to final perseverance. But how can the natural man, who "loves darkness" (John 3:19), work up any affections or desire for God? or apprehend His beauty and excellence? We know that human reasoning is never free from the effects of sin, and that people deny God, not because they lack evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious. So the unbelievers' problem is ethical first and then intellectual and thus he/she requires a supernatural work of God to understand and apprehend spiritual truth as revealed in Scripture. Those who know facts, therefore, are not the same as those who forsake sin and come to love God. We must therefore appeal to the entire person and not merely their intellect. God is hidden from man because he loves sin and remains in hostile rebellion against God. This antagonism for the gospel is seated in the affections, not because we lack data or are not smart enough. So we appeal to the heart because God is not just a precept or an axiom as found in mathematics. To come to faith in Christ one must first desire Christ, perceive and take delight in His unmatched beauty, and have a love for Him that is greater than a love of sin. Faith will never "just happen' out of thin air but actually requires that we desire Him, for we only choose that which we most desire. But to be sure, the Scriptures teach that these holy affections are not produced by our unregenerate human nature (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14). And since the root of faith cannot be indifferent or neutral, a full orbed gospel is not merely a list of impersonal propositions for our intellectual assent, but it is proclaiming the full person of Christ in His love for sinners shown in His life, death and resurrection. Words are not enough, however, to persuade those bent on rebellion because spiritual knowledge, which is relational, requires a new sense of God's unsurpassed excellence ... and this is possessed only by the regenerate. Paul, when speaking to the Thessalonians makes this clear when he says, "for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction..." (1 Thess 1:5).

The propositions, Christ is Lord and Christ is Savior are obviously understood intellectually by anyone who reads or hears Scripture. The words are written down on the page of the Bible making it an item of knowledge that is objective. But this knowledge would appear to lack an affective element wherein the subject reading the text actually takes delight in or desires it. So true spiritual knowledge only comes as the truth is desired by the subject, a knowledge which subjectively participates in the truth of the propositions and Person of Christ presented. This means illumination and regeneration are required, because prior to conversion a person is incapable of perceiving spiritual knowledge (1 Cor 2:14, 1 John 4:2, 14, 5:20). Instead, humanity willfully attempts to suppress and pervert true knowledge (Romans 1:18). Thus we can see there is no lack of capacity to believe, nor are humans intellectually ignorant, rather it is because sinful rebellion rules their hearts that men refuse to believe. So the difference between the regenerate and unregenerate is the relationship each has with the Holy Spirit. Both know God, one as an enemy and the other as friend ... and only the Spirit can confer spiritual knowledge which the subject delights in. This knowledge is found in the Word of God but is only apprehended through the regenerative work of Holy Spirit. Hence spiritual knowledge is communicated by the Spirit via revelation which is the only way one can be enabled to see the beauty, harmony, truth and excellence of the Scriptural Text. John Calvin, describing this spiritual work said,

"Indeed the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect... Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it." (Calvin's Institutes 3.2.34.)

Taken from "Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology."

Ate Jojie's prayers for me, Prayer 2 || John Pesebre

(Credit)

NOTE: Ate Jojie Miranda, a cancer survivor sends me these very nice prayers every week. These are just beautiful prayers from a heart consumed by trust and adoration in God. I come back to these prayers from time to time and remember the spiritual struggles and joys of my life when I received them.

Smiling Saturday to you!

The majestic grace of our Father God be upon you and your family with the joy of Jesus our Lord! Amen!

May our Lord Jesus raise you up today with His mighty arms and bless you with strength to begin and finish your day in victory!

I pray that your heart be energized with His assuring grace, embracing you with comfort and mercy.

I pray that your needs ne met today and that our God give you more so you could share to others!

I ask that our Jehovah Rophi heal you and your whole family from all kinds of sicknesses, in Jesus's name.

I speak blessings and favours cover you and your family, and our God be glorified in you all.

With gratefulness I pray these for you in the name of *JESUS CHRIST OUR EVER FAITHFUL SAVIOUR AND LORD!* Amen!

Grow and glow, & go...
read *Psalm 86*

Verse for you: v.13
"For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol."

Ate Jojie's prayers for me, Prayer 1 || John Pesebre

(Credit)

NOTE: Ate Jojie Miranda, a cancer survivor sends me these very nice prayers every week. These are just beautiful prayers from a heart consumed by trust and adoration in God. I come back to these prayers from time to time and remember the spiritual struggles and joys of my life when I received them.

Inspiring Tuesday to you!

Jesus loves you more than you can ever know!  His grace flows to you like His anointing oil, His compassion for you covers you like the morning due over the mountains!

I lift you up to our Abba God and your family today that His grace inspire you to conquer and receive your rewards today!
I pray that the Holy Spirit fill your heart with His wisdom to lead you and guide you to happiness,  success, and significance! Hallelujah!

May each person in your home be completely healed and be favoured in God's eyes.

I pray that you dance in your love for God and you sing Him praises of how much faithful He is to you!

Shout victory over yourself! Declare life over your body! Command power over your heart and mind in Jesus' name!
I claim this verse for you in Exodus 33:17 - *And the Lord said to (you), “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”*

I pray that the Holy Spirit wash you with His pure water and you rise above brightly shining His glory in Jesus' name!

I pray these for you in great expectations in the name of *JESUS CHRIST OUR GOOD AND GENEROUS LORD!* Amen!
Read and bask in *Psalm 2*

Verse for you: v.8 *Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.*

Three levels of interaction between science and philosophy || Mariano Artigas

(Credit)

The question about the intelligibility of science can be partly translated into the question about the impact of science on philosophy. Indeed, empirical science aims to provide a knowledge which can be submitted to empirical control, and philosophy deals with problems about meaning and intelligibility; therefore, we will obtain a good insight into the intelligibility of science if we determine which is the impact, if any at all, that scientific knowledge has on philosophical matters.

Empirical science consists of three inter-related levels: it is a human enterprise directed towards well defined goals; it employs some characteristic methods in order to achieve these goals; and it produces results that are the objective contents of scientific knowledge. I will consider the impact of science on philosophy in these three levels, that roughly correspond to anthropology (goals), ontology (contents) and epistemology (methods). I will argue that, in each level, science is grounded on some philosophical presuppositions and that, in its turn, has a feedback on them, so that it retro-justifies, refines and enlarges them.

Presuppositions in empirical science can be scientific, if they belong to a discipline and are used as a presupposition of another one, or philosophical, if they are considered as a basis of the entire scientific enterprise. *(1) I will focus on the second kind. Furthermore, it should be noted that a philosophical presupposition is not a part of the concrete scientific knowledge as it is expressed in an explicit way; therefore the study of such presuppositions is a philosophical task. We can consider them as conditions that are necessary for the possibility of the scientific activity as such, although they can be ignored by particular scientists. The judgement about their scientific retro-justification, refinement and enlargement obviously requires philosophical insight.

There are general and particular presuppositions in science. Particular or specific presuppositions are, for instance, those related with the use of instruments, the choice of languages, or the frameworks and models of a theory. I will focus on general presuppositions, which are involved in the entire scientific enterprise and are rooted on ordinary and philosophical knowledge. *(2) And I will concentrate on those presuppositions that serve to show that scientific progress provides a hindsight about knowledge and truth (epistemological level), nature and natural order (ontological level), and human activity (anthropological level).

CONTINUE READING BY CLICKING HERE

The outcast: epilogue to Sibbes' Bruised Reed

(Credit)

Some of us don't get far
Coz we just get tired;
But we don't coz we can't.
We are not big trees;
We are seeds
Stuck in a plaid of earth
With no grand tales,
Seem cursed and wan.
And as the great oaks
Ache to touch the sky,
We seeds stretch to tear
Our skin and bleed
For the first leaf to sprout
Weak and pale to look up,
To start a life of grief
and of pain and then

Gain.

We go on and do great things
With the li'l that we have.

Being towards hope || John Pesebre

[J]ust as Christian came up with the Cross, 

his Burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back

Dear Christian, guard your affections from the enticement and snare of sin by your vigorous and lively desire for God.

* * *

Dear Christian

A new Christian believer received the actualization of the election of God as Christ let's you share in His inheritance from the Father. It is a long journey from the covenant of redemption to the application of justification to his poor wretched soul.

It is a new beginning not only because he is now conscious of the balm of mercy poured out for him, but also and most importantly, because he now realizes that his real beginning started not on his throwness into this world but by the covenant of Jesus' thrownness into this world in the pactum salutis.

Indeed, a new Christian believer is someone who has found a new beginning. How he found that new beginning is a work of grace, through the ministration of the Holy Spirit. In this new beginning he has a new sense of personhood who understands that his life has changed since he believed the gospel. He knows that he is in a new faith. He understands the brevity of his life but has that reflection with a sanctified consciousness. He still recognizes the voices of people, but now has an ear for the voice of God. He leaves people's chatter which he previously pursued vigorously, only to find himself in the private room of prayer and spiritual meditation. He is a new being.

He also discovers that he is towards something. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for" as the writer of Hebrews puts it. There is a new kind of He sees a new emplotment for his life. An emplotment is "[t]he assembly of a series of historical events into a narrative with a plot."

This new knowledge brought about by his faith, builds itself up towards a moral-practical knowledge structure. Christians oftentimes talk about word and deed, or walk the talk. It's the James 1:22 admoniition, "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only."

But the Christian not only has a new direction, this new direction has a consummation, or what John Owen calls as gospel hope which can "no longer rise any further." This gospel hope is eschatological as Owen explains,

The especial object of hope is eternal glory (Col 1:27; Rom 5:2). The peculiar use of it is to support, comfort, and refresh the soul in all trials, under all weariness and despondencies, with a firm expectation of a speedy entrance into that glory, with an earnest desire after it. Wherefore, unless we acquaint ourselves by continual meditation with the reality and nature of this glory, it is impossible it should be the object of a vigorous, active hope, such as whereby the apostle says “we are saved.” Without this we can neither have that evidence of eternal things, nor that valuation of them, nor that preparedness in our minds for them, as should keep us in the exercise of gracious hope about them.

And as such our consciousness of our true eternal beginning, our thrownness into this world, the trajectory of our journey, out mettle as we our confronted with our death and our eternal glory all because of the Grace of God proves that our very being we owe to God who deserves our glory. As such, our consciousness should continue to be towards the celebration in our minds about these things. It is to this the Puritan Thomas Watson gloriously put it,

They have married into the crown of heaven, and by virtue of the conjugal union all Christ's riches go to believers: "communion is founded in union." Christ communicates his graces (John 1:16 ). As long as Christ has them, believers shall not be in want. And he communicates his privileges - justification, glorification. He settles a kingdom on his spouse as her inheritance (Heb. 12:28). This is a key to the apostle's riddle, "as having nothing, and yet possessing all things" (2 Cor. 6:10). By virtue of the marriage union, the saints have an interest in all Christ's riches. [here]

And so dear Christian, it is no wonder that the enemy of our souls would want us to denounce these gems in place of dung so that Satan can make a mockery not only of you but of God.

It is to our joy however that Benevolent Grace carries out His Goodness far above the actings of Satan. The very reverend Richard Sibbes puts it this way,

See the gracious way he executes his offices. As a prophet, he came with blessing in his mouth, `Blessed are the poor in spirit' (Matt. 5:3), and invited those to come to him . . . `Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden' (Matt. 11:28) . . . He is a meek king; he will admit mourners into his presence, a king of poor and afflicted persons. As he has beams of majesty, so he has a heart of mercy and compassion. He is the prince of peace (Isa. 9:6). Why was he tempted, but that he might `succor them that are tempted' (Heb. 2:18)? What mercy may we not expect from so gracious a Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) who took our nature upon him that he might be gracious? He is a physician good at all diseases, especially at the binding up of a broken heart. He died that he might heal our souls with a plaster of his own blood, and by that death save us, which we were the procurers of ourselves, by our own sins . . . The lion of the tribe of Judah will only tear in pieces those that `will not have him rule over them' (Luke 19:14). He will not show his strength against those who prostrate themselves before him.

Such is framed the hope of our lives in the midst of Satan's desire to lay us bare.

Yet in Psalm 141:8 we see a different picture in the laying bare of God's children. The Psalmist was to God not to intervene but to stop. The Hebrew word for destitution which means "to lay bare" a euphemism for strip naked, is the word te'ar which is not in its ordinary verb stem the Qal, but is in its intensive stem the Piel. In Filipino, it would be the difference between, pinakitanggal ng damit at hinablot ang damit na namy nuance of wrath. One would arguable be correct to transliterate this as, "Wag niyo na pong hubaran palagi ang kaluluwa ko." God is sovereign.

Richard Sibbes, talks about this divine action of nakedness with a trope of "bruising,"

The bruised reed is a man that for the most part is in some misery, as those were that came to Christ for help, and by misery he is brought to see sin as the cause of it, for, whatever pretences sin makes, they come to an end when we are bruised and broken. [here]

LORD OF ALL BEING, There is one thing that deserves my greatest care,that calls forth my ardent desires,That is, that I may answer the great end for whichI am made —to glorify thee who hast given me being.

The Puritans and spiritualizing farming || John Pesebre

I am farm-sensitive because I come from a family of farmers. I grew up in a farming community.

When I started reading the Puritans I immediately noticed that they were acquainted with farming. I realized after a little research that I shouldn't be surprised because the English Puritans lived through what is now called Agricultural Revolution in England from 1500 to 1850.

In those days, I think they called farming as "husbandry". John Flavel has a treatise called Husbandry Spiritualized (or, The Heavenly Use of Earthly Things).

The farming illustrations were not to be treated as trivial for we find these tropes in their finest pastoral teachings.

For us today, the farming tropes gives us visual illustrations for how we should conceive our journey of faith.

For lack of time, I'll just give quotations on three farming ideas: seed, soil and farmer.

1. Growth and the seed metaphor
Some of the Puritans use the concept of “seeds.” They would talk about “seeds” in many ways but the notion that they oftentimes present is the idea of growth.

John Owen for example,

The work of holiness, in its beginning, is but like seed cast into the earth,—namely, the seed of God, whereby we are born again. And it is known how seed that is cast into the earth doth grow and increase. Being variously cherished and nourished, it is in its nature to take root and to spring up, bringing forth fruit. So is it with the principle of grace and holiness. It is small at first, but being received in good and honest hearts, made so by the Spirit of God, and there nourished and cherished, it takes root and brings forth fruit. And both these, even the first planting and the increase of it, are equally from God by his Spirit. "He that begins this good work doth also perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," Phil, i, 6. (Vol 3, 386)

Thomas Watson,

The saints' comforts may be hidden like seed under ground, but the seed is ripening, and will increase, and flourish into a crop. (Divine Cordial) 

"Truth has noble effects. Truth is the seed of the new birth.” (Divine Cordial)

"Sanctification is the first fruit of the Spirit; it is heaven begun in the soul. Sanctification and glory differ only in degree: sanctification is glory in the seed, and glory is sanctification in the flower. Holiness is the quintessence of happiness." (Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity)

John Flavel,

Should the husbandman plow his ground ever so often, yet if the seed be not cast in, and quickened, in vain is the harvest expected. Thus conviction also is but a preparative to a farther work upon the soul of a sinner ; if it stick there, and goes no farther, it proves but an abortive, or untimely birth. Many have gone thus far, and there they have stuck ; they have been like a field plowed, but not sowed, which is a matter of trembling consideration ; for hereby their sin is greatly aggravated, and their eternal misery so much the more increased.” Volume 5, 69. 

See Valley of Vision tweet.
2. Soil and the condition of sinfulness
The introduction of the soil is also crucial. But this soil is where the problem lies. John Bunyan,

The heart of a Christian is naturally very barren; upon which, though the seed of grace (that is, the fruitliest of all seeds) be sown, yet the yeart is naturally subject to bring forth weeds. . . [T]he seed of faith is a very fruitful seed, in that it will be fruitful in so barren a soil. That faith is not beholden to the heart but the heart to it, for all its fruitfulness. That there the way to be a more fruitful Christin, is to be stronger in believing.

3. Husbandman and the gentle care of God

In his commentary to 1 Peter, Robert Leighton presents to us the role of a husbandman as soon as the seed sprouts to become a young tender plant,

The grace of God in the heart of man is a tender plant in a strange unkindly soil; and therefore cannot well prosper and grow, without much care and pains, and that of a skilful hand, and one who has the art of cherishing it: for this reason God has given the constant ministry of the word to His Church, not only for the first work of conversion, but also for confirming and increasing His grace in the hearts of His children.

This blog is a research blog, and probably you can help me. If you happen to chance upon any agricultural reference that is spiritualized by the Puritans, kindly post it in the comment section with the appropriate citations.

#neighborology's critique of the instrumentalization of God & reason || John Pesebre

My goal here is to present a probable genealogy ng kaisipan ng #neighborology.

Isa sa mga pinag uugatan ng complaints ng  #neighborology is the instrumentalization of God & reason. You have to read "instrumentalization" sa context ng critique nila sa modernity kung saan ang reason ay ginagamit sa pag-mechanize at -calculate ng total reality. Ginagamit lang daw natin ang diskurso natin about God for our desired goals. In a way it indicts many with idolatry. Again ka partner nyang instrumentalization critique na yan sa idea ng #neighborology sa Modernity.

May hibla yan ng rationalization hypothesis ni Max Weber, na habang lalong nagiging modern ang societies, halos lahat daw magiging sukat na sukat na. Kumbaga everything will be mechanized and calculated; at reason ang ating instrumento. Yan ang yeast of Modernity sa Christianity. Yang instrumentality na yan ay motivated palagi papunta sa desired goals.

Yung Marxist na si Max Horkheimer may critique sa instrumentality ng reason na interesado lang daw tayo sa mga capitalist societies sa means papunta sa goals rather than prioritize na pag isipan kung ano yung end ba na yon na gusto nating puntahan. This is one of the ways para maintindihan natin ang mga nag-iisip na Kaliwa.

Si Heidegger sa kanyang mga panulat discussing metaphysics and ontotheology may suggestion na rather than mag ipon ng mga instrumentalization ng being (or Being), is dapat daw we must just let beings be -- wag daw natin laging isipin na pundasyon ng ating existence ay para sa utility natin.

Ang culprit ni Heidegger ay theology. Pumasok daw tayo diyan at hindi na tayo makalabas. Ang gusto ni Heidegger is "step back, back out of metaphysics into the active essence of metaphysics" (Identity and Difference). Kumbaga, ang theology ay nang hostage ng metaphysics at yan na ngayon ang instrumento ng Christianity sa kanyang will to power. (Oo, everything goes back to Nietzsche palagi. LOL).

Yan ang sa tingin ko ang provenance ng ideas ng #neighborology.

Kaya naman, among the many unsurprising attitudes ng mga #neighborologists dito sa Pinas ay yung disdain nila for dogma, creeds and confessions. May disdain din sila sa idea na ang mga Christians nagku consolidate ng power sa mga "beings" at instrumentalizations na yan. Example nyang disdain na yan ay etong FB post (Public) ng isang Fil-Chinese na lawyer,

"When we force people especially the poor to become orthodox, to be fully conformed to our doctrinal self-identity (Baptist, Reformed, Pentecostal, etc.), we actually end up enslaving them and promoting in them a legalistic Christianity concerned only with doing what is right instead of doing the right thing."

Heidegger's basic belief and foundation of his knowledge is secular

It seems alluring but it does not square off with epistemology and worldview of Christianity, for although Heidegger grants an agnostic view on the ground of metaphysics, Christianity asserts that God is.

Moreover, isn't yung pag "step back" nya forms a new instrumentalization din? Kaya siguro nya nasabi na "stand it" kasi tayong nag-stand it, ay nakatayo pa rin sa instrumentalization ng metaphysics ng theology.

Siguro what he wants to do is to allow for metaphysical thinking to the deist or outside of theology. In a way, the agnosticism in noumena. Metaphysics without God. Nietzsche.

Reflexivity of Creator/Creature intrumentalization

Are you in the habit of using God as an instrumentalization ng aking mga aspirations sa buhay?

I could grant #neighborology to start from this critique pero, that does not mean I can no longer present a defeater -- a more coherent knowledge.

Does that mean I am dismissing it's intellectual virtue? No. Para nga sa akin maganda na malaman ko ang place ko talaga dito sa Creator/Creature distinction na ito. Na kapag ako'y gagawa ng sermon, o panulat, o makiki-engage ako sa apologetics, I do not use God as an instrument lang to prove my point. Instead God is using me as an instrument to prove His point.

In a way reflexive ang instrumentalization.

God uses me as an instrument to achieve His desired ends.
I am using God as my instrument to give meaning sa aking mga existential questions, kasi kung wala yon.

Appendix:

Raineer Chu's FB post dated 11.27.2016

What is wrong with evangelical theology today?

Theology is always time bound but the desire for orthodoxy often leads it towards the other direction, to make it timeless.
Theology is never absolute in the sense that it answers only to a specific crisis or contemporary issue. It is not absolute because it is not the entire word of God for all times for all situations. It is just one specific response of the church addressing a time bound problem.

The examples to show these are the problems regarding the role of women, the humanity and divinity of Christ, slavery, speaking in tongues, the inerrancy of Scripture, salvation by grace, tribulation and pre-tribulation, etc. In the matter of the reliability of Scripture, the response of the church was a narrow but precise voice into the chaos brought about by the cynicism of two world wars. But it is too narrow to become our comprehensive orthodoxy on the matter. The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture must be held together with the other tenets of Scripture, to give it a holistic form, to make it an honest attempt at representing who God is.

But even orthodoxy that wants to become comprehensive ends up becoming a tool for mastery and control instead of a tool for freedom and illumination. People who want to be baptized or become ordained have to jump through many hoops in order to be certified. This becomes glaringly painful when we live among the poor. Ninety percent of the church belongs to the poor and an emphasis on mastery and control creates a default in favor of the rich and educated. The spirituality of the poor immediately become second-class or inferior despite that God said the poor are rich in faith.

Orthodoxy in general is conformity to stated standards and tenets of a particular denomination. If you want to be a truly Reformed Christian, you need to be able to not just publicly adhere to Reformed doctrines but also name all the important ones (even explain them since often they are quite complex).

In the long debate against liberation theology, the evangelicals were able to debunk liberation theology and showed it to be completely NOT Biblical. But though we won the debate, we actually lost the war. Liberation theology is really Marxism (violent revolution) in the garb of Christianity. It was the anguished heave of a Greek God long imprisoned in Hades (Kronos). Liberation theology became popular because the church was no longer taking care of the poor, the ninety percent of the church. Yes, we debunked liberation theology but the question remains. What is our response to the fact that 10% of the people of the world own 90% of the wealth of the world? Any theology that is not concerned with that will expect another anguish heave from Hades.

Even systematic theology is ideological. No one is neutral when it comes to ideology. Either one is promoting capitalism with all is appurtenant virtues or a form of socialism. Even our silence is already a vote for the dominant or default ideology. When we trash liberation theology, the default favored capitalism.

It’s like a lawsuit between brothers over a family ancestral home. One brother occupies the house and the other does not. For so long as the lawsuit persists, the brother occupying the house gets to use the house and enjoy it. This is what is going on in the default. The 10% pro capitalist is using and enjoying the house, the status quo. The status quo is comprised of the laws, structures, policies, values that promote and protect the wealth and power of the dominant class.

Theology that does not know how to exegete the world (also the self and the Word) is prone to being blind to its own ideological biases. When we exegete the world we quickly realize that the world has indeed molded the Word and the church despite the injunction not to be conformed to the world. Christianity is mainly a white American capitalist religion aggressively promoted by Hollywood and Wall Street.

Capitalism promotes individualism, which discourages community (the biggest social capital of the poor). The way we disciple is also individualistic including the way we read the Bible. Capitalism today is also dualistic and secular, dividing the spirit and the body. At no time in history has the world been more dehumanized, creating not just a huge disconnect between body, soul, heart and mind but also its social disconnect, an isolation from one another. And ironically this isolation grows despite globalization, which has succeeded to shrink the world to a tiny village through the Internet. Virtual intimacy has fully replaced true intimacy and in the midst of prosperity suicide, addiction and divorce increase.

Our gospel has become reductionist, “just believe in Jesus.” We think we are evangelizing people but we are really making them more American than Christian (more individualistic, more materialistic, more isolated, more secular). Our Christianity is officially and legally divorced from public life (the separation of church and state). America is the most persecuted nation in the world but it does not know it. Because of lawsuits, the church has been tamed or co-opted. It no longer speaks into the crisis of the times for fear of becoming bankrupt and then the need to close shop.

The role of the 10% is not to say to the 90% that the latter are wrong but to arm the latter with tools to analyze current theology, to be able to critique the status quo, and give the latter language and arguments and abilities to be able to overcome this oppressive default in order to promote a theology that is more biblical than what it is today. The 10% in the upper class needs to lose the war because they rest on top of an indecent structure of wealth distribution. Their work is to constantly make explicit their ideological biases, explain them and make them plain when they teach.

When we force people especially the poor to become orthodox, to be fully conformed to our doctrinal self-identity (Baptist, Reformed, Pentecostal, etc.), we actually end up enslaving them and promoting in them a legalistic Christianity concerned only with doing what is right instead of doing the right thing. Doing what is right is prescribed by tradition while doing the right thing responds to the call of God to us a the time, at the moment, in the kairos moment. We are then more concerned with conformity rather than making a prophetic voice into the world (Thus Says The Lord). We are then more pressed with the desire to preserve our identities and traditions than to make the church a living witness responding to current crises in the world outside.

Introduction to the QBA, Part 2: Schema || John Pesebre

The Question Based Approach (QBA) is an expository homiletical schema developed by the late great Rev. Dr. Cornelio "Doy" Castillo, ThD (henceforth, Pastor Doy or affectionatlely "n/yung Matanda")

To understand what Pastor Doy means by QBA, kailangan nating maunawaan how he understands the concepts of homiletics and schema. Please take note that this is an attempt on my part. If any of you are fellow students nung Matanda or a member of Bread form Heaven (where he pastored for a good part of his life) and you have a firmer grasp how he understood "homiletics" or "schema" kindly inform me.

To read Part 1 - Introduction to the QBA Sermon: Homiletics, click here.

Schema and its conversational, rhetorical nature
The word "schema" on the other hand is a diagram or a plan or "an underlying organizational pattern or structure; conceptual framework." To tell you the truth, this is what drew me papunta sa QBA ni Pastor Doy.

Maaari itong maging proseso ng pagpapasunud-sunod, subalit ang pinakamahalaga na ideya sa schema is that at one point you will arrive at an ogranizing principle, the things that holds everything together.

Ganyan ang schema. Hindi siya organized lang, but organized towards an output. Ang schematic output na yan sa QBA is the MTQ or main transition question (will explain this later). We will utilize the word schema here sa context ng educational philosophy

Sa schema theory, ang schema is  -

a cohesive, repeatable action sequence possessing component actions that are tightly interconnected and governed by a core meaning

Ang importante na notion ng schema na gusto nating ma highlight dito is one that is related doon ,"core meaning." A preacher can be plagued by a directionless sermon maski pa marami itong information. For Pastor Doy, this can be solved by his QBA schema most especially the role of the MTQ as a governing concept. He will not try to launch into a sermon and try to weave a unifying idea in the end. What he does is right at the very beginning he will present you with a governing question that will secure the deliverance of the sermon as tightly interconnected.

Hence, the name Question Based Approach.

Ang advance organizer niya para sa sermon is the "question." Notice the adjective "transition". The word refers to the transition from the introduction to the body of the sermon. The transition is a bridge to universal-to-specific movement. Ang MTQ collapses the big concepts to manageable idea that will be given warrant of rationality sa body ng sermon kasi the body answers the question of the MTQ.

This helps the listener follow the sermon in a rational fashion. Ang gusto nating sabihin ng rational dito is merely the use of reason. And when we talk about the use of reason, isang notion diyan na naka emphasize sa isang QBA sermon is kabit-kabit ang mga ideya na iyong binabahagi at may causation. When we say causation is yung mga idea mo na tinagaguyod ay suportado ng mga tamang pundasyon.

All in all remember that the sermon is "conversational, rhetorical" kaya mataas ang premium understanding na may kausap ka (conversational) at kukumbinsihin mo sila (rhetorical).

This blog in a nutshel is what we mean when we say that the QBA is a homiletical schema.

#neighborology's pretentious characterization of modernity || John Pesebre

Sa mga nakiki-postmodern ngayon, to give critique on modernity na meron daw "pretense to have objectively grasped a total reality" actually does more to reveal naivette rather than wisdom since it is also making a "pretense to have objectively grasped" modernity's claim that it has grasped total reality when, in fact, modernity does not claim that at all.

Modern science which is a legitimate child of modernity does not claim to have objectively grasped reality. Mathematics does NOT -- yung "theory of everything" hindi pa rin nakakarating doon kasi ang quantum mechanics is a very stubborn field. No one in any field of science, philosophy, mathematics within the orbit of modernity has any legit claim concerning all of reality "Eureka!"

Even sa Christianity wala din (Mukhang yun lang naman ang gustong targetin ng #neighborology kasi mukhang gustong mag consolidate ng characterization ng Christianity on his nebulous pronouncements). Christianity since Athanasius' inscrutable God never claimed to have figure it out. Even yung dalawang tipo ng knowledge: "analogical" kay Aquinas at "univocity" kay Duns Scotus, wala kang mababanaag na ganitong pronouncement. Sa Protestantism with its archetypal at ectypal distinction, wala din. So kumbaga kung etong "pretense" na ito ay indictment sa Christianity, wala tayong provenance, or archaeology, or genealogy to justify that this is a stable intellectual formula.

Kumbaga yung allegation na "pretense' is merely a characterization at hindi argument.

So why do we have people assert and proclaim this false notion na "The Modernist pretense to have objectively grasped a total reality invariably results in a totalitarian social practice" sa Christianity at modernity?

Why?

The answer, should #neighborology respond, I would assume would be again as foggy as sulphuric haze in Mordor.

The flower of life that grows out of the hard soil of sorrowing over sin || John Pesebre

Many years ago, King George VI of England addressed the British commonwealth on New Year’s Eve at a moment in history when the whole world stood on the brink of uncertainty. Despondency and uncertainty filled the air. The king’s own body was racked by cancer. Before that year was over, his life ended.

Unaware of his own physical maladies, he uttered these memorable words:

I said to the man at the gate of the year, "Give me a light that I might walk safely into the unknown.’ And he said to me, ’Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the hand of God. It shall be to you safer than the light and better than the known."*

When true believers sorrow for their sin, the biblical description is not very amusing. Without proper teaching, one might think that the Bible is all for despondency. Despondency means your spirit hits rock-bottom because you just simply lost hope and courage to move on. It is true that God wants us to walk through the valley of this shadow of death, much like King George VI above. But God's action is always gracious to His children. This grace gives breath when we are choking in darkness. It is the same grace that means life is up ahead.

It is how it is when God tutors you to godly sorrow.

The Puritan Thomas Watson gives us Scriptural gems to reflect about sorrow for sin --

[I]t is a holy agony. It is called in scripture a breaking of the heart: "The sacrifices of God are a broken and a contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17); and a rending of the heart: "Rend your heart" (Joel 2:13). The expressions of smiting on the thigh (Jer. 31:19), beating on the breast (Luke 18:13), putting on of sackcloth (Isaiah 22:12), plucking off the hair (Ezra 9:3), all these are but outward signs of inward sorrow. †

This however must not be the end-all-be-all of sorrow. Paul says, "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Sorrow for sin is a doorway to healing. When one is broken, one has to be made whole. Psychology Today chimes in,

The word ‘healing' can be taken to mean, 'Making whole again'; and, to be wounded and made whole again, in addition to restoration, usually means growth.‡

This hope or anticipation of healing in times of sorrow must be a natural flow of the heart for a believer -- just as a river would fight its way to the sea despite the many obstacles it faces along the way. A believer yearns for the Sea that draws him. God's actions are always gracious to His children, He draws them near -- "surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life" (Psalm 23:6; emphasis added). "The LORD is near to the brokenhearted And saves those who are crushed in spirit." (Psalm 34:18).

The Puritan Robert Leighton puts that Christian hope as a demonstration of wisdom in the believer when he said --

But this is the wisdom of a Christian, when he can solace himself against the meanness and any kind of discomfort of his outward condition, with the comfortable assurance of the love of God, that He has called him to holiness, given him some measure of it, and an endeavor after more; and by this may he conclude, that He has ordained him unto salvation.§ (emphasis added)

Godly sorrow maintains a godly disposition (i.e., "a person's inherent qualities of mind and character). What I mean by "godly disposition" is the kind of sorrow, again, that progresses towards repentance and life --

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret (2 Corinthians 7:10)

The typical Filipino disposition is to stay in sorrow and be despondent. Such is the condition a Christian must truly avoid. There are tears of despondency as well as tears of godly sorrow. If you want to cry or wail over your mistakes, cry na mayroon kang godly sorrow patungo sa repentance at pag asa ng pagliligtas ng Panginoon. Ika nga ng sumulat ng Awit 73

When my heart was grieved
and my spirit embittered,
I was senseless and ignorant;
I was a brute beast before you.
Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.

Watson provides us three anchors to think about sorrow for our sin and how to have thoughts with a godly disposition. He wants us to think about this sorrow so as --

 (1) To make Christ precious. O how desirable is a Savior to a troubled soul! Now Christ is Christ indeed—and mercy is mercy indeed. Until the heart is full of sorrow for sin—it is not fit for Christ. How welcome is a surgeon—to a man who is bleeding from his wounds! 

(2) To drive out sin. Sin breeds sorrow—and sorrow kills sin! Holy sorrow purges out the evil humours of the soul. It is said that the tears of vine-branches are good to cure the leprosy. However that may be, it is certain that the tears which drop from the penitential eye, will cure the leprosy of sin. The saltwater of tears—kills the worm of conscience. 

(3) To make way for solid comfort. "Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy" (Psalm 126:5). The penitent has a wet sowing-time—but a delicious harvest. Repentance breaks the abscess of sin—and then the soul is at ease! Hannah, after weeping, went away and was no longer sad (1 Sam. 1:18). God's troubling of the soul for sin, is like the angel's troubling of the pool (John 5:4), which made way for healing. [emphasis added] ║

The Islamic writer Kahlil Gibran penned these beautiful words in his book The Prophet --

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked. And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears. And how else can it be? The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain. ¶

Sorrow you may, but put your hand into the hand of God.

-------------------
* entire anecdote taken from  Rave Zacharias, "If the Foundations Be Destroyed," Preaching Today, Tape No. 142.

† Thomas Watson, Doctrine of Repentance

‡ Larry Culliford, "Sorrow: A Valuable Emotion," Psychology Today,  accessed at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spiritual-wisdom-secular-times/201201/sorrow-valuable-emotion

§ Robert Leighton, A Practical Commentary upon the First Epistle of Peter

║ Thomas Watson, Doctrine of Repentance

¶ Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

Quotations from Francis Schaeffer's works on the 'final apologetic" || John Pesebre

The phrase "final apologetic" (FA) first appears in Schaeffer books in his 1968 publication The God Who is There. This is Schaeffer's first published book. It fits right in sixth section "Personal and Corporate Living Into the Twentieth-Century Climate" under chapter one, "Demonstrating the Character of God." In this chapter he wants to provide an answer to "the question of a reality which is visible to a watching world."

Here is the pericope of Schaeffer's first ever use in a book of FA.

The world has a right to look upon us and make a judgment. We are told by Jesus that as we love one another the world will judge, not only whether we are His disciples, but whether the Father serent the Son. The final apologetic, along with the rational, logical defense and presentation, is what the world sees in the individual Christian and in our corporate relationships together. The command that we should love one another surely means something much richer than merely organizational relationship. Not that we should minimize proper organizational relationship, but one may look at those bound together in an organized group called a church and see nothing of a substantial healing of the division between people in the present life. (The God Who is There, 161)

The whole idea of the FA is a visible apologetic and one that is characterized by how believers treat each other in front of a watching world.

However, an important and intentional caveat must be emphasized: "First there must be the individual reality, and then the corporate." (162). It has a Weberian social action theory.

FA re-appears again in his 1970 book The Mark of a Christian (you can read the abridged version online here) where Schaeffer devotes one chapter aptly titled "The Final Apologetic."

The following chapter "Honest Answers Observable Love" includes this beautiful paragraph on FA --

Yet, unless true Christians show observable love to each other, Christ says the world cannot be expected to listen, even when we give proper answers. Let us be careful, indeed, to spend a lifetime studying to give honest answers. For years the orthodox, evangelical church has done this very poorly. So it is well to spend time learning to answer the questions of those who are about us. But after we have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives is the observable love of true Christians for true Christians. (176)

Three chapters later, "Visible Love" this is what Schaeffer has to say,

 The world looks, shrugs its shoulders, and turns away. It has not seen even the beginning of a living church in the midst of a dying culture. It has not seen the beginning of what Jesus indicates is the final apologetic — observable oneness among true Christians who are truly brothers in Christ. Our sharp tongues, the lack of love between us — not the necessary statement of differences that may exist between true Christians — these are what properly trouble the world. (183)

Seven chapters later , "Divided but One," he says,

I want to say with all my heart that as we struggle with the proper preaching of the gospel in the midst of the twentieth century, the importance of observable love must come into our message. We must not forget the final apologetic. The world has a right to look upon us as we, as true Christians, come to practical differences, and it should be able to observe that we do love each other. Our love must have a form that the world may observe; it must be visible. (198)

This book Mark of a Christian is Schaeffer's manifesto for FA.

Neighborology and Crizaldo's discontent || John Pesebre

Updated: 11/23/16

The hashtag #neighborology started appearing on my Facebook newsfeed primarily from the posts of a well-known Filipino evangelical author based in the Philippines, Rei Lemuel Crizaldo.

We do not have a systematic presentation of #neighborology yet -- no books, no adequate treatment in a blog -- but reading through writings of Crizaldo in the internet and of his friends who subscribe to this notion of #neighborology, one can at least understand the core idea behind the hashtag.

I see primarily three areas from where it is drawing lifeblood

1. love-thy-neighbor doctrine
2. Brueggemann's "neighborliness"
3. Schaeffer's "final apologetic".

In this blog I will try to give a working definition of #neighbrology based on the conversations of Crizaldo in his blog and his Facebook interactions. This is not yet an exhaustive assessment of his proposal, reason why I want to update this from time to time, although I would like to believe that the key features of #neighborology are already embodied here.

Love-thy-neighbor doctrine
In his blog "Insurrection," Crizaldo explains,

We do not have at all a 'neighborology’ for the doctrine of loving our neighbors and enemies, may they be Samaritan-looking or centurions armed to harm and hurt.*

The "Samaritan" (and the "centurions") allusion references to a structure of animosity between the Jews and the Samaritan. It exemplifies the point of Crizaldo. We will return to this in a little while.

Crizaldo's blog post is a critique of "theologies". He alleges,

The problem with ‘theologies’ as we have them now is that each has a very compartmentalized categories for things that are otherwise deeply related and connected to each other. This is almost like trying to enjoy a glass of milk tea by sipping the tea apart from the milk that comes with it.†

Christian theologies disorientated -- it no longer is a part of a noetic structure. Because of Christianity's

unfortunate preoccupation for the bottomless pit of 'nomenclature’ and creative classifications has caused our minds, with much tragedy, to 'segmentized’ and break things apart‡

Christianity didn't go far enough in "bringing everything in one seamless beautiful whole."

Crizaldo faults these "theologies" why Christian society is characterized by fragmentation and preoccupation with theological nomenclature. It created alienation.

His allusion to the Samaritan is an example of this alienation: Jew vs. Samaritan. The Word in Life Study Bible explains,

Hatred between Jews and Samaritans was fierce and long-standing. In some ways, it dated all the way back to the days of the patriarchs. Jacob (or Israel) had twelve sons, whose descendants became twelve tribes. Joseph, his favorite, was despised by the other brothers (Gen. 37:3-4), and they attempted to do away with him. §

The fragmentation exemplified by the Jews and the Samaritans lies in "theologies." He concludes this blog quite emphatically,

 Lest we conclude things wrongly, it is not that we have theologies that are so good to be true. No, we have theologies that are so damn true to be of any good. The problem of theologies as we have them now is that we have them. And only them. Now. ¶

Crizaldo laments that we live in a society characterized by fragmentation and preoccupation with theological nomenclature. It is not enough that Christians do this, but has to have something that transcends this fragmentation and pre-occupation. One that heals the alienation.

As such you would understand why he would endorse views like these,

When I'm sick, and you bring me a meal, I don't care whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian... What does matter is the way you treat other people." -Stephen Mattson

We are called as Christians not to sign up to a certain doctrinal statement but to follow a certain way of life." -David Congdon and Travis MacMaken, Why Theology Matters

Brueggemann's 'neighborliness'
In his Goodreads page, Crizaldo references Brueggemann's words in a Q & A by OnFaith.com where Brueggemann decried the "deathly social context that’s marked by consumerism and militarism and the loss of the common good." For him, consumerism and militarism cause people

to be very afraid, to regard other people as competitors, or as threats, or as rivals. It causes us to think of the world in very frightened and privatistic forms. #

To correct this problem, he pays homage to the Gospel saying (and Crizaldo quotes this in the Goodreads page),

The gospel at its best has always been a summons to think about how the world can be practiced differently . . . The gospel very much wants us to think in terms of a neighborhood, in terms of being in solidarity with other people, in sharing our resources, and of living out beyond ourselves. The gospel contradicts the dominant values of our system, which encourages self-protection and self-sufficiency at the loss of the common good. The church is in some ways a reflection of those dominant values.**

Communitarian ethic

The gospel as it is suggested here is a type of communitarian ethic that runs against the dominant structures of modern society. Crizaldo's neighborology takes from Brueggemann with FB posts like this:

Charity is not a strategy. Compassion is not a weapon. Nor are acts of love meant to simply win a debate. What the early church did for each other was the living-out of the grace that forms the ethics of Jesus.

The reader would notice a basic understanding of "neighbor" along with Brueggemann's "neighborliness" and Crizaldo's "early church did for each other" is a communitarian ethic.

What I mean by communitarian here is "of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist communities"

What I mean by "ethic" here is a "the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group." Ethics (with an "s") on the other hand is a field of study that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."


Counterculture
Brueggemann's "neighborliness" also has a strong notion as a counterculture which is "a way of life and set of attitudes opposed to or at variance with the prevailing social norm."

Readers should be aware that Brueggemann situates what he calls the "gospel" in the context of a clash between consumerism/militarism and neighborhood solidarity.

These two variables then, ie communitarian ethic and counterculture, are key notions in Crizaldo's neighborology.

Schaeffer's final apologetic

Crizaldo's nuances neighborology also with Schaeffer's "final apologetic" --

what is needed is a generous dose of 'neighborology’ aka the 'final apologetic’ says Francis Schaeffer ††

Crizaldo uses the neighborology here as a corrective for people who are "pre-occupied and mesmerized [in] crafting the 'best’ argument to prove that there is such a super being called God." His blogpost aims to correct what he thinks is a wrong method in apologetics and evangelism. He said

to really win those who are not impressed and are actually hateful already of anything that has to do with Christianity

But what does he mean by Schaeffer's 'final apologetic.'

In a nutshell, the "final apologetic" is "the observable love of true Christians for true Christians."§§

A definition of neighborology
From this tripartite genealogy of Crizaldo's use of neighborology, we can surmise that neighborology characterizes Christianity as --

a counter-cultural, communitarian ethic of the church that prioritizes observable love to neighbors in a Christian society fragmented and preoccupied with theological nomenclature


---------
* Rei Lemuel Crizaldo, "Insurrection," Half Meant, 24 May 2016, accessed on November 23, 2016; accessed at http://xgenesisrei.tumblr.com/post/144884581710/when-fans-of-asgard-prove-god

†Crizaldo, "Insurrection"

‡ Crizaldo, "Insurrection"

§ n.a., The Word in Life Study Bible, New Testament Edition, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; 1993), pp. 340-341

¶ Crizaldo,"Insurrection"

# Walter Brueggemann, “It’s Not a Matter of Obeying the Bible”: 8 Questions for Walter Brueggemann," interview with Marlena Graves, On Faith, accessed on November 23, 2016, accessed at https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2015/01/09/walter-brueggemann-church-gospel-bible/35739

** Brueggemann, "It's Not a Matter..."

†† Crizaldo, "When Fans of Asgard Prove God"

‡‡ Crizaldo, "When Fans of Asgard . . ."

§§ Francis Schaffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, pgs. 164-165