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

Introduction to the QBA Sermon, Part 1: Theory of Homiletics || 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.

Homiletics and its conversational, rhetorical nature

Ang diwa ng homiletics sa tingin ko ay galing sa --

Greek verb that appears in the New Testament. In Luke 24:14 two dejected post-crucifixion disciples are getting out of Jerusalem on the way to Emmaus while they “converse” with one another about “all that had happened.” The word converse here comes from the Greek word homileō (David Schnasa Jacobsen, 16)

The Bauer-Danker Lexicon indeed defines homileō as "to be in a group and speak, speak, converse, address." Another Greek Lexicon states similarly. This is not just a New Testament meaning, for this nuance is "frequent in Greek writings from Homer down; to be in company with; to associate with; to stay with; hence, to converse with, talk with." (Thayer's Greek Lexicon, 3765)

So in homileō you can see a very explicit conversational notion. This might surprise the pastor especially if the pastor has been accustomed to use preaching as a means of egoistic self-validation.

For the young preacher, such demand might be burdensome since it is the young blood's concern to show he is erudite also, and not just a sweet talker.

In addition to homileō's conversational notion, quite obviously mapapansin mo din na sa Road to Emmaus story sa Luke 24, Jesus was persuading them sa conversation (homileō) na ito. This is how we will think of "rhetorical" here -- that it is a persuasion hindi lang ng words. Hindi siya eloquence lang but also a demonstration dahil ika nga ni Aristotle, "we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated." (We will talk about this Aristotelian notion of the rhetorical in future blogs.)

In summary, this is how Pastor Doy sees homiletics. It is the crafting of a sermon  meant para kausapin ang tao (conversational) at kumbinsihin sila (rhetorical).

Ano ang implication neto?

Dahil "conversational, rhetorical," may reflexivity yung sermon/ preacher at yung tagapakinig

 Ang gustong sabihin ng reflexivity is --

circular relationships between cause and effect. A reflexive relationship is bidirectional with both the cause and the effect affecting one another in a relationship in which neither can be assigned as causes or effects. (wiki, sv Reflexivity)

It is important that the preacher not lose sight of this reflexivity

Malimit kasi, a preacher would have the pulpit for himself. Kumbaga ang sermon ay para sa kanya o kaya may unhealthy desire for validation through the praise of people.

Sabi ni Jacobsen,

A preacher engages rhetorically and conversationally with some sort of end in view. The terms [conversational, rhetorical] . . .  are merely designed to describe the mode of homiletical theological reflection: it is done with hearers and conversation partners in mind. [footnote 5]

Ang punto lang naman sa totoo lang is ipa-emphasize sa preacher na may kausap ka kaya naman yung pinag aralan mo at paghahanda mo must have that as the "end in view."

Hindi natin sinasabi dito na i-adjust mo ang katotohanan ng mensahe at gawin itong heresy para maunawaan ng mga tao. That is actually ridiculous kasi ang function mo nga ay magturo ng katotohanan ng salita ng Diyos. What we mean here by "conversational, rhetorical" is the recognition that you as a preacher are doing pastoral work. Malimit itong i-emphasize nung Matanda.

Put in another way, pag kakausap ka ng tao iku-consider mo ang kanilang reception nito. You will have to aim for the functioning of their intellectual virtues at yang mga virtues na yan form an important part sa pag develop mo ng sermon.

Ang goal at least is to create an understandable na theologically-grounded, God-glorifying, Gospel-oriented na sermon (theory), to provide instructions for practical Christian situations (practical) and then to inspire the believer to pursue godly habit in daily life as an outworking of Christian identity (productive).

One important factor sa paggawa (homiletics) at delivery (preaching) ng sermon is yun talagang "rhetorical." Para dun sa Matanda preaching is a methodological challenge, hindi lang structural. When we say structural kasi it is merely arranging something to form a structure. Kasama pa rin naman ang structure, ang methodology is a system, oftentimes an integrated system of methods. Ang sermon-making kasi is a highly integrated discipline. What I mean by that is gagamit ka ng mga disciplines ng exegesis, theology, anthropology, psychology, literary criticism, history, atbp. Dahil ang sermon-making is a methodology you will have to integrate numerous disciplines. Don't worry, dahil ikaw naman ay may karanasan na sa buhay at gumugol din ng maraming taon sa paaralan, pamilyar ka na rin naman sa mga disiplina na maski hindi mo siya ma identify as field of knowledge.

Pano ka makakaiwas na hindi siya gumulo?

Ang sagot diyan ay yung schema.

Click here for Introduction to the QBA Sermon, Part 1: Schema

Why the Christian's soul melts in tears of godly sorrow || JPP

We do not sorrow for our sin and repent just because we detest the consequences of sin or that we have been exposed of sin. Godly sorrow is for trespass against God. It is to God na ang godly sorrow ay naka direkta -- yung isang Diyos na lahat ng actions towards His children are gracious. This is the ultimate reason why you have godly sorrow.

When you say sorry sa mahal mo sa buhay, ang apology mo is not directed sa'yo o kaya ay gusto mo lang maalis ang feeling mo ng guilt, your apology is directed sa kanya. It is person to person.

There will be dismay over its consequences or yung kahihiyan na nangyari. But the main affair of the sorrow if it is to be godly is that it is for trespass against God.

The Puritan Thomas Watson explains our falsehood this way,

A man may be sorry, yet not repent, as a thief is sorry when he is taken, not because he stole, but because he has to pay the penalty. Hypocrites grieve only for the bitter consequence of sin.*

It is a grievous shame that we grieve God with our sin knowing what he has done for us.

Polycarp of Smyrna was executed in AD155 an old man. Before the execution, the Roman governor who was attending to the proceeding told him to swear and revile Christ so that he will be dismissed of charges. To which the old saint replied,

Eighty and six years have I been his servant, and he hath wronged me in nothing, and how can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour.†

They burned him and drove a sword to his chest.

Godly sorrow happens when a believer's soul is embittered for what he/she has done to a good and gracious God. Watson said, "Martyrs shed blood for Christ, and penitents shed tears for sin."

Hindi kaaya-aya sa marami malamang ang godly sorrow, kasi pag may godly sorrow ka, kapag dumating yung panahon na medyo malayo na ang pangil ng kaparusahan sa'yo (ibilang mo na ang impyerno), yet you still grieve "for sinning against that Free Grace which has pardoned" you. But it is in this ingenuous notion of grief that our lives are protected, healed and remedied from the danger of sin that sadly grieves the very God who, in the words of Polycarp "hath wronged [us] in nothing."

------

* Thomas Watson, Doctrine of Repentance

† The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 6

Why do we forget? Reflection on Jeremy Lin and Marcos' burial at LNMB || JPP

When you look at Jeremy Lin now, you will not see traces of the craziness of 2012's LINSANITY. It was a glitch in the normalcy of the NBA. No, it was a glitch in reality. Words cannot describe that strange thing.

But that is the past. We move on to the next. Lebron moved to the Heat. Kanye married Kim. Psy had Gangnam Style. Neri and Chito had a sex tape. And life goes on.

People forget the intensity of Linsanity. The commerce it generated. The Knicks website that shutdown because of traffic. The facts speak for itself.

"As the unheralded, undrafted point guard from Harvard electrified the crowd." - Ernie Johnson on Jeremy Lin's 38-pt performance as Knicks beat Lakers on Feb 10, 2012.

I don't want to belabor the point of the correlation but let me just show you one of the many reasons why there was a thing called EDSA People Power Revolution. Here http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18497

And before I end this, please look at this pic  and probably help me understand how another glitch in reality has happened again now.

Apologetics and its ministry to the doubting || JPP

We all doubt. Even the great ones doubt.

G. Campbell Morgan had already enjoyed some success as a preacher by the time he was 19 years old. But then he was attacked by doubts about the Bible. The writings of various scientists and agnostics disturbed him (e.g., Charles Darwin, John Tyndall, Thomas Huxley, and Herbert Spencer). As he read their books and listened to debates, Morgan became more and more perplexed.

What did he do? He cancelled all preaching engagements, put all the books in a cupboard and locked the door, and went to the bookstore and bought a new Bible. He said to himself, "I am no longer sure that this is what my father claims it to be--the Word of God. But of this I am sure. If it be the Word of God, and if I come to it with an unprejudiced and open mind, it will bring assurance to my soul of itself."

The result? "That Bible found me!" said Morgan. The new assurance in 1883 gave him the motivation for his preaching and teaching ministry. He devoted himself to the study and preaching of God's Word.*

Today my wife and I talked of picking Nathanael Christian Apologetics Ministry as the name of the apologetics ministry we want to start. We like the name as it references to the calling of the apostle Nathanael in John 1:44-51. Yung calling kasi ni Nathanael ay medyo unique among the apostles kasi siya yung parang tamang duda (immediate cynicism). Pero later on tulad nung nangyari din kay G. Campbell Morgan naturn-around yung doubt into a motivation to devote himself to God. Sabi ni Nathanael in the brief encounter nya with Jesus, "“Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” From doubt to doxology.

From Doubt To Doxology

This captures yung slogan na lagi kong binabanggit sa radio apologetics teaching ministry ko sa DZAS - "from doubt to doxology." Heto yung part ng spiel ko,

Ako din po ang inyong tagapagturo sa apologetics dito sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay every Tuesday and Thursday upang mabigyan ng kaliwanagan ang ating pananampalataya under the pressure of objections and doubts. Gusto nating kunin ang mga pagdududa at gawin itong pagpupuri o yung tinatawag natin dito na from doubt to doxology. Sa ganitong paraan patuloy pang masumpungan ng mga believers ang pag-asa at katotohanan ng salita ng Diyos though the believer walks through the valley of the shadow of doubt.

I told my wife that this ministry would welcome the doubts of people seriously and be willing to walk with them. It was a refreshing thought for me to read that Jesus spoke highly of Nathanael, despite his cynicism, that he was "an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” Jesus demonstrated that he was indeed the Messiah by giving Nathanael what Pentecostals call a miraculous word of knowledge. Out of this interaction Jesus revealed to him the marvelous revelation of the future,

“Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man. (v51)

I wanted a ministry that does not only recognize doubt as a way to the intellectual virtues of wisdom and understanding but one that considers doubt as a spiritual problem. William Lane Craig explains,

doubt is never simply an intellectual problem. There is always a spiritual dimension to doubt as well. There is an enemy of your souls, Satan, who hates you intensely, and who is bent on your destruction, and who will do everything in his power to see that your faith is destroyed. And therefore, when we have these intellectual doubts and problems, we should never look at them as something that is spiritually neutral, or divorce them from the spiritual conflict that we’re involved in. Rather, we need to take these doubts to God in prayer, to admit them honestly, to talk to our Christian friends about them, to not stuff them or hide them. We need to deal with them openly and honestly and talk to people about them and seek God’s help in dealing with them.†

The other day I wrote about "Adding apologetics to increase your faith" and in there I quoted the Puritan John Owen in his admonition for the increase of our faith, which is to "make it strong against its assaults." Kumbaga palakasin mo siya habang inaatake siya. This is what I hope will be an important notion ng apologetics ministry that my wife and I are setting up to start.



Here's John 1:44-51 --

The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.” Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.

Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.

“Come and see,” said Philip.

When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”

“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

==========
* Wycliffe Handbook of Preaching & Preachers, Moody, 1984, p. 211.

† http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/dealing-with-doubt#ixzz4QL3ywGV6

Adding apologetics to increase our faith || JPP

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!"

Luke 17:5

A group of friends went deer hunting and paired off in twos for the day. That night one of the hunters returned alone, staggering under an eight-point buck.

"Where's Harry?" he was asked.

"Harry had a stroke of some kind. He's a couple of miles back up the trail."

"You left Harry laying there, and carried the deer back?"

"Well," said the hunter, "I figured no one was going to steal Harry."

May mga biblical truths na ina-abandon o dini-disregard  nating mga Christians kasi sa isip natin may minimal importance ang mga ito -- naging tulad tayo netong kapartner ni Harry. Isa sa mga truths na yan ang Christian duty ng apologetics.

As a person involved sa apologetics ministry dito sa Pilipinas, I had recently added a teaching focus to combat the idea coming from well-meaning, and well-intentioned na mga Christians, na ang apologetics daw is peripheral o dapat nasa tabi-tabi lang ng Christian faith.

Contrary to it being peripheral, I think the role of apologetics is even crucial to the Christian faith. Kailangan ng faith ang apologetics na mindset.

Commenting on the passage above, Luke 17:5, the great Puritan theologian John Owen instructed his readers what they must do with the faith that they have --

Add unto its light, confirm it in its assent, multiply its acts, and make it strong against its assaults, that it might work more effectually in difficult duties of obedience.

Ang apologetics settles itself well sa mga assault ng faith kasi ang apologetics nga ay "defense of the faith."

The key apologetics passage 1 Peter 3:15 --

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

indicates that that the scope of "to give an answer" (ἀπολογίαν) covers the entire human experience of the present and the future of the Christian life.

Hindi peripheral ang apologetics.

===========
Reference
The Works of John Owen, Volume 3: Holy Spirit, 388.

Grace to the Highest Pitch

Mercy and pardon are designed for, and bestowed upon, the greatest and vilest of sinners to enhance and raise the glory of free grace to the highest pitch. God picks out such sinners as you are, on purpose to illustrate the glory of his grace in and upon you: he knows that you, to whom so much is forgiven, will love much (Luke 7:47).

John Flavel, England's Duty, IV:154-5

Often some of us think that our faith serves just for the positive validation of who we are. We romanticize ourselves and ask God to affirm that. This is faith on a cul-de-sac. The graces we receive from God are graces we nurture in action to our loved ones, friends, even the guy on the street.

These graces do not orbit in heaven alone but in the life of the believer as well. This is the seed that grows in the barren soil of your heart. It agonizes to grow, almost prone to die for every break of dawn. But a skilled hand in God will make it grow and on the day of its fruit-bearing the Hand that nurtured it in its pain and adversity is the same Grace that will pluck the sweet fruit and give that grace to others.