Of Despotism and Card Carrying Members of Sino-Ang-Nagtakda Club || John Pesebre

Natutuwa naman ako na pati ang ating homeboy na si Pastor Tim nagbiibigay ng take to warn against #AfterModernity at #neighborology (at most recently mga Wonder Woman tropes) dito sa Pinas sa sinabi nyang eto sa isang article --

"More than that, a rejection of objective truth invites despotism simply because it collapses truth into whatever those in power allow to pass for truth in your bubble."

Eto yung malimit ko na ring sinasabi na bukambibig ng grupo ng mga Pinoy "evangelicals" na ito na mag challenge ng existing commitments ng mga conservative Christians. They would use their all-too common na "Sino ang nagktakda?" to challenge and disarm not only your commitments but the creeds, confessions and catechisms na linggwahe mo. They will challenge yung Trinity, yung original sin atbp COVERTLY kasi nga marami din silang nakukuha na suporta sa mga tipo ng evangelicals na object ng critique nila. Magsasalita yan sa mga seminars pero very covert sa mga mga commitments nila.

Sino daw ang nagtakda? As if truth can be ultimately adjudicated pag nasagot mo yan. Yet what we need to understand is that deep inside, yung pagiging anti-objective truth or anti-universal truth nila may malicious maneuver na either intentional sila or not that sharp enough to see because of the ideological muck in their brains, to take a position of power. Ang theory ng knowledge nyang mga yan is that, "You have that belief because some power in the history of Christianity made it the rule of the hegemony." Pumu-pukol yan ng Foucault.

Yan ang sinasabi nung matandang Keller. They will reject pero ang undercurrent nyan is nagtatayo sila ng despotism na sila yung despot. Magvi-virtue signal yan na may disdain sa power pero deep inside, that very power is what they are salivating at.

"Love wins" and #neighborology" || John Pesebre

Ang isang pauli ulit na skepticism na naririnig ko sa mga believer at atheists alike na nakausap ko is the idea na ginagamit lang nung Christian yung friendship as a PLOY in trying to avoid questions that they raise. You might have heard of the "instrumentalization of reason" nila Adorno at Horkheimer, pero meron din yung instrumentalization of kindness or piety. May dishonesty sa so-called love-tactic ng "love wins."

Clearly residue na rin yan ng kultura ng industriya ngayon. If you want something mag manufacture ka ng instrument to get that. Imbes na mag deal ng uestions of people nagre resort sa mga seductive ploys ng piety at pseudo-kindness. Walang honesty doon. (Pwera na lang kung jejemon kausap mo na gusto lang mang slander. In such a case kelangan mo either wag sumagot or guluhin mo ang conclusion niya). Parang mag manufacture ka ng love para ma win mo siya sa conversion.

So . . . "love wins" daw pag may nagtanong kung bakit DAW majority ng mga giyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. O kaya "love wins" kapag ang isyu niya ay walang pakialam DAW sa political realities ang Christianity. O "love wins" kung bakit DAW ang Diyos ng Old Testament ay isang genocidal monster. Imbes na sumagot, parang yung minsan sabi ni Spongebob kay Patrick na wag lang magbenta ng linalako nika but magpakita ng pagmamahal sa customer. So sa unang pintong kinatok nila, pagbukas nung may ari nung bahay, sabi kaagad ni Patrick, "I love you." Pinagsarhan.

#neighborology dumbs down God || John Pesebre

A proponent of #neighborology posted this on his Facebook wall last Holy Week.

"God was NOT up in heaven while Jesus was down on earth. God was right there IN Jesus on Calvary. In Jesus, GOD took the punishment for us. The JUDGE of the heavens is judged. Jesus' cry of abandonment on the cross is God's own LAMENT." -Dorothy and Gabriel Fackre

This is what happens when you confine God in a box called spacetime na as if ang Dios ay nasa domain ng material din. The truth of the matter is, God is both immanent (malapit) and transcendent (beyond or outside His creation). God was in heaven and He was also on earth. Ano may binary na ganyan ang Dios na pag nasa Caloocan ka, wala ka sa Cubao?

Ang #neighborology would use this to sort of Romanticize the idea of the "love wins" incarnated God at the expense of His transcendence. Ang malimit na ginagawa sa secular na publuc space ay ganyan -- ibaba ang nature ng Dios sa level ng humans. So sa kaso nga netong post na 'to, hindi na Siya omnipresent.

Ano parang ghost town sa langit? So maging mapanuri tayo. Minsan ang error nagmumukhang tama kung sinasamahan ng katotohanan.

#AfterModernity and its postmodern schtick || John Pesebre

"[What] postmodernism means . . . is after modernism." - David Foster Wallace

Ang irony ng manifestation ng postmodernity sa ilan sa atin sa mga evangelicals ay nakita na rin ng isa sa mga icons ng postmodernity nung 90s America na si David Foster Wallace. Sabi niya, "Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy." And the irony is when you extend sa mga diskarte nila after magamit nila yan.  Yung tila baga mga items (ie, reason, logic, etc) na buset na buset sila sa mga critiques nila, ay yun din ang gagamitin nila to rebuild a new structure. Ganyan ang condition ng ilang naive pomo evangelicals dito sa atin. Kumbaga pipintasan ang damit mo, tapos pag hinubad mo at iwan, dadamputin niya at siya ang magsusuot.

As an example, let's take si #AfterModernity at ang kanilang pag downplay ng reason. May mga Dostoevskian "beauty will save the world" pa yan -- isa yan ang kanilang weaponries to diminish the role of reason. Paulit ulit nila yang gagawin. Buti na lang laging may nagtatanong sa kanila to clarify. Nung una hindi pa nakakahalata kaya sumasagot palagi using yung kanyang homespun logic. Pero later na realize yata kaya nag resort na lang sa sloganeering at mga pithy statements na very obvious naman na conclusion nila pero hindi na nila babanggitin yung method of inference nila. Bakit? Kasi nga kung inferential ka, nag-iinvoke ka ng logic.

Alam nila yung irony kaya maikli na lang sumagot. Walang hint ng inference. At yan ang malimit na nakaka buset sa evangelical kuno na postmodernity dito sa Pinas. Sabi ni Wallace, "a lot of the schticks of post-modernism — irony, cynicism, irreverence — are now part of whatever it is that’s enervating in the culture itself.”
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 1:18

--------------------------
*Schtick - a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc., associated with a particular person.

Irony and #AfterModernity || John Pesebre

Among the difficulties ng #AfterModernity is that it will eventually chauffeur itself (albeit unconsciously siguro) to an irony.

May disdain sila na ang systematic theology ay Western pero pag pinagawa mo sila ng systematic theology nila, hindi sila makagawa kasi nga dahil dun sa disdain nila. Isa pa, duda ko kung makagawa nga ng theology na free from any Western influence. The hypocrisy pag sinundan mo ang train of thinking -- sa mga presuppositions, mga formulations nila, atbp -- mapapansin mo na mas Western pa sila mag isip: like yung self-designated na continental philosophy adherence nila, o di kaya'y yung commitment daw nila sa Trinity at sa mga Western traditions na kinabibilangan nila, like yung mga authors na kino-kowt nila, o di kaya yung critical theory nila. Western na western.

I mean isn't that ironic? Kaya nga sabi ko dati, "Why don't you just shut up?"

Bottom line I think it is just virtue signalling, yung maghu-hook sa moral elitism tapos gagamitin yun na stepping stone sa anumang self-advertisement when in fact they are the very icon of what they are against.

Why #AfterModernity and #neighborology just need to shut up || John Pesebre

It is not hard to think that #AfterModernity is a castaway bastard child of evangelicalism's attempt to create a postmodern marionette in its community. Bastard child because while true postmodernity thrives in self-reference and second guessing its confidence, these emergent "evangelicals" are like over-demanding, over-confident millenials who want to set the tone of how an epoch should behave.
A pomo has a unique sense of insecurity not because of any behavioral crease but an awareness of the yeast of absolutism and coercive effect of metanarratives in finite creatures like you and me. They have experienced the pressure of the abusive corporate West and the discontent in colonial hegemony. A true pomo understands that his mission to complain and to create a motif of incredulity against modernity are rooted in his displeasure on abuses of modernity and not in its contributions to freedom of knowledge (cf. Kant's "Was ist Aufklarung?) and the "affirmation of the ordinary life" (cf. Charles Taylor) and the higher order of knowledge in science (cf. Polanyi) and many more.

Kaso the very thing you least expect to see sa #AfterModernity marionettes (aka postmodernist evangelicals kuno) are the very thing that characterizes them -- over-confident, smug, pedantic and dismissive of the linguistic communities such as those who developed creeds or confessions.

All I can say is that if these marionettes chauffeuring themselves in caravans of a new order of thinking for evangelicals are going to believe that they are not on their way out of town, they are, as David Foster Wallace puts it, no longer --

self-conscious, self-conscious of itself as text, self-conscious of the writer as persona, self-conscious about the effects that narrative had on readers and the fact that the readers probably knew that

and that, as Wallace continues,

a lot of the schticks of post-modernism — irony, cynicism, irreverence — are now part of whatever it is that’s enervating in the culture itself.

Then it's time for these naive but sly modernists called #AfterModernity, to SHUT UP and stop making quasi-tyranical amorphous or nebulous statements and just do what they are good at: shallow #neighborology and social gospelling.

Epal Thots sa Self-Referentiality ng mga Noyp || John Pesebre

 "[Artur] Sandauer traced the problem of self-referentiality from Romantic irony and Byronic auto-irony. . . Sandauer simultaneously linked the origins of self-referentiality in modern prose with the secularization of art, the idea of progress and the potentializing of the creative personality."* 

It will remain to be a realization for much of the Filipino populace (and in particular the Christian) to uncover the value and reproach of self-referentiality -- eto yung ang consciousness mo, ang mga foundation ng morality, ang bracketing mo ng mundo, ay naka reference sa'yo. Nasa sentro ka non. Na secularize siya kaya naman yung humanism niya oftentimes walang real spiritual foundation. Sabi Nietzsche hindi na jan madala kasi "there's a monkey standing in the way." Kung meron ka mang metaphysics, tinitingnan mo lang siya as metaphysical terms, not objects (cf. "metaphysical nominalism," William of Ockham). Ontic na lang siya, hindi na ontological IMHO.

Valuable siya kasi ngayon hindi mo na pwedeng lantarang alisan ng dignity ang individual kasi that individual will reference ang kanyang karapatan na ika nga nung isang pilosofo na si John Rawls na maski estado hindi pdeng alisin. Alam na niya ang potency ng self-reference niya. So pag may na-bully, yung taong tutulong sa nabully -- doctor man o magulang o counselor -- mag-a-appeal yan sa stregnth ng self-referential value sa pagkatao nung na bully para marunong siyang tumayo at mag uphold. If you want this to be even more a collective behavior of a people, pde mo siyang tawaging methodological individualism (f. Max Weber, Ludwig von Mises, Talcott Parsons).

Ang reproach naman is that self-reference can claim to be the foundation or ground ng realidad (metaphysics). Ire-reference niya ang sarili niya tulad ng sinabi ni Henley sa "Invictus" na "I am the master of my faith,/ I am the captain of my soul." So kapag may umaapi sa kanya he will destroy other people by deposing yung umaapi as less ang worth compared sa kanyang self-referential value & dignity. How he does that is true self-aggrandizing or buhat bangko na moral arguments or virtue signalling. Uulanin ka niyan ng moral argument dahil ang pinag uusapan niyo or ang authority ng kausap nila threatens yung kanilang self-referential propositions of worth. Naging atomistic or radical individualist na.

Kinakapitalan ng economics yung una; ng secular man yung pangalawa. By secular here I nuance it in its temporal or time aspect as "here and now" (Latin, "hic et nunc"). Kinakapitalan siya kasi yun ang pundasyon ng kanyang narrative. Naka self-reference ang kanyang meaning-making; how he views existence or being niya at iba pa like relationships, materials, belief in God atbp as self-referentially bolstering. Ini-instrumentalize niya para sa kanyang sarili lahat ng existence -- abstract man yan (like love and virtues) o physical (like wealth, parents, etc). In short naging self-perpetuating invictus or unconquerable soul.

Pero come to think of it saan galing yang hugot na yan ng self-referentiality? Di ba sa consciousness mo din lang naman as you look at the outside world? At san galing yang lingwahe ng cobsciousness mo? Di ba dahil lang sa mga naibigay sa'yo na pamamaraan ng pag-iisip? At dahil di mo rin alam kung san galing at gusto mo ng stable sa tingin mo na pundasyon, you will conceive what the secular age individual will conceive -- SELF-REFERENCE.

So ang moralidad mo, happiness mo, value mo, narrative mo, cultural purpose, etc will all be self-referential.

This is the postmodern condition that has run its course as David Foster Wallace would put it. Dati ang postmodernity helped facilitate the escape from tyranny of structures, language, grand stories, and universality. Ngayon it has become a structure of tyranny where each individual or community tries to enervate and envenom another with their own tyrannical structures, language, grand stories, and universality.

What is the chief end of man?
To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

-------------------------------
* Joanna Grądziel-Wójcik, "Literature’s Perpetuum Mobile, or A Few Words on Self-Referentiality," Forum of Poetics_, (Fall 2015): 86-95.

#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.

#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.

#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.

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