FILIPINO AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY: LIKE MILKFISH IN BRACKISH WATER

FILIPINO AMERICAN MINISTRY

Like Milkfish in Brackish Water

FRED VERGARA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword from the Presiding Bishop

Foreword from the Director of Ethnic Ministries

Introduction: Why Milkfish in Brackish Water?

Chapter 1: Filipino American Contextualization

Chapter 2: Filipino American Demographics

Chapter 3: Filipino American Christian History

Chapter 4: Iglesia Filipina Independiente and the Filipino Struggle for Religious Freedom

Chapter 5: Episcopal Church and the American Missionary Enterprise in the Philippines

Chapter 6: Filipino American Cultural Values

Chapter 7. Evangelizing Filipinos in America

Chapter 8: Mission of Filipino American Church

Chapter 9: Elements of a Filipino American Theology

Chapter 10: Filipino Church Planting in American Setting

Chapter 11: Discipleship in Filipino American Church

Chapter 12: A Filipino Ministry Probe in Silicon Valley, California

CONCLUSION: “ANDREWS:” Towards an “Asiamerica Network of Disciples, Revivalists, Evangelists, Witnesses and Saints”

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

“We shall never cease from exploring and the end                  of all exploring is to arrive at a place where we               started and see it for the first time.” – T. S. Elliot

This book is an updated, revised, and expanded version of the one I wrote in 1990 entitled “Milkfish in Brackish Water: Filipino Ministry in American Context.” The reason I reversed the title and subtitle to “Filipino American Ministry: Like Milkfish in Brackish Water” is funny. Those who read only the first line thought that this book is about the fishing industry!

Of course, there is a lot of similarities between fishing and ministry. Jesus Himself used the fishing imagery when he called out his first disciples to be fishers of people and compared God’s kingdom to that of a net cast in the water and catching all kinds of fish.

I also want to indicate that this book will become a pilot project for ethnic ministries especially for Asiamerican ministries. Christianity is like a multicolored diamond. It has many facets in race, culture and ethnicity. So it is my hope that there will be books on “Chinese American Ministry,” “Korean American Ministry,” “Japanese American Ministry,” “Hmong American Ministry,” and so forth and so on.

This book presents a narrative visioning of Filipino Christian ministry in the context of multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious American Society. It explains salient points in Filipino-American history and culture. It discusses various ministry issues such as evangelism, mission, leadership, discipleship and theology. Most of all it urges the American Church to welcome, accept and appreciate Filipino-American Ministry and to give it the attention and support it deserves.

Why does Filipino American Ministry deserve attention and support? There are three reasons: demographic, historical and cultural.

The first reason why we need to give attention and support to Filipino American Ministry is the demographic reality. Filipino Americans are the first Asians who came to America. Anecdotal history says that in 1765 a group of “Luzon Indios,” worked as slaves and crewmen in the Spanish Galleon Trade plying from Manila to Acapulco. They stopped for a while in Morro Bay,  California and on the way to Louisiana and being maltreated by their Spanish masters, so they decided to jump ship. They settled in the Malong Village off New Orleans, intermarried with Latinos and Native Americans. They also introduced the shrimp drying industry in Louisiana, a skill they mastered in the Philippine islands.

Filipinos are also the largest ethnic immigrant group coming from any one country, second only to Mexico. It is estimated that there are some four million or five Filipinos in the United States today. It is a fact that many Filipinos looked to America as their dream country outside of Asia. The late founder of the Filipino-American Council (FAC) and National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NAFFA) Alex Esclamado wrote about Filipino Americans in the 1990’s: “People from Mexico and South America are the majority ethnic groups in the U.S. because they can just cross the border. But if Filipinos could walk on water across the Pacific Ocean, there will be more Filipinos than Mexicans in the U.S.!”

Filipino Americans are also among the most educated, most upwardly mobile, and most progressive racial ethnic populations in North America. This is especially true among the “third wave” immigrants who came as doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers and lawyers during the great Immigration Reform in 1965.

The second reason why we need to give attention and support to Filipino American Ministry is place of Philippine history within American history. There is a special bond between the Philippines and the United States that dates back to the turn of the 20^th century when America was still emerging as the world’s superpower.

The Philippines is the first and only nation in Asia formed in the image of America. Taking over from over from three centuries of Spanish colonization, the United States supplanted the medieval culture of Spanish Catholicism with more modern values of American Revolution. Philippine writer Nick Joaquin once wrote, “Filipinos lived in the convent for 300 years and in Hollywood for 50 years.”

For better or for worse (and depending on one’s political perspective), the Philippines became the tangible product of America’s “white man’s burden” and “manifest destiny” in Asia. Filipinos were under direct American tutelage only from 1898 to 1946 but this “American image” has been indelibly imprinted in the Philippine socio-economic and political structures and ingrained in the Filipino mindset. At some point in history, the Filipinos were known as “little brown Americans.”

The vestiges of American imperialism are still present in the current Philippine economic and political systems.  When White House sneezes, Malacanang gets the flu; when New York Stock Exchange gets nervous, Makati Stock Exchange gets a breakdown; and when Hollywood sings, Philippine cinema dances.

American military interest in the Philippines has not ended even when the two largest U.S. military bases (Clark Air Force Base and Subic Naval Base) were closed down in 1980. Philippines and the United States has a “Visiting Forces Agreement” (VFA) that continues to bind both countries in the fight against global terrorism and mutual defense. Filipino Americans enjoy dual citizenship, having both Philippine and U.S. passports.

The third reason why we need to give attention and support to Filipino American Ministry is cultural. Filipino American culture is unique in the sense of its interconnectedness. Philippine geography is located in the Asian continent and Pacific Basin but the base of Filipino cultures and traditions are markedly multicultural, with both Spanish and North American influences as well as Indian and Chinese ingredients. Every Filipino would have known both the Pope and Billy Graham because of Roman Catholicism and American Protestantism. More than any other Asians, every Filipino must have attended a church, must have joined a Christmas caroling, must have listened to an evangelistic sermon and must have participated in the reenactment of the drama of Christ’s passion and crucifixion.

Because of their unique cultural heritage, Filipino Americans can serve as “bridge persons” between and among cultures in America. Because of their colonial experience from both Spaniards and Americans, Filipino Americans would be able to understand the African-American experience of slavery and racism. Because of their aboriginal pre-Spanish cultures, Filipino Americans would resonate with Native Americans in the belief and reverence of nature-spirits. And because of their common histories in Spanish colonialism and practice of Folk Catholicism, Filipino Americans would be able to minister with and among Latinos.

Of all Christian peoples in Asia, the Filipino Americans, by virtue of their cultural and religious history, are a people made ready to be missionaries in the United States. The challenge is how to make them see this vision and to enable, equip and empower them to express it in the lives they lead, in the relationships they create and in the ministries they undertake.

In looking for images that would best capture Filipino American Christian Ministry, I came upon the image of the milkfish, the national fish of the Philippines.  Called “bangus” in Tagalog, the milkfish can survive in fresh water and in salty water but it thrives best in brackish water.

I have seen how the fish farmers construct fishponds for bangus. These fishponds are normally built in the rotunda, in the intersection of the sea and the river. The fish farmers would create an opening for sea water. They wait till high tide and then trap the salty sea water in the pond. Then they would make an irrigation or create a diversion from the river and then trap the river’s fresh water into the same pond.

The admixture of fresh water that comes from the river and salty water that comes from the sea produces the brackish water most conducive for raising milkfish.  It is in this rotunda, in this intersection, in this context, that milkfish thrives best.

I believe the American society in the 21^th century has now become a huge pond of brackish water. The dualistic, bifurcated and dichotomized culture is changing. The dominant Anglo-European cultural way of splitting everything: either black or white, either conservative or liberal, either work or play is giving way for “both and”---the brackish water of multicultural accommodation.

Into this multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural context that Filipino American Ministry would fit most. As servant of the Church, the Filipino American Ministry must learn from the ways of the milkfish and express itself in the brackish water of American society.  It must learn to take this ministry of “both and” as a gift of harmonious relationship, a gift of “prophetic accommodation and accommodational prophetism”---the gift of reconciliation bestowed upon us by the Master-Fisherman “who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Fred Vergara

New York, New York

July 4, 2020 (74th Filipino-American Friendship Day)

Chapter I: FILIPINO-AMERICAN CONTEXTUALIZATION

America is not a land of one race, or class or institution

It is in the hearts of those who sought and died for freedom

It is in the eyes of those who seek to build a new world.

America is a prophecy of a new society. -Carlos Bulosan

The term “contextualization” refers to the application of the Christian Gospel to the living situations of our time.  It is the proclamation of the Christian message into the contemporary situation in which we find ourselves. 

Jesus Christ was revealed in the context of a specific community, the Jewish community of Palestine. He was incarnated in the racial-ethnic and cultural setting of Israel but His message is so internal that it becomes universal and transcends external boundaries. 

The Bible as the Word of God is also universal as it is personal. In its intimate sense, the Bible is like God’s love letter to His friends. Writing love letters seems to have gone out of fashion nowadays but from your experience have you ever received a love letter where the message is so complicated that you have to see a Thesaurus, a dictionary or consult language experts to interpret it for you? Fortunately, God’s love letter is not that weird!

As a matter of fact, God’s love letter is simple, readable and understandable because God is the Master Communicator. What is an aardvark? To know what an aardvark is, you can read the Dictionary and you may read this definition, “an aardvark is a medium-size nocturnal burrowing mammal native to Africa.” But that would only give you a partial understanding. The next thing you must do is go to Africa or even a nearby Zoo and stop, look and listen to an aardvark.

But to really know what is an aardvark---how it feels, how it thinks, how it hopes, etc.---you must become an aardvark! That is exactly what God in Christ has done. The incarnation of Jesus as the reality and experience of God has given us the ultimate model of self-communication. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only. Who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14)

The Association of Theological Education in Southeast Asia in the 1980s’ defined “Asian Contextualization” as going beyond mere indigenization or enculturation.

 “Indigenization often connotes local aboriginal cultures and folk traditions, tribal customs and quaint mannerisms.  Enculturation often connotes an indiscriminate infusion of foreign cultures and absorption or imitation of new cultures.  Contextualization, however, includes both indigenization and enculturation---and presses beyond.  Contextualization comprises the nascent, nativistic and insipient cultures as well as modernity, secularization, technology and the mélange of various cultural and religious traditions.”

In applying contextualization to Filipino American Ministry, let us first compare and contrast the classical cultures of the two countries: Philippines and North America.

There are at least ten critical assumptions regarding Philippine and American contexts:

1.  In the Philippines, the economic value system is simple life while in America it is affluence.

2.  In the Philippines, life is “to be lived” while in America it is “work and play.”

3.  In politics, the Philippine system is “authoritarian” while in America it is “democratic.”

4.  In the Philippines, philosophical thinking is “symbolic” while in America it is “rational.”

5.   In the Philippines, tradition is “mystical” while in America it is “materialist.”

6.  In the Philippines, the view of history is “cyclical” while in America it is “linear.”

7.  In the Philippines, time is a “process” while in America, time is a “goal.”

8.  In the Philippines, the common goal is “endurance,” while in America, it is “success.”

9.  In the Philippines, the worldview is “embrace-ive” (yin-yang) while in America it is “dualistic” (good versus bad).

10.             In the Philippines, geopolitics and world economy are  “Third World” while in America they are “First World.”

Contextualization therefore asks these questions: How do we proclaim the gospel of Christ to the total context in which Filipino Americans find themselves in this rotunda of Philippines and America?  How do we apply the liberating message of the Bible (written from Judeo-Christian context) to the living realities of Filipino Americans and other ethnic peoples in America? How can we unleash the liberating message of Christ to the struggles and hope, the suffering and joy, the challenges and opportunities, the fears and wonders of Filipino Americans? 

Moreover, how do we enable, equip and empower Filipino Americans for Christian ministry with and among other immigrants as well as with the mainstream American community within this multicultural complex?

Like many marginalized immigrants, Filipino Americans struggle with the question of identity and shared self-identity.  They ask: “Who am I and what am I in the context of multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multicultural America?”

In a typical mindset, there are many historical-cultural identities of a Filipino American: Pre-Spanish Era Philippines Filipino; Spanish-Era Philippines Filipino; American-Era Philippines Filipino; Japanese-Era Philippines Filipino; Independent Philippines Filipino; Marcos’ martial-law Philippines Filipino; Cory Aquino restored-Democracy Philippines Filipino; Duterte restored authoritarian Philippines Filipino; new immigrant in America Filipino; hyphenated Filipino-American Filipino; assimilated non-hyphenated, naturalized American Filipino; and dual-citizen Filipino American.

With all this admixture of identities, is it any wonder why despite the many attempts of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) they are still unable to unite the Filipino Americans?

Filipino American contextualization should therefore begin where the Filipino Americans are. What is their history? What are their cultural values? What brought them to America? What are their hopes and longings? What are their dreams and their nightmares?

Finally, how can the Gospel speak to them in a way that they can arrive at freedom and unity so that they can effectively, from their spiritual and historical experiences, speak of this Gospel beyond their Filipino American communities? Milkfish in Brackish Water is the answer.

                                                                                                                         Chapter II: FILIPINO AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

“If Filipinos can only walk on water, there would be       more Filipinos than Mexicans in the United States.”              - Alex Esclamado 1990

Demography is the study of human population: their characteristics, size, growth and vital statistics.  In discussing the Filipino American demographics, the following terminologies need explanation:

1.  Philippines means country of origin of Filipino Americans.  Situated in Southeast Asia, the Philippines consists of 7,641 islands and islets, one may add “during high tide.”  Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese explorer under the employ of King Carlos (Charles) I of Spain was the labelled “discoverer,” although traders from China, India and Arabia had long been frequenting the islands prior to Magellan’s voyage of discovery. Spanish historian Pigafetta put the date of March 15, 1521 on his journal as the date of Magellan’s arrival in Limasawa Island in the Visayan region.  He failed to note that they had crossed the International dateline and so the date should have been recorded as March 16, 1521.  The name “Filipinas” was given not by Magellan (who died in the Battle of Mactan from the hands of native chieftain, Lapulapu) but by the succeeding Spanish expeditions (led by Villalobos and Dela Torre) in honor of King Philip II of Spain.

2.  Philippine is an adjective used to describe places or things in the Philippines (e.g. Philippine islands, Philippine village, Philippine mahogany, Philippine history, etc.).

3.  Filipinos (with an “F”) means people of the Philippines, spoken collectively, in the English language.  Sometimes the singular “Filipino” is used as an adjective similar to “Philippine” (e.g. Filipino house, Filipino food, Filipino character, Filipino people, etc.)

4.  Pilipino (with a “P”) refers to the national language of the Philippines.  It is also known as the Tagalog language.  In history, Tagalog was proclaimed in 1897 as the official language by Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the short-lived first Philippine Republic.  It is to be noted that there are well over 700 Filipino languages and dialects and that Tagalog (the language of Manila and surrounding provinces) share practically the same popularity as Ilocano, Pangasinan, Visayan-Cebuano, Visayan-Ilonggo, Visayan-Waray, and English as the major languages spoken by the Filipino people.

5.  “Tagalish”  is an dialectal combination of Tagalog and English commonly used in conversation especially in MetroManila. The use of this pidgin language started in the 1970’s when students from the University of the Philippines started to combine two languages in one sentence, e.g. “As I was saying kanina, I was just making biro” (As I said earlier, I was just joking).

6.  Filipino American is an arbitrary term denoting Filipino immigrants and naturalized citizens in the United States.  There is an ongoing debate about the terms “Filipinos in America” and “Filipino-Americans.”  The late and former President Cory Aquino in her first state visit to the United States in 1986 said, “You can take the Filipinos out of the Philippines but you can’t take the Philippines out of the Filipinos.”  Dennis Normandy, former president of the National Filipino American Council, however said: “If we, Filipinos are to move forward as a community in America, we have to be Americans.  That is the only way we are going to achieve our rightful place in American society.” 

In one of its past editorials, the Philippine News (the largest Filipino newspaper in the United States) decided to drop the hyphen from the “Filipino-American” and simply used “Filipino American.” PN wrote:

“We are Filipinos, yes, but we are also Americans---the best of two worlds.  With no punctuation mark to mark us any less American than those who came from the other side of the globe with lighter pigmentation.

“Rare are the occasions when the ethnicities of (English) or European origin are spelled with a hyphen.  But for people of color, the punctuation mark is wedded, as if to mean new, as if to mean different.

“The auto industry’s Lee Iacocca is not described as Italian-American and the Kennedys’ Irish ancestry is mentioned only in its romantic sense.  Nativistic society sees them as Americans, period, but has a different view of U.S. born progeny to those who built the railroads and tended the farms of the West.

“Perhaps in the future we will be thought of and referred to as Americans sans modifier, but for now it is our choice to be called Filipino Americans (no hyphen), meaning Americans of Filipino descent.”

CENSUS ON FILIPINO AMERICANS

Filipino Americans are some of the largest Asian immigrant population in the United States. They are second only to the Mexican immigrants as an ethnic group coming from any one country. They are slightly more than the ethnic Chinese combined (i.e. Chinese coming from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and mainland China).

In the 2010 Census, there were 3.4 million Filipinos. In 2015, it is estimated there were over 3.8 million Filipinos in the United States. In 2018, the American Community Survey estimated the population of Filipinos in the United States to be over 4 million. It is expected that the forthcoming Census 2020 will reveal there are around 5 million Filipino Americans in the United States.

The U.S. Immigration Office in San Francisco, the Philippine Embassy and many analysts consider the Census figures to be conservative estimates due the fact of undocumented people.  For Filipinos, there were those who did not return the Census forms.  Filipino surnames are also often mistaken for Hispanic surnames.  It is therefore likely that the actual number of Filipinos in American is more than the estimated number.

Heavy concentrations of Filipinos are found in California, Hawaii, Guam and New York.  In metropolitan areas of Illinois, Texas, Washington and Florida, there are also large Filipino populations.

In California, which is the hub of Asian immigration, “the Filipinos remains the biggest, the Vietnamese grew the fastest, and the Chinese added the most number of new arrivals.”  This latter phenomenon of Chinese immigration was brought about by the sudden exodus of people from Hong Kong (in lieu of China’s takeover of Hong Kong from the British in 1997) and the sudden influx of political refugees and affluent Chinese coming to establish business or buy real properties in the United States.

As a sample of ethnic immigrant demographics, the Census in 2010 ranked the over-all Asian populations as: Filipinos, 26%; Chinese, 25%; Japanese, 11%; Vietnamese, 9.9%; Koreans, 9.1%; and Indians, 6.6%.  The rest of the Asian populations are made up of smaller groups like the Taiwanese, Thais, Laotians, Cambodians, Pakistanis, Burmese/Karens, Nepalese, Bhutanese, Hmong, etc.

The traditional flow of Asian immigration way back in the 1980’s was divided into two streams.  One stream is stimulated by the large number of people already established in the United States.  Filipinos, Chinese and Koreans, upon obtaining U.S. citizenship, would typically petition for their relatives under the Family reunification program. 

The other stream is comprised of refugees and immigrants from embattled Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia who come as a “result of U.S. policies following the end of the Vietnam War and the unstable political and economic conditions of their home countries.”

According to Robert Gardner, a demographer at the East West Population Institute in Honolulu, the immigration trends remain “pretty much the same in the early 90’s as they were in the 80’s.” 

“The only exception,” Gardner added, “is the leveling off of the big and dramatic immigrations, which was a phenomenon in the late 70’s and the whole of 80’s.”

Gardner also predicted that both the Filipinos and the Vietnamese (due to open-ended first generation immigration and the rapid birthrate of established immigrants) would constitute half of California’s Asian population sometime between 2010 and 2020.

Notwithstanding the current anti-immigrant policy of the Trump Administration, the reality of Filipino and Vietnamese statistics is now being seen in big Californian cities like San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles as well as in smaller ones like Milpitas, Vallejo, West Covina and Daly City.

SOCIO ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FILIPINO AMERICANS

From the demographic profile of the U.S. Census, Filipino Americans are among the most upwardly mobile ethnic groups in the United States.  They are highly literate, achievers in major fields of endeavor, relatively affluent and possess skills which put them in the competitive edge in the American socio-economic market.  Because of their facility in English language and political sophistication, Filipino Americans are also becoming a potential force in the shaping of a new multicultural configuration in the American body politic.

The term “model minority” being applied to Filipinos and other Asians however, is being debunked as a myth by many analysts.  Evidences regarding the socioeconomic status of Asian Americans in the last decade are described by William P. O’Hare, director of the Population Analysis at the Urban Institute of the University of Louisville and by Judy Felt, research demographer at the Population Reference Bureau, as a “mixed picture of achievement.” 

Asian immigrants have an average family income “slightly higher than that of non-Hispanic Whites (i.e. Anglo/Euro Americans)” but chiefly because Asian homes have “more family members working.”  Generally speaking, the poverty rate of Asian Americans continues to rise to “nearly twice that of non-Hispanic Whites.”

“The paradox is not unique,” according to O’Hare and Felt.  “Like all other Americans, new immigrants are subject to the process of economic polarization, which characterize income patterns in general.  Where the poor immigrants tend to gravitate towards those of their economic background, the more established or affluent counterparts join the ranks of their financial equals.”

In other words, the socioeconomic segmentation has as much to do with the polarization of Asians, than their racial-ethnic identification. Affluent Asians would prefer to live in an affluent neighborhood while poorer Asians in poorer neighborhood.

In the total Asian American scene, Japanese and Taiwanese immigrants are the wealthiest while the Laotians and Cambodians earn the least.  Filipino males stand shoulder to shoulder with Koreans and Chinese Americans.  In comparing with the non-Hispanic Whites, however, the Filipino males earn only half or two-thirds the income of the white population.

Much of the reasons for this inequality is due to the built-in structural racism.  Racial ethnic minorities complain of “glass ceiling” in the issue of promotion.  Despite their high professional status in their home countries, many are unemployed or underemployed. Their educational degrees from their home countries are often not recognized in America.  It is not uncommon to find medical doctors working as orderlies in dental clinics, lawyers working as office clerks, engineers as insurance agents and teachers working as electronics assembly line workers.

Analyzing the Census findings of the past, there is not enough evidence to indicate that Asians and therefore Filipino Americans in general are successful small business persons.  There were only 55 Asian-owned ventures for every 1,000 Asians in contrast to 76 white-owned businesses out of every 1,000 Whites.  Most Asian businesses are Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. It is possible that that future census would indicate great improvements but the main reason is that Asian business persons work doubly hard.

Compared with Chinese, Japanese and Korean entrepreneurs, Filipino Americans rarely excel in business and trade.  They tend to be more adept and successful in service-oriented professions such as doctors, nurses, teachers and care providers.

There are very few Filipino Americans among the homeless.  This does not mean there are more home ownership among Filipinos in particular and Asians in general.  The Census revealed that only 54% of Asians owned their homes compared with 74% for whites. 

The main reason for the low “homelessness” among Asians in general and Filipinos in particular is their strong kinship system or filial piety.  Filipino Americans take pride in the extended family system that supports and offers hospitality to relatives and friends who would otherwise be homeless or dispossessed.

The slow rate of Filipino American homeownership indicates that they do not accumulate the same wealth as the mainstream Americans.  When they do purchase homes, however, these houses “tend to be more valuable than those of the whites” due to sizes and locations. Oftentimes, these residential houses are found in metropolitan areas and suburbs and able to accommodate extended families. 

It is rare for Filipino Americans and most Asians to live in rural areas in the U.S.  Their fascination for expensive homes in upscale counties often causes problems because while they can put up down payment from their hard-earned savings, many of them are unable to sustain the monthly mortgages on a more regular basis. During the economic recession and slump of real estate market in the 1990’s many Filipinos were hit hard and lost their homes.

Although Filipino immigrants are able to assimilate easily with the mainstream Americans, they prefer to find their support in the kinship system and Filipino associations.  There is a Filipino barrio within every cluster of Filipino communities.  In California alone, there are literally thousands of Filipino clubs divided along fraternal, linguistic, regional, professional and other family lines. 

It is said that aside from personal belongings, there are three other things which a typical Filipino immigrant has in his suitcase: the statue of the Santo Nino (icon of the Holy Child Jesus), the picture-album of his family, and a directory of names, addresses and phone numbers of his kababayans (country mates).

There is growing assertiveness of Filipino Americans for community and political empowerment as seen in the proliferation of Filipino periodicals, magazines and social media. 

All over the United States, hundreds of Filipino newspapers are contesting for Filipino readership as they champion immigration issues. The accessibility of TFC (“The Filipino Channel”) and GMA Channel in cable-TV has also replaced the defunct video and audio cassettes coming from Manila. With cable-TV, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media, Filipino Americans are able to know the news and other happenings in the Philippines live! They are updated of the latest news, gossips, “teleseryes” (Filipino drama serials) and newest movies.

CHAPTER III: FILIPINO AMERICAN CHRISTIAN HISTORY

And Jesus saw the crowd and he has compassion for they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest therefore, to send out workers for the harvest.” (Matthew 9:6)

Ministry does not exist in vacuum.  In order to fully understand the dynamics of Filipino American ministry, it is imperative that we trace the historical roots of Filipino Christianity and the Filipino religious community that produced it.

Filipino American history tends to be “part fact, part fiction and mostly interpretation.”  Histories of colonized people often suffer from the fact that history books were mostly written by and from the perspective of their former colonial masters.  The facts were sifted out, characters classified and events interpreted from the perspective of the colonizer.  As Mark Twain said concerning the many theories on who really discovered America, “The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on the subject, and it is probable that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it.”

So rather than propounding new “theories” or “researches” on the subject of Philippine history, the author therefore deems it appropriate to recount what had already been written in many recognized textbooks on Philippine history, most especially “The History of the Filipino People,” written by Teodoro Agoncillo, history professor at the University of the Philippines.

PRE-SPANISH PHILIPPINES CHRISTIANITY

I believe “Essential Christianity” in the Philippine Islands might have evolved even without the prodding of Spanish colonization.  Before the coming of the Spaniards, the indigenous people were already living under the “Sumakwel Code” promulgated in 1433 by Datu Kalantiaw. The 15 Kalantiaw Commandments (KC) resemble, in many ways to the Mosaic Ten Commandments and the many Levitical laws in Hebraic history. For instance, KC-Article 1 says, “ye shall not kill, neither shall ye steal nor hurt the aged, lest ye incur the danger of death.” KC-Article 10 says, “It shall be the obligation of every mother to prepare their daughters to womanhood; men shall not be cruel to their wives…”

The pre-Spanish Philippine aborigines (Aetas, Indonesians and Malays) had myths and legends resembling the Old Testament stories of Adam and Eve, the sojourn of Abraham and Sarah to the “priomise land” and their encounters with Canaanites. They had a host of nascent religious practices that would resemble early Jewish rites in the Old Testament and the Christian rites of the early Church.  Although their ancient altars were replete with many wooden anitos (animistic icons), they were monotheistic, believing in one Supreme Being they called “Bathala” in the Visayan islands “Kabunian” in Luzon mountains.

The Kalantiaw Code and other pre-Spanish laws and legends were chronicled in the Visayan historiography called “Maragtas” by Pedro Alcantara Monteclaro. For many years, it was taught in Philippine Schools until 1968 when American Episcopalian missionary and historian Dr. William Henry Scott debunked it as a hoax.

Scott, who happened to be my history professor in Trinity University of Asia in 1969-1970 made an extensive research on pre-Hispanic historical sources and concluded that the Sumakwel or Kalantiaw Code was actually written by Jose de Marco in 1913 as a fiction.  In 2008 however, Cecilio Duka in his book “Struggle for Freedom” provided a full reproduction of the Kalantiaw Code for the readers’ “critical examination…to decide on its veracity and accuracy.”

Taking the view of Teodoro Agoncillo that the Kalantiaw Code was a “disputed document,” I concur with Mark Twain that “many researches on a subject matter where there are no factual writings but oral tradition would only be an exercise in futility.” I believe however that the legends and stories that bear resemblance to the Creation Era and Patriarchal Era in the Book of Genesis are also seeds of faith of indigenous peoples. Therefor and theologically speaking, Christ was already in pre-Spanish Philippines even before the Roman Catholic Spaniards came. Cultures, according to Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama are “fingers of God pointing to Christ.” This is especially true with pre-Spanish Filipino culture.

HISPANIZATION OF FILIPINO FAITH

The linear Western view of history cut through the evolutionary process of faith formation when on March 16, 1521, Ferdinand Magellan and the Spanish missionaries landed on Limasawa, Leyte. The first mass was held in the neighboring island of Cebu on March 31, 1521.

According to Pigafetta, the Spanish historian of Magellan’s expeditionary force, Datu Humabon of Cebu, his wife and 800 members of his barangay accepted Christ and were baptized in the Catholic faith. The word “Barangay” originally means “boat” but it was also used to describe a village or town.

The baptism of the first Filipino Christians became Magellan’s last indelible and significant act.  While seeking to convert more natives in the neighboring island of Mactan, he was killed in an encounter with a hostile native chieftain, Lapulapu. The Christianization of Cebu would thereafter pave the way for the Catholicization of the entire Philippine islands.

Spanish colonization and the Catholic Church pervaded all aspect of Philippine colonial life.  The country was divided into haciendas (villages, pueblos (towns) and encomiendas (provinces).  These were allotted to Spanish civil and religious authorities as “spoils of war” or rewards for their role in the pacification of a “heathen people.”  Both the encomienderos and the Spanish friars (Catholic religious orders or corporations) were empowered to govern the natives, collect taxes, convert them to Catholic faith and protect them from the backlash of “paganism” and attacks from the Muslims who were operating in Mindanao (Southern Philippines). It is to be noted that Islam came to the islands prior to the coming of Magellan but confined its mission in the south.

The Spanish civil and religious authorities would later became abusive.  They instituted forced labor and engaged in rapacious aggrandizement of feudal lands, dividing Philippine society into two classes: the filthy rich and the miserably poor.  Catholicism, instead of being an instrument of liberation became an agency of the colonial government in maintaining a structure of slavery, injustice and oppression.

Filipino generations that followed organized hundreds of revolts to throw off the Spanish yoke but superior Spanish military forces, aided by fragmented island populations, negative regionalism and the colonial strategy of “divide et impera” (divide and rule) would stamp out local rebellions.  Among these rebellions, were religious protests and demands for religious reformation.

The first religious protest movement occurred in Tayabas (Quezon Province) in 1841 when Apolinario dela Cruz and his religious brotherhood (Confradia de San Jose) petitioned the Catholic Church to recognize a budding Filipino religious order.  The reaction of the Spanish friars was to have Dela Cruz arrested.  Dela Cruz and his men were summarily executed with his body dismembered and paraded around the town ostensibly to serve notice that the idea of self-determination was not only unacceptable but also a heinous crime that deserved condemnation and death.

The second most significant religious protest was the “Secularization” movement championed by Fr. Pedro Pelaez, a Filipino mestizo (mixed Spanish Filipino ancestry) in 1862-1863.

The Secularization Issue was in some way a conflict between the Spanish religious orders (Augustinian, Dominican, Franciscan, Recollect and Jesuit orders) and the Filipino “secular” priests.  The former were entrenching themselves in power while the latter were advocating for an equitable representation in the administration of the parishes.  The crux of the matter was the blatant racism of the Spanish friars against Filipino priests whom they considered to be ill-prepared and “belonging to an inferior race.”

The great Pedro Pelaez, prime mover of “Secularization” died prematurely during the Manila earthquake in June 1863 but his campaign was continued by three priests: Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora.  From “secularization,” the triumvirate steered the movement to focus on “Filipinization.” 

Fighting for “racial equality” and the recognition of the Filipino clergy, the three priests criticized openly the Spanish abuses and documented the ineptness and rapacity of the friars.  As a consequence, they were unjustly implicated in a mutiny that took place in a military arsenal in Cavite, in the outskirt in Manila.  On February 15, 1872 the most hated Spanish governor of colonial Philippines, General Rafael de Isquierdo sentenced the three nationalistic priests to death by garrote, a medieval form of strangling.

The Spanish authorities, by opting to publicly execute the three priests in such a horrible death had hoped that the spectacle would strike terror to the Filipinos.  Ironically, it was the martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za that inspired the national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal to aspire for liberation from Spain and to galvanize a reform movement that gave shape to the revolutionary party, the Katipunan (Filipino Society).

Like his priest-predecessors, Rizal was also publicly executed (death by musketry) on December 30, 1896 but his revolutionary movement carried on the struggle until the fateful Philippine revolution of 1898 which put an end to over three centuries of Spanish tyrannical rule. This political revolution of 1898 would  paved the way for another revolution, the Philippine religious revolution and the formation of Iglesia Filipina Independiente or Philippine Independent Church.

Chapter IV: IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

“The Iglesia Filipina Independiente or Philippine Independent Church is the only tangible product of the Philippine Revolution of 1896-1898.” Teodoro Agoncillo

The three centuries of Spanish Rule in the Philippines had given the Roman Catholic Church sufficient time to convert the Philippine natives to the Christian Faith. With the exception of the Mohammedans in Mindanao and Sulu (who were entrenched in Islam) and the Igorots on the Mountain Provinces of Luzon (who were entrenched in their animistic religious beliefs), most of the natives embraced Roman Catholicism, making the Philippines as the first Christian Nation in Asia.

It is apropos to mention that both the Philippines and Mexico have similar political and religious histories. Both countries were conquered through “the Cross and the Sword” (the phrase describing Spain’s doctrine of discovery) and both were parts of the “New Spain,” a huge extension of the Spanish Empire in the 16^th century.

There is a difference, however on the timelines between Philippines and Mexico with regards to their emancipations. The Filipinos were colonized longer than the Mexicans. This is not only due to the pliant character of the Filipino race but also on the process by which culture, particularly language, played its part in national revolution and emancipation.

Both Mexico and the Philippines were “discovered” by Spain in 1521 but Mexico declared their independence in 1821 while the Philippines declared its independence in 1898---a 77 years difference. What happened?

The reason for this gap of years is that while Spanish colonizers taught the Spanish language all over Mexico, they denied the same scope of teaching in the Philippines. The Spaniards realized that teaching Spanish language to the masses became a unifying vehicle for the Mexican nationalist revolution. Having thus learned from the Mexican experience, the Spanish colonizers in the Philippines taught the Spanish language only to the elite, thus perpetuating the class system. While Spanish-owned universities used Spanish as medium of instruction, it was limited only to higher education. Furthermore, the kind of Spanish taught was one of classical Spanish and not conversational Spanish. A Filipino who speaks Spanish is consequentially affluent, well-educated and aristocratic. It would be unusual, rare and a scandal for a common tao (average Filipino) to be able to speak Spanish.

The Filipino masses organized local revolts but lacking a common language, communication was not easy. Aside from thousands of islands and islets that separated them, there were hundreds of differing dialects and tribal languages which often were not understandable to other tribes. Without a common language to unify the masses, the Spanish conquistadores aided by their allies from the Philippine elite would easily quell revolts.

Therefore, it was not language but religion, which would eventually become the unifier of the masses. In addition, it was not the Church as an institution but a group of Filipino Christians who shared common experience of pain and who saw a common vision of hope who finally effected change.

The Spanish-controlled Roman Catholic Church was in collusion with the Spanish government in the oppression of the masses but a group of awakened Christians spoke and wrote of their dream for a fairer Philippines, a new society ruled by the Filipino people and feasting in freedom. This awakening paved the way for the Philippine Revolution of 1898 and finally led to the declaration of Philippine Independence on June 12, 1898.

But Philippine history has many twists and turns. In the Filipino Revolution of 1898, General Emilio Aguinaldo was proclaimed president of the first Philippine Republic.  The revolutionaries organized a nationalist government, framed a Philippine Constitution and approved Tagalog as the national language. But just as they were on the deck towards self-determination, a new game was being played by the colonizers.

Unknown to Filipino revolutionaries, the Philippines was “ceded” by Spain to the United States to the tune of twenty million dollars.  A kind of “moro moro” or “lutong macaw” (Filipino slangs for fake games) was played by Spain and the United States to seal the deal. It was no surprise that when the first salvos from the canons of the American fleet of Admiral John Dewey, the Spanish Armada of Admiral Montojo immediately surrendered.

The Spaniards acted their part in the fake “war game” by surrendering not to the Philippine Revolutionaries but to the invading Americans.  Therefore, instead of waking up to the new dawn of freedom from Spain, the Filipino masses had to live through the nightmare of adjusting to their new masters, the Americans. 

A brief but cruel Philippine-American War ensued with horrendous loss to the Filipino masses, worn out by years of local revolts and a frustrating nationalist revolution. One of the American atrocities happened in Balangiga, Samar when the Americans avenged the death of their soldiers by torching the entire village and killing every inhabitants both militia and civilians.

Americanization and the Birth of a Filipino Church

It was in this context of colonial transition from the Spanish Crown to the American Empire that the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Philippine Independent Church) was born. 

The Filipino Catholic revolutionaries had two goals: first, to achieve a Nation independent from Spain enrolled in the family of free nations; and second, to achieve a Catholic Church independent from Spain and registered in the global Christendom. The rallying cry was for “a Filipino Nation and a Filipino Church” emerging from a colonial government and a foreign church! Political freedom and religious freedom. Pro Deo et Patria!

With the coming of the Americans, the political revolution would fail but the religious revolution would succeed. Like the bamboo groove, one shoot (political) would fall but another shoot (religious) would rise.

The religious revolution focused on the “Filipinization” of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.  In October 23, 1899, the Rev. Gregorio Aglipay, a Roman Catholic priest earlier appointed by Aguinaldo as Military Vicar General of the Revolution, organized an assembly of Filipino clergy in Paniqui, Tarlac to form a “provisional Constitution of the Filipino Church.”  The document contained a de-facto proclamation of schism not necessarily from the Roman Catholic pope but from the control of the Spanish bishops in the Philippines. Religious oppression in the Philippines was not sanctioned by the Pope. Perpetuated by Spanish religious authorities in collusion with Spanish guardia civil, it was kept unchecked by the Vatican.

Father Aglipay’s bold move of collaborating with Aguinaldo and organizing the Filipino Clergy incurred the ire of Manila’s Archbishop Nozaleda. Without trial, Aglipay was excommunicated. Instead of capitulating and be driven to his knees, Aglipay responded by “excommunicating” Nozaleda “from the respect of the Filipino People.”

Some well-meaning clergy in the Catholic Church tried to heal the rift between Nozaleda and Aglipay but to no avail. The rift became irreconcilable. On August 3, 1902 at a rally in Centro De Bellas Artes in Manila, Don Isabelo Delos Reyes, founder of the first labor union in the Philippines, proclaimed the Iglesia Filipina Independiente as “The Philippine Church independent of Spain.” He also named Gregorio Aglipay as the first Obispo Maximo (Supreme Bishop) of the revolutionary church.

The birth and spontaneous growth of the IFI would later pave the way for the “loosening” of the grip of Roman Catholicism in the Philippines.  American Protestant churches, protected by the neo-colonial regime, mushroomed.  An indigenous non-Catholic church, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) also emerged.  Almost one-fourth of the entire Roman Catholics “defected” into the IFI while others left the Roman churches and affiliated themselves with the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Iglesia Ni Cristo and many other Protestant denominations and independent churches. Someone had said that the Iglesia Filipina Independiente shook the Roman Catholic Tree and the Protestant Churches came to pick up the fallen fruits. 

It has to be noted that when the IFI separated from Rome, Aglipay and the Filipino clergy had no desire to abandon the Catholic doctrines especially Trinitarianism.  The schism happened because they saw no possibility that the Romanist structure of the of colonial church would change. Like a fish taken out of the water, the colonial Roman Catholic Church was on an irreversible corruption and the only solution is a new creation---the IFI.

The conditions following the schism, however, made it difficult for Aglipay and Delos Reyes as leaders of the revolutionary church to maintain a balance between vision and reality.  Fearing “being enslaved again,” they refused reconciliation with Rome even when the hated Spanish bishops were replaced with more amiable ones.  Wary that they might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire or fearing “being enslaved by new masters,” the IFI also refused affiliation with any incoming American Protestant denominations.   

The first major test of the viability of the IFI happened when the Roman Catholic Church started their “counter-reformation” and sued the IFI for the return of the church buildings and properties they occupied following the schism. Revolutions, even religious ones are always messy. Had the political revolution succeeded and pro-IFI government won, the IFI would have legitimized their take-over of Roman Catholic churches. Unfortunately with the failure of the political revolution, there was no one to advocate for the IFI especially when the matter went up to the Vatican.

The new Philippine Commonwealth was the vassal of the United States government. By virtue of the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded ownership of the Philippines to the Americans. Therefore when the Vatican-supported petition from the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines petitioning that the IFI church buildings be returned, the court litigation went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In 1906, the US Supreme Court decided in favor of the Roman Catholic Church.

Following the fateful US Supreme Court decision, the Philippine Commonwealth government ordered the IFI to “return all their real estate and property” to the Roman Catholic Church.  Aglipay and Delos Reyes appealed the decision claiming that these churches, chapels and cemeteries were built by the blood, sweat and tears of the Filipino people but they lost. The court decided that although the parishioners indeed built their local churches, these properties were legally listed as “corporation sole” in the name of the Pope of Rome. The corporation sole allows the title of the lands to the successors in office rather than to the heirs of the owners of the land. In other words, they were “papal lands” and not Filipino lands and said properties belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

The 1906 Supreme Court decision greatly demoralized the fledgling IFI.  Overnight they were driven out from the church buildings they used to hold their services. The priests had to vacate their rectories. The bereaved had nowhere to bury their dead. The postulants had no seminaries to host their theological education and clergy training.

Some IFI members returned to the fold of Rome, others joined the Protestants or dropped out from Church completely.  The majority, however, held on to their proud spirits and began to build make-shift churches from bamboo and palm leaves.  Episcopal Bishop Lewis Whittemore, author of The Struggle for Freedom, had this to say about the indomitable spirit of the IFI:

 “It was humiliating to abandon the great churches where they and their parents had worshipped, and the wonder is not that so many abandoned the Independent Church but that so many stayed in it…these people tasted the gall and bitterness of defeat and humiliation.  But they did not give up, whether because of native courage or something better.  My own theory is that they felt as no other group, identified with the Philippines and carried an ark of covenant with them in the wilderness.  That covenant was with the heroes of the past who had seen visions of a fairer Philippines---and had suffered.  They could not see the future but they knew something precious had been entrusted to them.  Like Abraham, they ventured forth into the unknown.  Confused and homeless, they started to rethink and to rebuild.”

For forty years thereafter, the IFI would enter into what IFI Bishop Emerson Bonoan of Ilocos Norte called “the 40 years of IFI wandering in theological wilderness.”  Handicapped by lack of material resources to train clergy and sustain growth, besieged by counter-reformation propaganda from the Romanists. and lacking in apostolic succession, the IFI leaders wandered from one theological position to another seeking for renewal and clinging for sheer survival.

One glimmer of hope was the unique friendship between Aglipay and U.S. Governor Howard Taft. A hard core Unitarian, Taft who served as head of the U.S. Commonwealth Government in the Philippines advised Aglipay to switch from Trinitarianism to Unitarianism. Because he was not a bishop when the IFI seceded from the Roman Church, Aglipay could not ordain bishops in accordance with the tenets of the Trinitarian faith. It takes three legitimate bishops to lay hands and make priests into bishops. The Unitarian Church however, does not require episcopal (bishop) apostolic succession and has a different doctrine that the Catholic faith.

Reluctantly, Aglipay who was trained in theology at the University of Santo Tomas under the Dominican Order, acquiesced to the advice of Taft. He started to include Unitarian beliefs in the IFI experimental liturgies.  Meanwhile Don Isabelo Delos Reyes, being a labor leader, also dabbled with socialism and was injecting Marxist dialectical materialism into the IFI theology.  Hoping to recapture political leverage, both Aglipay and Delos Reyes ran for positions in the Commonwealth with a somewhat unpopular platform---“autonomy from the Americans.” Delos Reyes was elected in the senatorial election while Aglipay lost in the presidential election to the more popular (and U.S. backed) Manuel L. Quezon.

The result of the IFI  theological wandering and political adventurism was the blurring of the Church’s vision and mission.  With a fatigued and confused clergy and disoriented laity, factionalism reared its ugly head.  The potential schismatic groups were only waiting for the death of the two leaders to compete for succession. 

The eventual demise of the two founders, Aglipay and Delos Reyes was greatly exploited by the Roman Catholic propagandists.  One of the daughters of Delos Reyes, a Catholic nun, reportedly hid her dying father in the convent and asked him to sign a letter retracting his involvement in the IFI and stating that he “returned to the fold of Rome.”  Another RCC propaganda tried to besmirch the reputation of Aglipay by saying that he had fathered a child with Pilar Jamias whom he married moments before his death.

With the death of Aglipay and Delos Reyes, the IFI found itself being dismembered by internal strife and party spirit.  Elections for the position of Supreme Bishop were marked with heavy politicking and the election results were heavily contested. 

The years following World War II (1940-1948) were a period of bitter court litigations involving various factions in the IFI.  No other church in Philippine history would have the same number of court cases involving bishops illegitimately consecrated for lack of apostolic succession, fighting among themselves.

But where God guides, God provides. The IFI theological wandering and ecclesiastical infighting relatively came to an end and found its healing in 1948 when IFI Bishop Isabelo Delos Reyes, Jr. (son of Don Isabelo) received the “gift of apostolic succession” from three bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). 

The consecration of Delos Reyes, Jr. by duly consecrated bishops of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” enabled the IFI to move forward and be restored into the Catholic mainstream.  The Unitarian teachings of Aglipay and the Gnostic literature of Don Isabelo were expunged from the new Filipino Missal.  The Orthodox and old Catholic Churches in England and Europe readily acknowledged the IFIs return to Trinitarian orthodoxy.

The IFI’s return to the Trinitarian Faith was only the beginning of the relationship with the Episcopal Church. In 1961, following spirited negotiations at the 60th General Convention of the ECUSA in Detroit, Michigan, the Concordat of Full Communion between the IFI and ECUSA was signed.  Under this agreement, each Church “recognizes the catholicity and independence of the other; agrees to admit members of the other to participate in the sacraments; and implies that each Church believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith.”  This unequivocal statement about the IFI Trinitarian faith made it possible for members of the IFI to be recognized as Filipino Catholics independent of Rome, worldwide.

With the Concordat agreement in place, the IFI was admitted as member of the National Council of Church of the Philippines (NCCP), the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the worldwide Anglican Communion.  The first dream of the Filipino revolutionaries (“to achieve an independent Filipino nation enrolled in the family of free nations”) was not realized in their lifetime.  Their second dream (“to achieve an independent Filipino Church enrolled in the family of universal Christendom”) became a reality.

Today, the IFI stands as the “only living and tangible result of the Philippine Revolution of 1898.”  The Concordat with the Episcopal Church has given it the necessary push to gain a special place in the universal Church.  It has also added a new dimension to the religious and ecumenical relations between the Philippines and the United States which hopefully will have significant implication in future of Filipino American Ministry.

Chapter V: EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE AMERICAN MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE

“I will not put an altar on another man’s altar.” Charles Henry Brent

The Episcopal Church in the Philippines (ECP) began as a missionary district of the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA). Like the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, the ECP was also born in the vortex of geopolitical change, the turning over of Philippine sovereignty by Spain to the United States.

As stated in the earlier chapter, Hispanization and Catholicization of the Philippines existed for over three centuries (1521-1898) but mainly among the lowland Filipinos. The people in the Mountain Provinces of Luzon had been largely untouched and unconquered by Spain. The tribal Igorots, like the Muslims in Mindanao, had fiercely and successfully resisted Spanish intrusion and very much preserved their indigenous cultures.

In other words, while the whole Filipinas underwent a make over to mestizo culture, the Igorots maintained their indigenous way of life. As the lowland Catholic Filipinos would recite their novenas to the Santo Nino or Santo Entierro and sing Ave Maria, the Igorots of BIBAK (Bontoc, Ifugao, Benguet, Apayao and Kalinga), sounded their gongs and danced in homage to their Kabunian, the Great Father, the Supreme Being.

At the coming of the Americans, the Igorots were still perceived, in the words of Igorot former Mayor of Baguio, Thomas A. Killip, “as half-naked natives, wearing g-strings, eating dogs and cutting off the heads of their enemies.” They were marginalized in the American-ruled Philippines to the point that even the first Filipino Secretary of the United Nations, General Carlos P. Romulo called them culturally backward. In an interview with one American newspaper, Romulo who popularized the statement “Filipinos are brown Americans” also commented that “the Igorots are not Filipinos.”

Of course this discriminatory statement, which Romulo defended as taken out of context, was rejected by the enlightened public who considered the Igorots as some of the most civilized, English-speaking, well educated and most ethical people. Much of this change in perception was due to the witness of the Episcopal Church.

If there is a similarity (or complementarity) therefore, between the IFI and the ECP, it is this: the IFI was the church of the revolutionary poor and the ECP was the church of the culturally marginalized. The IFI is the by-product of religious revolution of the “oppressed Filipinos” in the lowlands; the ECP was the product of American mission to the “marginalized Filipinos” on the uplands.

Much credit to this unique mission to the Igorot Filipinos go to Charles Henry Brent, the first bishop of the Philippine missionary district of ECUSA. Although the first Episcopal Eucharist was actually conducted by Chaplain John Staunton of the American military expeditionary forces, it was the vision of Bishop Brent that shaped the early development of ECP. Knowing that the lowland Filipinos were already Christianized, Brent remarked that he would “not build an altar on someone else’s altar.” Instead of joining with the other Protestant Churches in proselytizing the Roman Catholics or competing with the IFI, Brent steered the Episcopal Mission to the marginalized Igorots on the Mountain Province, the Tirurays in Mindanao and the immigrant/refugee Chinese in Manila’s Chinatown. Of course, he did not forget the affluent American expatriates in Manila and Makati.

The advent of American neocolonial rule, despite being militarily intrusive, was also a tremendous opportunity for American Christian missionary enterprise. The Filipino masses were learning English and embracing the tutelage of their new teachers. The schism of the IFI loosened the stranglehold of Roman Catholicism over the Filipino faithful. In the words of one missionary, “the IFI shook the tree of Roman Catholicism and the Protestant denominations were picking up the fallen fruits.”

It would have been easy for the ECUSA to establish its foothold in the Philippines and grab the limelight from the Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. The Episcopal Church at that time was closely allied with the US Government and even Brent was perceived as an agent of imperialism. The Episcopal liturgy was closer to Roman Catholic Rites and it would have been an easy transition from Roman Catholicism.

Brent however, an ecumenist and a visionary had his eyes on the unchurched, not on the already churched. He arrived on August 24, 1902  with a “with a huge amount of American money to support the beginnings of his work” but instead of using these to build churches in the Philippine mainstream, Brent set out to establish missions among people in the margins.

From 1903 to 1917, Brent concentrated on building the Episcopal Church among the cultural minorities in the hope of improving their way of life. He established the Church of Resurrection, Easter and Brent Schools in Baguio City; St. Mary’s Church in Sagada; St. Benedict’s School in Besao; and planted the seeds for St. Luke’s Hospital and St. Stephen’s Church in Manila; Cathedral of St. Mary and St. John in Quezon City; Kawakawa Hospital in Jolo; and an Agricultural School and Holy Trinity Church in Mindanao.

After a tremendously successful mission, Brent returned to the United States to become Chief of Chaplains of General John Pershing’s Expeditionary Force to Europe during World War I and eventually became bishop of the Diocese of Western New York. His successors---Frank Mosher, Robert Wilner and especially Norman Binsted---pursued Brent’s goal of evangelizing the unchurched and establishing the Episcopal Church among the cultural minorities.

In Christian history, it is often in great crises that the Church is tried and tested like gold purified by fire. The aftermath of WW II created a vacuum of American missionaries, clergy and lay leaders. Ironically, there is blessing in scarcity. When there’s no one to serve, foreign missionaries look around---and begin to trust that the locals can equally handle the job.

According to the late Prime Bishop Edward Malecdan, “the breakthrough in the development of local clergy and lay leadership of the ECP happened during World War II,” a period of great suffering when the Philippines was invaded by Japan.

The Japanese blanket bombings wrecked havoc and resulted in tremendous suffering, death and destruction. During the War Years of 1941-1944 many churches were also destroyed. Among those which escaped destruction were Stephen’s School, St. Luke’s Hospital and Brent School. When the War finally ended with the surrender of Japan in 1944, Bishop Binsted decided to repatriate the surviving American missionaries and engaged the Igorots in the task of post-war rehabilitation. Digging through the debris of the Episcopal Cathedral in 1945, Binsted recovered land titles, deeds and stock certificates which surged in values at the post-war reconstruction.

The sale of the recovered stocks and bonds gave Bishop Binsted the resources to jumpstart the reconstruction and to design a road map towards native (Filipino Igorot) leadership. He bought the property of Cathedral Heights that would contain his vision: a cathedral, a hospital, a college of nursing, a seminary and a university. It was a Trinitarian vision, a triad ministry to body, mind and spirit.

Today, that vision is realized in the Cathedral of St. Mary and St. John; St. Luke’s Hospital and College of Nursing; Trinity University of Asia; and St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary. Binsted also sold the Manila location of the English-speaking American congregation and bought a prime property in Forbes Park, Makati where the Holy Trinity Episcopal Church now stands.

I do not have to narrate the chronology of events that finally led to the autonomy of the ECP. Suffice it to say, however, that by 1967, The Rt. Rev. Benito Cabanban was consecrated as the first Filipino Bishop. Two years thereafter he became the first Prime Bishop. Subsequent developments saw even more Filipino Prime Bishops: Constancio Manguramas, Richard Abellon, Edward Longid, Manuel Lumpias, Narciso Ticobay, Ignacio Soliba, Edward Malecdan, Renato Abibico and at the time of this writing, the new and current Prime Bishop, The Most Rev. Joel Pachao.

St. Paul wrote in Scriptures, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gives the growth” (I Corinthians 3:6). In the case of ECP, the American missionaries planted the seeds but it is the Igorot and Tiruray Filipino leaders who watered---and God blessed it with tremendous growth.

The Filipino Episcopalians fully transitioned to take the helm of the ECP from the Americans. In 1978, the National Convention approved the first reading of its proposed Constitution and Canons; in 1982, it adopted a Covenant Relation between the ECP and PECUSA as preliminary step towards becoming an autonomous province; and finally on May 1, 1990, the autonomous Province of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines was inaugurated.  The ECP had come of age!

In October 2007 at the Executive Council meeting of the TEC in Illinois, the then ECP Prime Bishop, Ignacio Soliba and the Provincial Secretary, Bishop Miguel Yamoyam presented the ECP-TEC Covenant declaring the  ECP’s full autonomy and their interdependence with their mother Church, the Episcopal Church in the USA.

I was there in Detroit, Michigan when the autonomy declaration was made and I felt very proud of what the ECP has achieved.The church that was born on the mountains of Luzon, the hinterlands of Mindanao and the inner sanctum of Manila has now come of age. With its 150,000 members in seven dioceses (Central Philippines, Southern Philippines, Northern Philippines,  Northern Luzon, North Central Philippines, Santiago, Davao and a future Diocese in the Visayas), the ECP stands today as one of the constituent members of the Anglican Communion and an integral part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

From being a daughter of the Episcopal Church (in the USA), the ECP has now become a sister-church, standing shoulder to shoulder with The Episcopal Church and enjoying a concordat of full communion of her own, with her neighbor and childhood friend, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente.

It is my hope that Filipino American missionaries and ministers will learn from the legacy of these two churches: IFI and ECP. The IFI history testifies of Christ advocating for the poor and the oppressed. The ECP history testifies that Christ proclaims the Gospel to the marginalized.

The National Cathedral of the Episcopal Church in Washington DC is actually named “The Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul.” I have always imagined the complementarity of the two saints: St. Peter looks at the church and points to the world as if saying, “Church go out and serve in the world” while St. Paul has his eyes on the world and invites them saying, “World, welcome to the Church!”

Filipino Mission and Ministry in American Context, to be effective, must have a dual of social justice advocacy and evangelism---the twin legacy from IFI and ECP.

CHAPTER VI: FILIPINO AMERICAN CULTURAL VALUES

                                     

“Cultures are fingers of God pointing to Christ.” Kosuke Koyama

The Filipino Culture is a unique blend of Malay-Polynesian, Chinese, Indian, Arab and Persian origins.  Spanish and North American influences were added into their DNA during the 400 years of Western colonialization.  It is therefore inappropriate to use the term “pure Filipino” when referring to Filipinos as a race or cultural entity.

This assertion does not mean Filipinos do not have a culture of their own.  Stanley Karnow made a neat observation in his book, In Our Image: American Empire in the Philippines.  A veteran journalist and Philippine observer, Karnow wrote: “Most of the Filipino people I met spoke American English.  They knew far more about the United States than I knew about the Philippines, as if they were some kind of lost American tribe that had somehow detached from the U.S. mainland and floated across the Pacific.  But with each successive visits (to the Philippines), I perceived that their values and traditions, though frequently concealed under an American veneer, were their own---and often antithetical to the American model.”

In dealing with Filipino American cultural values, it is helpful to know the dynamics between indigenous values, enculturated values and contextualized values subsumed earlier in the understanding of contextualization.  The Filipino immigrant brings with him latent indigenous values which encounters mainline American (often Caucasian, Anglo or Euro-American) cultural values.  The Filipino, being by nature flexible, readily adjusts to this encounter by “enculturating” or “assimilating” or adding into his system this new culture.  He does this adaptation not necessarily because he values this “foreign” culture more than his “indigenous” culture.  Rather, he tries to internalize this “extra-cultural influence” in order to gain acceptance.  Pliant like the bamboo, he “sways” to this new influence rather than disrupt communication.

This characteristic Filipino adaptability often moves back and forth, as if trying to test the limits of imitation as well as his own “sense of shame.”  Sometimes he may become too copious and “act more than an American” (in dress, hair style, mannerisms, etc.).  At other times, he may show some hostility and express contempt on what he deems ugly American values.  In all these experimentations, his main aim is for acceptance from both his fellow Filipinos as well as from within the mainline American value system. He wants to be accepted by mainstream American culture without being alienated from the boundaries of his marginalized Filipino American culture.

HIERARCHY OF FILIPINO NEEDS

The great social scientist Max Weber, underscored “hierarchy of human needs” in this ascending order: economic needs, social needs, aesthetic needs, and the needs for self-actualization.  Weber theorized that human beings generally desire to move up the ladders of this hierarchical pyramid.

The hierarchy of goals for indigenous Filipinos. However, starts not from economic sufficiency but from social acceptance (pakikisama).  A common saying among “traditional” Filipinos is “Hindi baling walang pera, huwag lang walang hiya”.  (Better be poor than be shameless). 

Filipinos are not confrontational by nature.  They are extra sensitive to personal affront.  They dread rejection.  For this reason, they prefer to use “parinig” (going around the bush) or euphemistic words instead of direct statements or demands.  In dealing with personal and socially-sensitive issues, they use intermediaries or “go-between” rather than direct confrontation.  Truth is secondary to interpersonal relationship. In Philippine culture, the word “yes” has many meanings and one of them is “no.” The Filipino will not say “No” when in the presence of close friends because it would mean rejection and it is a shame.

The need for economic security (maykaya) follows the need for social acceptance.  Despite their apparent lack of economic strivings, indigenous Filipinos are dreamers of economic paradise.  They dream of “getting rich quick” as evidenced by their love of the lottery.  They are deeply fatalistic, believing in “suerte” (luck).  The meaning of faith and fate are often confused and interchanged. They love the saying, “the quitter never wins; the winner never quits” when applied to gambling and much of life.

Socioeconomic mobility (maylakas) is third in the hierarchy of Filipino goals.  There are two sides of this cultural value.  Positively, it energizes Filipinos to strive harder in order to improve their lot.  Negatively, it breeds graft and corruption.  Political structures in Philippines are known to be operating more on “palakasan” (pull) rather than the merit system.  Career promotions in civic, military, political and even business endeavors  are tainted by nepotism and the ever-present “padrino” (patronage) system---a Spanish influence.

Self-actualization (may pagkabayani) is the apex of Filipino cultural goals.  This is often associated with one’s SIR (smooth interpersonal relationship) and personal heroism.  It is a sensitivity (amor propio) to personal honor, dignity, integrity and self-esteem.  Within every Filipino there is a deep and sacred honor that will not bear shame and degradation.  He may be pushed too far but when it reaches to the limit of losing his honor, he will be shamed and may turn “juramentado” (run amok) or become suicidal.  When it reaches to the point that he is shamed, the indigenous Filipino would offer his life.  It is better to die with honor than to live with dishonor.

ENCULTURATED FILIPINO VALUES

The culture of extended family and kinship system (a Chinese filial piety influence) pervades in almost all levels of Filipino life and all aspects of their relationships.  Traditional Filipino families are patriarchal and hierarchical.  The elderly, the professionals, the rich and powerful are often accorded respect and  adoration. The non-word “po” is given to persons of authority, power and respectability.

The basic temper of the Filipinos is of Malay origin aided by Latin temper.  Some of their character traits like industry, thrift, frugality and patience are of Chinese influence.  Other traits such as the love of art, music and dancing are of Indian influence.  Over time, indigenous Filipinos had enculturated the customs and traditions they found in their neighboring nations.

Filipino values are also embedded in religious structures, the most pervasive being the Roman Catholicism, a legacy of almost four centuries of Spanish colonization.  As in most Asian mindset, culture and religion are inextricably intertwined.  Catholicism was forced upon the natives from 1521 to 1898.  Threatened by the Spanish “Cross and Sword” (guns and canons as well), indigenous Filipinos accepted the outward form of Western faith but inwardly retained their indigenous religious practices.  In other words, while showing external devotion to Catholic saints, relics and spiritual devotions, they inwardly venerated their anitos (indigenous animistic idols). They were not iconoclasts but accomodationalists. Instead of renouncing their animistic beliefs and accepting Catholicism in toto, the indigenous Filipinos accommodated the foreign and nascent (Catholicism) and superimposed them into their native and primordial beliefs (animism or pantheism).

This sense of Filipino accommodation has given rise to what is known as “folk Christianity,” the unique admixture of Catholic rituals and traditional animistic practices.  Father Jaime Bulatao, S.J., a noted Philippine sociologist, described this unique Filipino spirituality as “split level.”  Filipinos hear the gospel but apply it in the background of their pre-Christian beliefs.  They hear about the personal and heavenly Father “who guides the destinies of people and nations” and they apply this idea of providence to their own Bathala Na (fatalistic) philosophy.  They hear about sin and salvation and they apply these concepts to their own sense of gaba (divine punishment) and awa (divine mercy).

For almost every Catholic icon, there is an indigenous religious pocket with which to put it.  As Filipinos come to join Catholic processions and festivals, they empty their pockets (literally they also spend lots of money) and display these foreign icons.  When they go back home and found themselves broke and exhausted, they take out their nativistic icons (anitos) kept in their secret kaban (wooden treasure chest) and venerate them. It is not either or but both and.

In this enculturated Filipino value, success and failure in life are not the results of one’s efforts or lack of them.  Rather, they are two sides of the same coin: the awa (mercy) and gaba (judgment) of God.  When one obtains the awa (mercy or grace) of God, (Hesus-Maria-Jose) he is such a lucky man (masuerte!).  When one incurs the gaba (wrath, punishment) of God, “puera buyag!”  (May God forbid!), he is of most people to be pitied (kawawa naman).

 “Split level Christianity” is therefore “split” only as far as the articulation of the faith is concerned.  Their unity is found in how Filipinos apply their own sense of justice.  They are able to take oppression up to a certain limit by applying the awa and gaba of God.  “God will have mercy on us and will punish the oppressor.  We don’t have to do anything.”  When they are pushed to the wall, however,  they abandon this articulation and become “juramentado” (run amok) and execute justice.  When they succeed, they have the awa (mercy, grace, approval) of God; when they fail, they have the gaba (punishment, disgrace, disapproval) of God.  Divine mercy calls for utang na loob (gratitude); divine punishment calls for repentance and restitution.  Both gratitude and repentance bring forgiveness, closeness and family unity.

CONTEXTUAL FILIPINO AMERICAN VALUES

As Filipinos immigrate and settle in the United States, they find these traditional concepts being put to the test.  Pliant like the bamboo, they would sway with the winds of change.  They remain in that position but would snap back after the storm.  In other words, they tend to acquiesce to the dominant culture up to a certain point.  At some time, they may take a “fight or flight” attitude, complaining about the drastic clash of cultures.  At other times, they may swing to the other side of the pendulum and copy everything they find in the dominant culture.  At most times, however, they simply take a “temporary flight” from their own accustomed culture.  If they find everything safe and secure, they may opt for the renaissance or the bringing back of their own culture.

A typical illustration of this dynamics is seen in the study done by the multicultural staff of the East Side Union High School District in San Jose, California in the 1990’s.  This study and analysis revealed some interesting cultural differentiations among the three waves of Filipino immigrats and the corresponding generations that proceeded each immigration wave.

In the First Wave Immigration (1903-1930), the first generation (grandparents) were frustrated with American culture because of the racist oppression they experienced especially during the Great Depression. The second generation (parents) suffered “identity crisis” as they were born and raised in America with Filipino parents “bred in oppression”; the third generation (grandchildren) become angry and expressive of their loss of identity; and their fourth generation (great grandchildren) are seeking “renaissance” and “relearning” of their ancestral cultures.  The greatest gift one can give to the fourth generation of the First Wave is a plane ticket to go to the Philippines and know their heritage.

In the Second Wave Filipino Immigration (World War II – 1960), the first generation (grandparents) readily assimilated with the dominant American culture because they were either wives of American G.I.’s, soldiers of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces in the Far East) or seamen with the U.S. Navy and merchant marine.  Their second generation (parents) felt that they were “pushed to be Americanized” as a matter of necessity and survival.  Their third generation (children) felt “more marginalized.”

In the Third Wave Filipino Immigration (1965-1980’s), the first generation (grandparents), readily adapted to the dominant culture because of their favorable educational and professional background.  They not only found their American Dream (house and credit cards) but are also able to maintain and sustain it.  Their second generation (parents) inherit their desire of the American Dream but found it hard to attain.  They were not as educationally and experientially trained as their first generation.  As a result, they are both resentful of their parents’ homeland (the Philippines) as well as their own birthplace (the United States).  There was a high rate of school drop-outs among the teenagers of this generation, a high divorce-rate among the married, and a lot of dysfunctional families in the 1990’s.

Filipino American gangs also come from this generation of the Third Wave.  Coming from affluent parents who were fully assimilated to the Anglo American values of work, they have not experienced being nurtured in traditional Filipino values.  Being left to grow up with parents who barely have quality time with them, they learned their values from the personalities they encounter in schools, shopping centers, movies, televisions and video games.  Unable to imitate their parents who are professional or career-oriented, they lose themselves in some form of cultural experimentation.  In some sense, they were searching for values that could hold them together and ensure their sanity.  Married couples of this generation have babies being brought up in this climate of meaninglessness and lack of long-term direction.  They needed help.

There has been no follow-up to this 1990’s study. My sense is that Filipino Americans in the current generation go with the flow of American society. There are just as many Filipino Americans who support President Donald Trump as there are just as many who decry him. There is yet no Filipino American unified voice or vote. For as long as they consider the mainstream American Society as the paradigm of their culture, they will remain politically divided and culturally fragmented.

CHAPTER VII: FILIPINO AMERICAN EVANGELISM

“Evangelism is a beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.” D. T. Niles

There is a truth to what the late Philippine President Corazon C. Aquino said: “You can take the Filipinos out of the Philippines but you can’t take the Philippines out of the Filipinos.” There are cultural values deeply ingrained in the Filipino heart and mind that cannot be erased even as they adjust to their adapted country whether it be the United States or anywhere else.

The core values of Filipinos can be summarized in six Fs: Family, Friends, Face, Food, Festival and Faith. Filipinos love big families, enjoy being with friends, hate being shamed, like eating, revel in fiestas and believe in divine providence. To effectively evangelize the Filipinos, we must be sensitive to the values, cultures and traditions they hold so dear.

Filipinos in general are “sacramentalized but not evangelized.” They were baptized when they were babies and confirmed when they were teenagers. Many did not receive catechetical instructions and were not taught the Holy Scriptures in depth.

Yet Filipinos have long years of collective Christian experience. Anecdotal history claims that prior to the coming of the Spaniards in 1521, there were already some Nestorian Christians who first came to China then traveled to Pangasinan in Luzon and probably to some other islands in the Visayas.

Nestorianism is a branch of early Christianity named after Nestorius who advanced the idea that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are separate. Nestorian missionaries, led by Bishop Alopen of Persia traveled to China in 635 AD and organized basic Christian communities in Chang-an, the Tang Capital. They contextualized the gospel by putting Christ as a “Lotus” in the center of the cross. Being merchants and gospel tent makers, it is possible they also traveled to Philippines along with the Chinese traders and shared their faith. To say that Christ was already in the Philippines prior to the coming of the Spanish Catholics is more than theological; it may also be literal.

The very primeval Nestorian Christianity was followed by over three centuries of Spanish Catholicism and fifty years of American evangelicalism. Yet in general, the Filipino knowledge of God is gained from a mixture of Catholic rituals and “folk Christianity.” Filipino sociologist, Jaime Bulatao, S.J. described the Filipino “cultural Christ” in two paradigms: Santo Entierro (Crucified Christ) and Santo Nino (Holy Child). Bulatao said:

 “The Christ of the Filipinos is pre-eminently the suffering Christ.  He is beaten, scourged, humiliated, and defeated Christ.  With Christ under this aspect, the people of the Philippines (particularly the men) readily identify themselves…The favorite image of Christ appears to be those representing some aspects of His passion, such as carrying the cross or being scourged at the pillar.”

“The other face of Christ which is very popular among Filipinos is the Santo Nino (Holy Child or Infant Jesus).  Deep in the Filipino heart is a Baby symbol, a child attached to parental and family relationship from the cradle to the grave.  Warm, loving, friendly, lovable, trusting, defenseless and vulnerable are some of the qualities that the Holy Child evokes.  There is a “Baby” in every Filipino.  That is why Christ must remain an infant if only to empathize with the Baby in them.”

These images of Christ were exploited by Catholic friars in collusion with Spanish government as a means of cultural subjugation. 

With the Santo Nino, it is as if Christ was born but did not grow up. The Adult Jesus of Nazareth who whipped the money changers and chased them out from the Temple was largely de-emphasized. With the Santo Entierro (crucified or dead Christ), it is as if Jesus did not rise again and has not triumphed over sin evil and death. The Santo Entierro became a powerless figure. As a Spanish mystic, Don Miguel de Unamuno said of this Spanish popular icon: “Este Cristo en mi tierra is tierra!” (This Christ of my native land is dust!)

I am not saying that the icons of the Holy Child and the Crucified Christ are not important to the Christian Faith. The Santo Nino honors the mystery of the incarnation and the Santo Entierro  represents the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. I am saying that these representations of Christ are incomplete without the equal emphasis on the Resurrected Christ who rose triumphant from the grave and who will come again to judge the living and the dead to consummate His eternal kingdom.

For this reason, the evangelization of the Filipinos should involve the totality of the Christ Event. There is a paramount need to proclaim the whole gospel, the kerygma, the mystery of faith. As the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer says in the Eucharistic portion, “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”

The Lausanne Covenant of World Evangelization, a program unit of the World Council of Churches, defined evangelism as “the proclamation of the whole gospel to the whole person by the whole church in the whole world.”

This confession of the holistic gospel includes not just the childhood and death of Christ but the manner in which He lived, loved and served. Filipinos need to hear and fully understand what Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry referred to as a “loving,  liberating and life giving” message of the resurrection. 

Amidst their daily experience of economic poverty, intolerable human suffering from natural calamities, governmental corruption and greed, the bell of the resurrection needs to ring. 

Filipinos need to understand that because Christ has risen, they can also rise and triumph against the forces of evil who steal, kill and destroy. Filipinos need to know that by the power of the resurrection, they can rise from poverty to prosperity, from mediocrity to greatness, from despair to hope, from death to life. Evangelizing Filipinos means making them realize that God loves them and wants them to have abundant life on earth and eternal life in heaven.

EVANGELISTIC GOAL

The goal of evangelism is discipleship. People need to be presented with the whole gospel so that they will make informed decision to accept, follow and obey Jesus as Savior and Lord.

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Jesus said“, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto me.  Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And lo, I will be with you even unto the close of the age.”  (Matthew 28:18-20)

In the gospel according to St. Mark, Jesus rebuked the eleven disciples for their lack of faith and gave them the mandate, “Go into the world and preach the Good News.”  Accompanying this mandate was the promise that when they preach the Good News there will be “signs and wonders” to demonstrate the power of God (Mark 16:14-18).

The gospel according to St. Luke emphasized that the preaching, healing and deliverance ministries of Jesus were given the disciples so they can become instruments in restoring people to wholeness of body, mind and spirit.

The gospel according to St. John’s affirms that Jesus is the Good Shepherd who promises abundant life to those who live and believe in Him and “to those who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave them power to become children of God” (John 1:12).

The Filipino Christian evangelists and missionaries have two groups of people they need to prioritize, the poor who are materially oppressed and the wealthy who are spiritually lost. In biblical Greek, these are the “ochlos” and the “ethne.”

The ochlos are the disorganized masses of people, the wetbacks, the proletariat, the “massa perditiones.” They are people who have no power and are marginalized in society. In Pilipino language, they are “Pobreng Timawa.” In India, they are called the “Dalits,” the “untouchables,” the outcasts. In Korea they are called “minjung.” In patriarchal society, they are the women, widows and girls. In a racist white society, they are the people of color. In a homophobic society, they are the lesbians, gays, bi-sexual, transgender and queer. In an anti-immigrant country, they are the undocumented immigrants and refugees.

In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus had compassion on the “ochlos”, for were “harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). The “loving, liberating and life giving” message of Christ to the Filipino American “ochlos” is that they may have a sense of meaning and direction.  The sick will be healed, the oppressed will be set free and the poor will have Good News preached to them.

The “ethne” are the people who are organized, who have a sense of direction and meaning. Ethne is translated in English as “nation” but it has two connotations. One is the closest word “ethnic” to differentiate from the mainstream. The other meaning is “nation.” While “nation” refers to a national and collective concept, it is in reality a network of structures and systems operated by those in power.

In Scripture, God commanded all people everywhere to repent and come to the knowledge of the truth (Acts 17).  The message of Christ to the “ethne” (tribes or nations) is repentance so that they may be saved.  The rich and the powerful are spiritually lost. St. Augustine once wrote, “O poor man, if you have God what haven’t you got? O rich man, if you have no God what have you got?”

Evangelism to the rich is for them to realize that money is not the be all and end of one’s existence. The parable of the “rich fool” (Luke 12) and the “rich young ruler” (Luke 18) illustrate this point. The rich fool hoarded his harvest in barns after barns hoping to finally sit down and enjoy his wealth but death came upon him earlier than he thought. The rich young ruler could not follow Jesus because he was so addicted to his wealth. The other parable of Jesus about the “greedy rich man and the poor Lazarus” (Luke 16) illustrates the consequential end of the oppressors. They will go to Hades for their greed.

In a sense, evangelism to the poor and the rich are interrelated. Good news to the poor is freedom from want and good news to the rich is freedom from greed and insecurity. Wealth without God, power without compassion are like drugs---they can be addictive.

Jesus remarked that “it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” His apostles asked, “who then can be saved” and Jesus replied, “With man it is impossible but not with God.” If wealth is used as a tool for good and if the wealthy can share their blessings, then they can be saved.

In a sense there are two banks: the bank of earth and the bank of heaven. When the rich invest their wealth only on earth, they cannot bring their wealth to heaven. When you store your treasures only on earth, there is danger of thieves stealing it or  moth and rust corrupting it. But when you store treasures in heaven, there is no such danger. How can you store treasures in heaven? By investing your treasure in the betterment of the lives of the poor. Take away greed, stop corruption, act justly and walk humbly with God.

The dream of God is for Ochlos and Ethne to dwell in peace, justice and love. There is a Truth beyond all truths, an Ultimate Reality beyond all realities.  The dream of God is that the kingdoms of the world will be the Kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ forever. God’s People from every tribe, language and nation shall live in peace. God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.  There will be no more fighting, no death or pain for the old order will pass away and the new will come, a new Jerusalem (Revelation 22).

THE CULTURAL BACKDROP FOR EVANGELISM

Fr. Ben Villote, a Filipino priest from Metro-Manila made a pilot study on the cultural backdrop of a typical Filipino religious community. His findings showed that the people in his religious community could be classified as follows: (1) members of the Church organizations; (2) regular churchgoers who are not members of any church organization; and (3) non-churchgoers or very irregular churchgoers.

To “members of Church organizations,” (the First Group) Villote said, “Jesus Christ is their Lord whom they have to serve.  “Theirs is a “functional approach” to the Christian faith.  To get a job done for their Lord, they have to organize and engage in some tangible projects.  Organization for them means having a Constitution and By-Laws to govern their groups and committees to decide and implement their activities.  They are an activity-conscious, project-centered and task-oriented group.  Social status or being recognized by the priest or church authority (bishop, diocese) plays an important role for this group, which incidentally, makes up only 1% of the total parish membership.

“Regular churchgoers who are not members of any Church organizations” (the Second Group), have a “cathartic approach” to Christ.  Christ is the one who makes them feel good and nice inside.  They relate to the Christian faith on their own through the various forms of pious and devotional ceremonies which they regard as sources of blessings.  They go to Sunday Masses for any or all of these reasons: (a) It is traditional practice for family to go to Mass; (b) It is an auspicious social occasion to sport a new dress; (c) It is the only and best occasion to socialize with friends and catch up with the latest gossip or news; (d) The sermons or homilies make them feel good and provide them with spiritual comfort in their time of sorrow, loneliness or problems.  This group, according to Villote, makes up 10% of the parish population.

The “non-churchgoers or very irregular churchgoers” (the Third Group) have an “environmental approach” to Christ.  Jesus is someone they meet in the various grassroots neighborhood meetings: fiesta, novenas, marriage, baptism, house blessings, etc.  To this group, Christ may be vague, unarticulated image but nonetheless real.  They feel Christ’s “presence” among them and they may sometimes profess to be better than what they may criticize as the “hypocritical” First Group.  They, however, see no reason for regularly going to Church nor getting actively involved in its organizations.  Some critics call this group, “KBL Christians” (i.e. Kasal, Binyag, Libing or Wedding, Baptism, Funeral) and they compose 89% of the parish population or community.

Needless to say, Filipino immigrants in the United States bring with them this religious cultural baggage.  Aside from the fact of the predominance of the Third Group, the secularized, work-oriented American society that they found takes the First and Second Groups backward thus making a Fourth Group---“those who have dropped out of Christian services completely.”  This new fourth group cares not a hoot about religious festivities, let alone attending Sunday masses.  Like the majority of mainline Americans, they spend their weekend at work or watching TV football, movies, picnic or catching up with laundry and groceries.  Sometimes, they may watch televangelists but more on their entertainment value than spiritual growth.

This regressive Christian climate in the Filipino American community is exacerbated by the fact that there are but few Filipino clergy or missionaries working in America and few predominantly Filipino churches.  Upon arriving in the United States, Filipino worshippers experience a religious cultural shock.  As they go to attend an American Church, they discover that Sunday Masses are the only celebrations they can take part of. 

These masses however, are oftentimes meaningless or irrelevant. They find no connection to their Filipino culture.  Homilies and sermon-styles cater mainly to Anglo or European faithful.  Images, illustrations and jokes are understood only by the Caucasian members.  The formal and orderly setting of the church fixtures, the almost mechanical rites and liturgy and the structured fellowships that follow are almost too artificial and lack the warmth and hospitality of a village church in the Philippines.

Even if they wish to get fully involved in the American Church, most Filipino Americans found themselves marginalized.  They remain unknown to the pastor and to the other people who fill up the pews on Sunday.  Church buildings are open only at certain times of the day and business hours are observed by the priests and pastoral staff.  Most of the churches, they found out, are composed of elderly white members who get anxious when their children cry in church.  There are not many ministries that deal with their concerns as new immigrants, young couples, teenagers, and parents with small children.  Worst of all, Filipinos find no place for their old time Filipino devotions. Other fundamentalist churches would often ask them to destroy their wooden images and call them “idol worshippers.”

Another area of religious culture shock for Filipino Americans concerns the strict observance of membership register in the parishes.  In the very fluid nature of immigrant life and the unpredictability of their job and income situations, they are asked to fill-up membership forms and pledge envelopes as the signs of their Church belonging.  Especially to those who grew up in rural Philippines where the priest receives directly from the “sacrament fee” system, they could not understand why they have to pledge year after year.  They are also afraid that with the use of envelopes, their pastor will know that they only give a dollar to the collection basket and would think less of them.  In view of their unpredictable job and housing situations, they also fear that they could not comply with their annual pledge. Thus, rather than pledging today and losing face tomorrow, they shy away from Church involvement and prefer to give anonymously continuing their “dollar-dollar” habit of supporting the parish.  By doing so, they also relegate themselves to a slow process of discipleship or finally drop off from Christianity. 

EVANGELISTIC SOLUTIONS

Majority of Filipino Americans, especially new immigrants, do not want to be assimilated or melted into the dominant Anglo Christian culture.  For a people who had long been subjected to foreign domination, they find assimilation to be another form of colonial oppression or cultural imperialism.  Having re-discovered their rich cultural and Christian heritage, they want to be accepted as they are and be helped to grow with the community of other believers.  Yet, they do not want the dominant culture to ignore or disregard their roots.  Rather, they want to share their Christian cultural uniqueness in the context of intercultural diversity.

The following are some strategic solutions for a contextualized Filipino American evangelism:

(1)     Cultural Renaissance

The Filipinos love of drama and pageantry is seen in “folk Christianity” and teleseryes (TV series).The problem in folk Christianity is not the absence of doctrinal value but a fitting climax.  In folk pageantry such as “cenaculo”, the climax is not resurrection but crucifixion. 

Often, this unfitting climax to the Christian story is underscored in the way in which Filipinos venerate their own martyrs.  Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, Gomburza, Ninoy Aquino, etc. gathered following only when they were dead.  They were not believed when alive.  What followed after their death become a distortion of their memory and incongruent of their principles. People are left with the question: “What if these martyrs were alive?”  The answer is that when they were alive, nothing happened.  Now that they are dead, something ought to happen but who will do it?

In the 1990’s in Santa Clara County (California) a form of cultural renaissance was tried by the Filipino American Council.  An ecumenical prayer was held to commemorate the Philippine Independence Day (June 12) or the Philippine American Friendship Day (July 4) involving all the Filipino American churches and religious groups.  In these celebrations, leaders of various organizations prayed together and shared choral and dance festivals.

(2)  Religious revival

Evangelism needs to stretch the cultural symbols to the limit and steer them towards a faithful meeting with the biblical texts.  The chalice of “folk Christianity” must come alive with the new wine of the biblical texts.  Cultural drama and rituals must come alive with the augmentation of a fitting climax.  In a sense, we need a re-invention or re-engineering of Filipino culture to reflect faith in place of doubt, to reflect hope in place of despair, to reflect life in place of death.  The examples of “folk Christianity” that need cultural engineering are:

(a)      The “Misa de Gallo” (dawn masses) of the Christmas season and the “novenas” (vigil prayers) prior to the feasts of the Holy Child, the Virgin Mary and all the Saints.  These religious celebrations have served many purposes; among them were family togetherness and socializing among the neighbors.  The Misa de Gallo and Novenas (vigil services) can be used for an “episodic” study of the Bible and workshops involving family ministries.

(b)      The “Pabasa” (chanting of the Passion narratives) of the Lenten Season involve members of the community taking turns in hosting the event, with refreshment and meals for everyone.  This can be used to conduct a teaching and sharing of human concerns for the socio-economic needs of the community. The DACA (Dreamers), Immigrant Issues, Issues of Human Trafficking and other social issues can be themes of pabasa.

(c)       The “Penitencia” (Lenten penitential acts) which sometimes involved self-flagellations.  This can be transformed to a community project that involves self-denial and self-sacrifice, such as serving the homeless and the needy or joining protest movements for justice.

(d)      The “Salubong” or re-enactment of the encounter or meeting of the Virgin Mother Mary and the resurrected Christ.  As in the Philippines, the service begins with two processions (Christ and the male group from one direction; Mary and the female group in another) and ends with an “encounter.”  In intercultural churches, an experimentation can be done involving processions of diverse racial groups, such as two processions (Anglo-European and People of Color) and the two shall meet.

(e)      Pista Ng Patay (Feast of the Dead) which is celebrated on All Saints Day.  This even brings people and families together at the cemetery where they spend considerable length of time, sometimes the whole day, praying and having picnics (feasting!) on the graveyard of their departed loved ones.  In Filipino American context, this can be adapted by encouraging Filipinos to build “family altars” in their homes or their churches and can be an alternative to the oftentimes too secular “Halloween” parties of the mainline American culture.

Folk Christianity in the Philippines is like Christ incarnate and touches the heart and soul as no abstract text of theology can do.  Only when the Church understands where Filipino Americans are coming from can meaningful evangelization take place.  Contextual evangelism should always ask the questions:

(1)             What is the inner core of the Filipino Folk Christianity and how do we make it alive in the context of Filipino Americans?

(2)             What are the traditional religious devotions of the Filipinos that can be purified of the elements of superstition and fatalism and made to bear the authentic and biblical doctrines that would lead Filipino Americans to maturity in the fullness and stature of Christ?

(3)             How can the popular religious festivals at Easter, Christmas and cultural fiestas be made up-to-date with the socio-economic needs and situations of the community in such a way that they engender love, charity, harmony, growth, cooperation and mutual responsibility within and outside the Filipino American community?

(4)             The Nestorian Christians “contextualized” in China by putting lotus (symbol of Christ) in the center of the Cross while Francis Xavier inscribed scriptures in ancestral tablets. How do we contextualize Asian Christianity in America?

(5)             How can the evangelization of the Filipino Americans and Asians be contagious to the evangelization of other immigrant groups in the United States as well as all those who are in the mainstream of American culture?

CHAPTER VIII: FILIPINO AMERICAN MISSION

                              

“The mission of the church is to reconcile all people to unity with God and each other in Christ” (Episcopal Church’ Book of Common Prayer)

In June 1881, the first period of Western Christian mission on the famous island of Bali, Indonesia came to a sudden and tragic end: J. de Vroom, the missionary was murdered by two servants.  During the fifteen years after the arrival of the first missionaries, only one Balinese had been baptized.  And now the inquiry into the murder showed that it was that one convert, Gusti Wajan Karangasem, who was the main author of the murder.  Soon after his baptism, Karangasem was expelled by his village-community.  He had to flee and live the awful life of an outlaw.  The stress of that life became too strong for him, and he decided on the death of the one who had brought him into utter isolation.  (From the accounts of Hans-Ruedi Weber, World Council of Churches)

This negative example has given missionaries a lesson in history as far as mission is concerned.  Lesson one, the church does not grow chiefly by individuals but by groups; lesson two, the Christian person grows into the fullness of Christ mainly by sharing a newfound life in the context of group dynamics.

Donald McGavran, an acknowledged Church Growth expert, showed us in his most stimulating book, The Bridges of God: a Study in the Strategy of Missions (1955) that Western individualism tends to obscure group processes.  How do people become Christians?  By personal decision!  Yes, but there is also a social factor which plays its important role before, during and after the personal decision.  “People become Christians as a wave of decision for Christ, sweeps through the group mind, involving many individual decisions but being far more than merely their sum,” McGavran said. 

In the New Testament churches, none of the early Christians grow in isolation from the oikos (entire households) who have become part of the community of believers.

In Philippine history, what is perhaps unique is that Christianization happened as a group process (one Barangay after another) and it happened over a long period of time.  Notwithstanding its many negative aspects (e.g. abuses of the Spanish friars), Catholicization of the Philippines during the Spanish era had shown a great significance of group dynamics for the growth of the Church.

Rather than rejecting the already existing work-and-living relationships in the community, Spanish missionaries used these structures to build up the Christian community.  Rather than belaboring to convert the individuals (as modern day evangelists are doing), the Spanish missionaries converted the whole extended family starting from the hierarchical Datu (chieftain) down to the last line of the indigenous society.  The preaching of the Gospel did not create groups, but rather transformed existing groups into ecclesial communities.  In other words, instead of creating a parish out of the individual Christians in the Barangay, the missionaries transformed the Barangays into parishes.

While this type of type of “collective Christianization” may no longer be popular in the context of a highly secular society obsessed by the ideas and ideals of individual rights and self-esteem, the principles remain that the Church is not only a Kerygma (message), not only a diakonia (service) but also a koinonia (fellowship).  If that is the case, and if the Church needs to grow, then the Church should not only address its message to the conversion of secular individuals in society, but must also transform secular societies into Christian communities.  Not only does the Church should say something, not only that the Church should do something but also that the Church should be something.

As a matter of fact, the Church is something.  The church is the community of believers, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ, the congregation of the redeemed sinners and redeeming saints.  In this connection, it is important to understand the sociology of Church growth.  For unless the Church is able to rightly discern the emerging new patterns of group life and goes within and through that pattern, then the “fellowship of the Spirit”, the Church will become a museum piece.

If the Church has to come alive in the Filipino American community, we must seek to build “koinonia” (Christian fellowships) in the already existing structures, namely the various Filipino associations, community groups and extended immigrant families and clans.  We must seek to develop a Christian partnership with all those organizations seeking to improve the quality of life of the society in which they live and work.

NETWORKING AS A STRATEGY OF MISSION

In the context of Filipino Americans and other ethnic groups, the key word to Evangelism and Mission is networking.  Evangelism is seen here as an impact of the Christian community to the community at large.  The emphasis is away from the specialized activity of an individual evangelist or group of evangelists to an evangelizing Church impacting the community around them. 

While evangelism is not necessarily Church Growth, evangelism must have a direction towards sharing the gospel and growing a community that will become the bearer of the Good News.  We are amazed at how liberal Christian churches shun from the word evangelism for fear that they might be associated with the “proselytizing” activities of the evangelical groups.

Only recently, with the election of the first African American Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Michael B. Curry that the Episcopal Church took a second hard look on evangelism. Curry, who is fondly known as the CEO or “Chief Evangelism Officer” of the Episcopal Church removed the taboo of evangelism in the Episcopal Church and revived the term “Jesus Movement.” The movement hopes to catalyze the “loving, liberating and life-giving” community of faith as it addresses evangelism, racial reconciliation and creation care.

Networking in the Filipino American Church needs to take on two fronts, namely: “globalization” and “localization.”  Globalization has to do with partnership with Filipino churches in the Philippines and mutual sharing of personnel and funds for building religious communities among Filipino Americans.  Localization has to do with partnership with Filipino American secular agencies like the Filipino American Council, the National Federation of Filipino American Association, the National Federation of Filipino Concerns, GABRIELA and the various grassroots community organizations operating in the United States.

Globalization has to go beyond denominationalism and party spirit.  For instance, there is no reason why both the Iglesia Filipina Independiente and the Episcopal Church could not unite  in forming missions in the entire United States.  Both have similar Catholic doctrines and history, both have experienced working together in Philippine setting, both have clergy trained in common seminaries.

In American setting, particularly in California, the Episcopal Church has material and financial resources but no adequate Filipino clergy and people, whereas the IFI has both clergy and people but no adequate material and financial resources.  Would it not redound to the glory of God and the growth of God’s kingdom if both churches unite and allow the smooth sharing of personnel and funds towards the formation and growth of Filipino American churches and missions?

Localization needs to break down the walls of dualism as found in classical Anglo cultural value.  In Filipino American mentality, both culture and religion are inextricably intertwined.  While Church and State are separate under the American Constitution, it is neither illegal nor an anathema for the Christians to get involved with the social and political affairs of the society in which they live.  Filipino American Christians, if they are to impact the Filipino community, must get involved with the struggle of the people for better housing, job placement and security, combatting human trafficking, better education for their children, health care benefits and all those aspirations that make up for the betterment of society.  They must seek to build koinonia (Christian fellowship) in the already existing structures---the Filipino associations, community groups and other interest groups operating in their neighborhood.

CHURCH LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT STAGES

Just like the rhythm of life, the growth cycle of the Church organization goes from birth to growth, from growth to plateau, from plateau to decay, from decay to renewal.  The life cycle of the corporate Church does not necessarily go in full cycle but rather undergoes spiral upward-downward-and upward stages of development.

In his study of the corporate life in America, Lawrence Miller derived lesson from the “rise and fall” of many civilizations and discovered that there are leadership types that characterize each stage of corporate development.  In a stimulating book, From Barbarians to Bureaucrats (1989), Miller underscored the following stages of a society and the type of leadership needed for each stage.  It provides a fitting model for the forming and growing of a Filipino American Church.

(a)            The Prophetic Stage and the Prophet

In the prophetic stage, the Church is just starting.  The prophet or visionary holds the vision of the group and is the main focus of its activity.  He has usually a set of principles which sets him apart and he belabors to impart that character to his group.  He is very idealistic and possesses high standard of commitment.  The Prophet makes decisions often by himself.  There is minimal organization but lots of inspiration, innovation and pioneering works.  The paragons of this stage are Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Jose Rizal in religion---and, in business, the McDonald brothers who dreamt and created the hamburger industry.

(b)            The Barbarian Stage and the Barbarian

The Barbarian believes in the Prophet’s idea but feels that its success rests entirely in his own hands.  The Barbarian maybe crude but he is one that will lead the fledgling group to conquests and through crises.  The organization is minimal but the action is high.  The Barbarian will be on the field himself, carrying the banner and leading the troops to a life or death battle.  The paragon of this stage is Attila, the Hun.

(c)             The Building and Exploring Stage and the Builder and Explorer

The group or organization is now showing fruitfulness.  However, the need is to maximize the resources and to exploit the momentum for greater growth.  The mission of the Builder and Explorer is to get an edge over their competitors.  In order to do that, he is to build an efficient means or production and to channel the energy of his team to maintain quality and to produce more.  Specialization and expansion are his twin obsessions.  The paragon of this stage is, surprisingly Ferdinand Magellan, the “discoverer” of the Philippines.

(d)            The Administrative Stage and the Administrator

The corporation or Church has entered a stage of security in which it has mastered its primary market, built up a substantial membership and financial base, and is expanding in secondary markets.  It has created impact in the community and is growing at a rapid rate.  The Administrator believes in efficiency and in the good image of the community.  He believes, however, that decisions should be made after he has all the facts.  Systems, structures, procedures are very important.  The paragon of an administrator in business is Lee Iacocca.  In megachurches, it maybe Joel Osteen of America, Paul Yonggi Cho of Korea and Mike Velarde of the Philippines.

(e)            The Bureaucratic Stage and the Bureaucrat

The corporation or Church has achieved its “plateau” and the leadership has become contented.  The bureaucrat believes in “professional management” but is not bothered by a slow growth.  The bureaucrat may be a former administrator but now he is fatigued and wants a certain bureau to carry on the past and current assumptions.  He likes written reports and he himself writes good ones.  As a result, the paper flows incessantly but there is little or no new creativity.  The paragon of the bureaucrat is Leonid Brezhnev of Russia.

(f)              The Aristocratic Stage and the Aristocrat

This is the dark age of the organization or the corporation.  The Church or company has lost its sense of mission and reason for being.  It is the prelude to alienation and revolution.  Business is declining and debt is high.  Profit is now stagnant and the stock price is declining.  Aristocrats are increasingly becoming victims of the cynicism that pervades its entire organization.  Instead of being creative, they seek personal enrichment and glory on past successes.  They are normally aloof and detached from their constituency, perhaps to escape the grim handwritings on the walls.  While there is clear formal organization that is not where the job is getting done but in informal groups who still have the genuine desire to make the organization work and renew it.  The paragon of this stage are the dictators of many generations “whom the gods wish to destroy.”

(g)            The Synergist Stage and the Synergist

Decline is not inevitable---only probable.  The primary cause of decline is the social disintegration within.  The challenge to the synergist is to break the natural cycle of rise and fall by “finding the right mix” of internal cooperation and external mission.  Synergistic leaders combine the prophet, barbarian, builder, explorer and administrator in a creative way that instills a new and unifying spirit and power.  Renewal, revival and continuing creativity are the three goals of the synergist.  From darkness to light, from death to life---that is the rallying voice of the synergist.  Jesus Christ---the prophet, teacher, and king---is the paragon of the synergist.

Civilizations, societies and corporations we know about have had a life span.  Kingdoms rise and fall.  Sumner, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mayan civilization---and the modern day Russia---are some examples.  They come into being; they flourish, or at least survive, for a time; they decay; they die.

The Church as a corporation or as a denomination is not exempt from this cycle of life and death.  But thanks be to God!  Because the Church is the Body of Christ, she is not just an organization. The Church is an organism. God provides the Church with a built-in “gift of renewal,” through the Holy Spirit. 

Synergistic church leaders take control of the downward path of decline by breaking down rigidity and energizing the Church to the reformulation, reinterpretation and redefinition of ancient but eternal values.  Christianity is a living religion and its genius is found in its ability to adjust to new contexts and situations.  Synergistic leadership that provides continuing renewal is one that is needed in Filipino American Christian community and other churches.

FACTORS IN CHURCH GROWTH: A STUDY

In the 1990, I participated in a group of pastors who studied growing churches in Santa Clara County, California. The group compiled the “Research on Strategic Evangelization” and listed ten key factors that contributed to Church Growth. Almost thirty years have passed and the factors remain relevant. These factors that contribute to a good environment for growth are:

a.  Visionary pastors and supportive lay leaders.  Those who have clear visions and know how to market that vision often get results in Church growth.

b.  Pastoral longevity.  Especially in a migrant and mobile society, people need a sense of stability and pastors need more time to get to know the flock and to welcome the new sheep.

c.   Distinctive, focused ministry.  Churches that focus on their particularly stronger gifts fare much better than those who attempt to be “all things to all people.”

d.  Celebrative and challenging worship service.  The “baby boomers” (those born from 1946-1964) as well as the millennials are bombarded daily by exciting TV programs.  If Sunday services are dull and unimaginative, they lose out in the “competition.”

e.  Excited and communicative members.  Members who extend warm welcome in church, offer hospitality to strangers and give friendly smiles are pragmatic evangelists.

f.    Caring fellowship networks.  Home cell groups, Bible study and prayer groups contribute to keeping members and gaining new ones.

g.  Effective outreach which generate a regular flow of visitors and prospects.  Fluid movement of people from place to place makes it necessary for the Church to have a continuous evangelistic and social action program to know people and to make the Church known.

h.  Ministries that produce “conversion” growth to the “unchurched”.  Transferees from other churches often have unresolved agenda (e.g. they were hurt or abused by pastors, they had conflict with other members, etc.) that hinder their full-pledged commitment and spiritual growth.

i.    Follow-up of members and training for more leaders.  Some churches lose people in the back door as fast as they got in the front door.  Sustained growth is the movement of members to a process of discipleship.

j.    Church plantings.  Contrary to other findings, a Church that intentionally divides to plant new churches (rather than being forced to do so by schism or separation) has found results in the multiplication of members. Cell groups are also designed to split when they grow beyond intimate number so they could start new cells.

While any single one of these factors would not necessarily produce Church Growth, researchers find that combination of any two or more of these factors lead to some vitality and strength in a congregation.  Conversely, the five factors that inhibit growth and lead to decline are: (a) lack of vision, planning and prayer; (b) maintenance ministries; (c) No evangelism, no follow-up program; (d) neglect of conversion growth; and (e) internal conflict.

While all ten factors are generally applicable to any and all churches and denominations, there is one other unique factor present in Filipino American churches, the factor of the “unpredictable.” Filipinos are generally a spontaneous people and seldom enjoy planning meetings. There is a truism in the saying, “If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.” Maybe because of their extraordinary faith or simply because of prevenient grace, there are also some Filipino American churches who started and grew, even without adequate planning. God works in mysterious ways, often beyond our human understanding.

MISSION OF FILIPINO AMERICAN CHRISTIANS

Theologian Emil Brunner famously wrote: “The Church exists by mission as fire exists by burning.” The Episcopal Church says that “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ” (Book of Common Prayer, page 855).

The Filipino-American Christians, by virtue of their historical and theological experience should major in the mission of reconciliation. The three centuries of Spanish Christianity and the century of American evangelicalism have equipped Filipino Americans with sufficient learnings in the theology and ministry of reconciliation.

American contemporary society is afflicted with neo-paganism and resurgence of racism. Reconciliation in the American context involves a dual ministry of gospel evangelism and myriad advocacy for social justice.

We must address ourselves to proclaiming the gospel and calling people to repentance from “dead works” and to a living faith in Jesus Christ. We must address ourselves to praying for the transformation of unjust structures that divided society into filthy rich and miserably poor and created a wall of separation between whites and peoples of color. We must address ourselves to become advocates for social justice and racial healing.

In our research of Silicon Valley, we discovered that out of its 3 million population, only 10% go to church or temple. In others words, Silicon Valley was a mission field with 90% of its population generally “unchurched.” If Silicon Valley were in the Philippines in 1900’s, the American Mission Boards would send missionaries and pour mission dollars to “Christianize” Silicon Valley as they did in the Mountain Province and Mindanao.

The fact of the matter is that Silicon Valley, as with most cities in America, has become a “graveyard of missions.” Many churches were started in Silicon Valley but only few survived. Many churches had closed down and mainline churches have become sidelined.

We also discovered that in 1990, the ratio of racial-ethnic population in Silicon Valley was 60% Caucasian and 40% people of color. In 2000, it was reversed: 40% Caucasian and 60% people of color (especially Asians and Hispanic/Latinos). I believe in 2020, it will become 30:70.

So the new mission frontiers is now (or back to) the cities. There is a need to present the unchanging gospel in a new way, so the millenials who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” would find Christian mission as a transformative experience. We need to emphasize that when we preach against unjust structures, we are addressing ourselves to human beings who create and operate them.

Many Filipinos, Asians and other ethnic peoples in America, even when they become naturalized U.S. Citizens would often keep to themselves and not engage in the total life of American society. Some Americanized Filipinos do not even vote during elections. They seldom get involved in the socio-political events. They do it because they want “to stay out of trouble.” They believe that “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” For that reason, they glory when they hear the dominant culture compliment them as “model minorities.” The truth of the matter is that the compliment is actually a veiled insult: they are “models” because they do not make waves in the midst of injustice and racism; and they remain by the sidelines even when they ought to take center stage in the struggle to effect meaningful change.  

Filipino American missionaries need to proclaim the gospel without sugar-coating it so that the Word of God becomes a two-edged sword that cuts through the heart. We must learn how to proclaim the love of Christ to the sophisticated, skeptical, hypocritical, bigoted, racist and atheistic city dwellers to the end that the cities of the world will become the cities of the Lord and of Christ forever.

CHAPTER IX: ELEMENTS OF FILIPINO AMERICAN THEOLOGY

“Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God's incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”― Henri Nouwen

“Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church. We are fighting today for costly grace.”― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Theology, derived from two Greek words Theos and Logos literally means “God-Study” or study of God. But it is a unique kind of study. Unlike ichtology (study of fish) or zoology (study of animals), we cannot handle God the way we can handle fish or animals. So it is more appropriate to understand theology as “God-Talk.”

Theology as “God Talk” means God talking to us (human beings) and us talking to God.  It is the articulation of our understanding of God.  It is our response to God’s initiative of searching and finding us, like when God searched out Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes and asking “Where are you?” and Adam responding, “I heard you in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid”  (Genesis 2:9-10).

It is like when God came to Cain (who murdered his brother Abel and hid him in the ground) and asking, “Cain, where is thy brother?” and Cain responding, “Why? Am I my brother’s keeper?”

It is like when Jesus Christ, the incarnate God asked His disciples, “And who do you say that I am?” and Peter responding, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” 

Most, if not all theologies, are contextual because a theology cannot exist in vacuum.  A theologian reflects on the Word of God against the background in which God finds him. When St. Augustine wrote his defining theology book, Civitas Dei (The City of God) he was reflecting on the Word of God against the background of the burning City of Rome. In his reflection, Augustine wrote 20 volumes of Civitas Dei.  The first ten volumes were all about the “City of Man,” a city built by man’s pride, by man’s greed, by man’s ambition. Augustine concluded that “the City of Man will always die.” The next ten volumes were all about the “City of God,” a city built by God’s love, by God’s peace, by God’s compassion. Augustine concluded that the “City of God will never die.”

In the context of Filipino Christians in America, we are also in search of the City of God amidst the cities of men. Abraham, the first biblical immigrant lived in tents and not in stone castles or concrete palaces because he was always ready to go where God sends him to go. He was looking for a city which has a strong foundation, whose builder and maker is God. He was always a pilgrim, a transient in this world, even a TNT (Tago Ng Tago, an undocumented alien) because his ultimate citizenship is in heaven.

In another image, Filipino American theology is “guerilla type  theology” characterized by “hit and run.” It is not systematic theology but a process theology, some contextual responses to the brackish water which is America. Therefore, instead of presenting a “finished product,” or a systematized theological thinking, it is more appropriate to present “elements” of a Filipino American Christian theology.

The following are some of these elements that make up for Filipino theology in American context.

“THIRD WAVE” THEOLOGY

Filipino American theology has something to say about finding the “third culture” in the context of a multicultural society.  The dynamics start from “indigenous” Filipino cultural values (first culture) to “enculturated” American cultural values (second culture) to “contextualized” Filipino American cultural values (third culture). 

If Filipinos in America insist on living in the first culture, they will continually find themselves strangers in a strange land.  If they swing too much to the pendulum of imitating the dominant culture, they will forfeit their destiny and miss out on the opportunity to impact the American society with their peculiar cultural gifts and spirituality.  The key is finding the “right mix,” that of creating the third culture which draws the best from two cultures.

“Third Wave” theology also relates to the struggle of the Third World Peoples (the poor of Asia, Africa and Latin America) living in the First World (the affluence of Europe and America).  Up to what degree is their “culture shock?”  How can they relate God’s Word in the context of “institutional racism,” social and economic injustice, and the quest for dialogue with people from other faiths, cultures and ideologies?  Are the immigrants dwelling in tents like Abraham because they are searching for a city whose builder and maker is God?  Or are they living in concrete houses unmindful of other pilgrims because they are “no longer strangers and exiles” but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God? Is being a Christian in an affluent Church make a Filipino American complacent? Or the privileged white position that an affluent Filipino American achieved makes him an imperialist himself?

“Third Wave” theology also seeks to find a meaningful reflection in the context of the “third Wave” civilization: the clash between the agricultural era and the industrial era; the confusion of the “third wave” generation; and the struggle of the young people to find meaning in the context of an increasingly secular, and highly technological society.  Where is God in the midst of extraordinary advances in science and technology?  Is God needed in the midst of space explorations and personal computers, of artificial respirators and virtual reality,  of face lifts and “liposuctions,  of Nintendo and Ninja Turtles, etc.? 

Yes, “Third Wave” theology would begin by God raising the first question God posed to Adam: “Filipino Americans, where are you?” And Filipino Americans responding, “Here we are; Lord, have mercy.”

“PEOPLE POWER” THEOLOGY

One of the contributions of the Filipino People to the world at the turn of the 21st century is the rediscovery of the truth that “the people are not objects but subjects of history.”  The phenomenal peaceful revolution in the Philippines in 1986 which brought down an entrenched Marcos dictatorship regime is a credit to the resiliency of the oppressed Filipinos to bring about change through non-violence, peaceful means.

Filipino American theology must bring back power to the people to change their destiny.  Often, political and religious leaders of the dominant American culture tend to be paternalistic and condescending and sometimes outright and blatant racists. Blatant racism is deadly oppressive; subtle racism creates dependency and deadens creativity. We must shun or oppose racism in all its protean forms.

Grassroots “people’s movements”, ethnic peoples being organized to work for social justice, economic liberation, religious freedom, racial equality and multicultural harmony are “points of lights” in a broken world.  People in the global village are searching for a new spirituality that will end their fragmented isolation.  While they struggle to maintain or regain their ethnic identities, they always see it in the context of mutual responsibility and interdependence because “people power” theology draws its basic power from the Gospel which is for all people.

The Philippine Revolutions of 1896-1898 (which ended Spanish colonial rule) and the Philippine People Power Revolution of 1986 (which ended Marcos dictatorship) were all related in one respect: they had political and religious overtones.  

“People Power Theology” draws the people closer to God and to their neighbors.  From Philippines, “People power” movements emerged in Korea, in China, in Europe and Russia---breaking down the dividing wall in Germany, dismantling communism and restoring democracy, nationalism and religious liberties.

“People power theology” will set free Filipino Americans and other immigrant communities to contribute creatively to the harmony of peoples and races in the global village.  The Gospel of Christ being reflected in Filipino American “people’s movements” is a liberating force that ultimately contributes to the solidarity of all peoples in obedience to their common Lord.

THEOLOGY OF VERSATILITY

The early Filipino Americans who settled in Louisiana in the 1700’s were called “the shrimp people.”  Like the “milkfish in brackish water”, the shrimps are versatile in that they could swim in the water as well as crawl on the mud.

Filipino American theology, if it seeks to be relevant to the changing situations, must have the element of versatility.  When the Great Depression of the 1930’s became too unbearable to the people, the Filipino farm workers in the United States planted their own crops of potatoes for survival rather than depending on the much-contested welfare checks.  While others were complaining about the recession in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, many Filipinos were having “double jobs,” meaning settling for any menial job the can find, rather than waiting for the “right job.”

This quality of resiliency and versatility is gained by Filipino Americans from their own history of economic hardship.  Colonized by Spain for over 300 years and by America for 50 years, Filipinos combined the “convent mentality” and “Hollywood romantic values.”  Tyrannized by Japanese invasion for four years (1940-1944) and ruled by Filipino martial law and dictatorship for thirteen years (1972-1985), Filipinos carry with them scars of suffering, the marks of Christ.

Sustained by faith in God in the midst of human frailties, the Philippines was reckoned in history as the “only Christian nation in Asia.” Today, she is joined by South Korea and East Timor as predominantly Christian nations in Asia. God has not chosen Indonesia with its Borubudor, nor India with its Taj Majal, nor China with its grandeur, nor Japan with its imperial majesty.  Instead, God had chosen the Philippines, with its 7,640 islands and islets to plant the seeds of Christianity and to flourish like no other in the Far East.  Perhaps it was a response to the visit of the Magi, the wise men from the East; or perhaps it was just an accident or coincidence as when Magellan was driven to Philippine Islands by the winds, missing the Spice Islands of Moluccas. Whatever God’s wisdom was unleashed, the fact remains that Philippines’ history resembles Israel’s history as the “chosen people of God.” In God’s omniscience and omnipotence, the Son of God was revealed first in the spiritual history of the Filipino People among the other islands in the Pacific.

The “theology of versatility” draws its inspiration from this journey of God’s people in history.  Like the Hebrews, the Filipino Americans are also experiencing their spiritual journey from the desert to the promised land.  As they interact with peoples from other faiths, cultures and ideologies, they adjust their beliefs in an endless process of what Japanese theologian Kosoke Koyama referred as “prophetic accommodation and accommodational prophetism.” 

Christianity, like the faith of the Hebrews, is a living faith.  It has ever constant principles as well as versatile qualities that easily adjust to new and contemporary situations.

The sparkling diamond with many facets, an “intercultural Church” in the midst of multiculturalism, a Christian ministry in dialogue with other faiths, cultures and ideologies---are some of the images that shaped the “theology of versatility”---an authentic element in Filipino American reflection.

CHAPTER X: FILIPINO AMERICAN CHURCH PLANTING

“Church Planting teaches two things more than any other: that God is faithful and that we must learn how to depend on that faithful God. – Christine Hoover”

What is Church Planting? Church Planting is the art and science of starting or forming ecclesial communities that will result in the establishment of a parish or of a self-supporting, self-governing and self-propagating ministry.

In the United States context, there are ten types of church plants, namely:

A. TYPES OF CHURCH PLANTS

1. CLASSIC CHURCH PLANT –A congregation with one priest, owns or rents a church building and has a distinct name or identity.

2. SOJOURNER CHURCH PLANT- A congregation that shares facility from an existing church and considers this space as its temporary home.

3. INTEGRATED CHURCH PLANT– an ethnic congregation that is part of a multicultural or multi-ethnic parish sharing a common language and liturgy.

4. ETHNIC CONGREGATION IN A MULTICULTURAL PARISH – a congregation sharing a facility with a mainstream parish and is differentiated by language and style in worship but is part of the whole.

5. MERGED CHURCHES: Either two or more congregations that have merged into one and formed a combined name or a new name and doing multiple approaches to ministry.

6. FELLOWSHIP: A congregation that gathers merely for fellowship with occasional Eucharist and exists with or without an ordained leader.

7. REGIONAL PARISH: A parish that operates beyond parochial and diocesan borders. Normally people flock to this church because of the unique ministry it offers.

8. CONCORDAT AND ECUMENICAL CONGREGATION: A congregation that attracts members from churches in concordat of full communion or of Christians who are also members of councils of churches.

9. NON-DENOMINATIONAL OR MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL CHURCH: These are either churches formed independently from any denomination or a congregation formed from spiritual seekers or disgruntled members from myriad denominations.

10. MEGA CHURCH: What characterize this church is its size, often by the thousands. Like the nondenominational or multi-denominational churches, the megachurch often acts independently from denominations and attracts members from disgruntled and discontented members of mainline denominations as well as new seekers and converts. Often the nature of their message is the prosperity gospel, the positive thinking and “feel-good” theology.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE CHURCH PLANTER
Church planting as art and science is also a special gift, a charisma given to an individual Christian or group of Christians who can form a group, organize ministries and expand the organization.

While every Christian can witness to the gospel, not everyone is a missionary or an evangelist. What I mean for this is that any Christian can aspire, study, be trained as a church planter but those who are endowed with the gift of missionary can easily transcend cultural boundaries and those with the gift of an evangelist can present the gospel in a clear and effective manner.

So what are the characteristics of a Church Planter? The following are some of the qualities of a gifted and effective church planters.

1. A Dreamer or Visionary: Visions and dreams are the language of the Holy Spirit. In Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is the Lord of the harvest. A visionary sees the future more clearly than the others can and so she moves where the Spirit moves. Sometimes it becomes a difficulty because others could not see what the visionary sees and would not easily go for it. There is a danger the visionary becomes a lone ranger.

2. A Good Communicator: Precisely because the visionary sees the future clearer than the others can, the effective church planter is a communicator. A good communicator is also a good listener and advocate for possibilities of a good future.

3. A Hard Worker: In the Philippines, there is a folk song that says, “Planting rice is never fun, do you bend under the sun, cannot stand and cannot sit, cannot rest for a little bit.” Church planting is like planting rice and a church planter must be a hard worker like the farmer. No one comes to the church uninvited and starting a new work requires hard work in face-to-face evangelism, pastoral visitation and being on the move to meet people in the public square as well as in market places.

4. An Effective Delegator: It is easy to get burn-out in church planting. As the church grows, the Church planter would need to delegate responsibility. The model of leadership is neither a pyramid nor an inverted pyramid. In pyramid, there is a strong hierarch who carries the vision and filters down tasks. In inverted pyramid, the vision is so large that the visionary can hardly carry. The model of leadership in church planting is “reclining pyramid” where the line above and the line below run perpendicular to each other and the third angle of the triangle is open. The line above is the expanding ministry of the church plant and the line below is the growing base of leadership. As the ministry grows, the base of leadership also expands. The church planter may still hold the vision but it is now being shared in the context of group dynamics.

5. A People Person: Church planters are natural go-getters and people person. It does not mean that an introvert cannot plant a church; it means that in meeting people, extroverts have a better edge. Introverts who are writers may fare good in digital evangelism but actual church planting requires physical and visible performance especially in the formative stage of congregational development. A good singer, an engaging preacher, a persuasive speaker, a diplomatic conversationalist are added bonuses.

6. A Prayer Person: Nothing can replace prayer as an instrument in church planting. A church planter is not only a person of standing and walking but of kneeling. Prayer is an ideational moment which undergirds the task of church mission and evangelism. ”Ask and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)

7. A Servant-Leader: A church planter does not impose work ethic or ministry standard for the congregation what she herself cannot keep. The model is Jesus taking the towel and basin and washing the apostles’ feet and saying, “If I, your master washed your feet, you should also wash one another’s feet.”

8. An Evangelist-Entrepreneur: A combination of these spiritual gifts are a tremendous asset of the church planter. Planting a church from scratch requires the gift of calling people to repentance and faith in Jesus and of seeking new ways to do and grow the ministry even risking failure.

9. A Teacher-Pastor: This is another gift-mix for an effective church planter. People respond to teaching reinforced by compassionate pastoral care. People care not only how much you know but also how much you care.

10. A Patient Healer and Funny Leader: A farmer who plants rice must be willing to wait for the harvest; the fisherman who drops the hook, line and sinker must have patience to wait for the fish to bite. Dealing with newly-converted Christians who have no experience in church work and with denominational transferees who had been traumatized in their former church are no easy task. An effective church planter must have the patience of an ox, the wisdom of a serpent, the innocence of a dove and the hide of a rhinoceros. Having a good sense of humor guarantees you would not have a heart attack at a young age; a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.

C. FILIPINO AMERICAN CHURCH PLANTERS
There are a number of church planters in the Filipino American community but I picked out at least two because they and the congregations they planted are known to me personally. They are the Rev. Timoteo Quintero who planted St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawaii and the Rt. Rev. Eugenio Loreto of the Philippine Independent Church of Jesus of Nazarene in Tampa, Florida. Modesty aside, my wife and I have also planted churches but I would write about our personal experiences in my autobiography, another book. I would limit my sharing only to these two pioneering Filipino Church Planters who, incidentally, have already gone to heaven.

1. QUINTERO MODEL – APPEAL TO “KABALEN” (Ilocanos)

The call for the Rev. Tim Quintero as the first Filipino to plant a “concordat church” in American soil began in 1955 when the Obispo Maximo (OM) of Iglesia Filipina Independiente, the Most Rev. Isabelo Delos Reyes, Jr. attended as guest of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church in Hawaii. That Convention would have been held in Houston, Texas were it not for the hot-button issue of racism and the emerging civil rights movement which was beginning to be embraced by the social activists in the Episcopal Church. Providentially, it became an avenue for the formation of the first visible Filipino-American Church in the context of then “missionary Diocese of Hawaii.”

In that Hawaii General Covention, Bishop Delos Reyes met the Diocesan Bishop of Hawaii, the Rt. Rev. Harry S. Kennedy, whom Quintero described as “a visionary with a missionary vision.” Bishop Kennedy mentioned to the OM that there are Filipinos in Hawaii and most of them are Ilocanos. Delos Reyes, who was an Ilocano himself replied that he knew many of them because they were IFI members. Ilocos region in the Philippines was the bulwark of Aglipayanism (the name is derivative from Gregorio Aglipay, the first OM of the IFI who was also an Ilocano) and Ilocano farm workers were the first wave of Filipino migrant workers in Hawaii and California way in the 1900-1930’s.

Kennedy offered to support the work of a Filipino priest to organize the Filipinos in Hawaii and to provide them with spiritual home away from their home country. Delos Reyes promised to send the best Ilocano priest whom he discerned to have the gift of church planting. When he returned to the Philippines, he picked none other than Father Tim Quintero.

I do not want to go into details on how Quintero, an IFI priest was picked to be the first Filipino missionary priest to the Episcopal Church in the USA. The bestowal of the gift of apostolic succession by the ECUSA to the IFI happened in 1948 but the Concordat of Full Communion between the IFI and ECUSA only began in 1961. In other words, the conception of the first Filipino-American Church antedates the Concordat between the two churches.

The sending of Quintero from Manila to Hawaii involved a negotiation between the IFI, the ECUSA and the Philippine Episcopal Church (PEC)which was then a missionary district of ECUSA. Quintero recalled in his autobiography that Bishop Kennedy came to the Philippines in February 24, 1959 and met with Delos Reyes at the Quezon City residence of Bishop Lyman Ogilby, then the missionary bishop of PEC (now ECP or Episcopal Church in the Philippines ). Another IFI Bishop Francisco Pagtakhan was also present along with the first PEC Filipino Bishop Benito Cabanban. They all agreed that Quintero was the man.

So Quintero first arrived in Hawaii in August 3, 1959, his first travel outside of the Philippines and his first airplane ride. He described his first impression thus: “I arrived in Honolulu Airport at 6AM and was met by Bishop Kennedy alone. My support would include a meager salary, housing and a car. My mission was to establish the first congregation of Ilocanos in Hawaii. There was no strategic plan. As I walked on Hawaiian soil, I felt like a novice mosquito searching for the first bite.”

That “first bite” happened in August 13, 1959 just days after his arrival. He was shopping for a pair of slippers in Kress, a dime-store in downtown Honolulu when he overheard a mother and daughter chatting in Ilocano. “Alleluia!,” Quintero exclaimed, “The language of my people spoken in an American store!” Quintero lost no time in introducing himself in Ilocano and the mother daughter tandem responded “Ni Ilokano kayo met gayam Apo Padi!” (O my God! You’re an Ilocano Father!)

The succeeding conversation moved from exchange of pleasantries, to sharing of family connections, exchange of phone numbers and an invitation for lunch in their home. In that lunch welcoming Fr. Tim, Mrs. Marites Andres Galiza gathered her neighbors, other family members, friends and former town mates from Ilocos all across Hawaii. Then they formed the “core group” which became the seeds of the new Church plant.

Bishop Kennedy for his part invited this core group, initially named “The Friends of Tim” to a spaghetti dinner at his Bishop’s Residence. He then toured them to the Cathedral of St. Andrew’s in Queen, Emma Square, led to them to an annex building (Parke Chapel) and announced, “This is going to be your church, your place of worship.”

Where God guides, God provides. As Hudson Taylor, the great missionary to China once said, “God’s work, done in God’s way, in God’s time never lacks provision.”

The rest is history. Today, St. Paul Episcopal Church in Queen Emma Square in Honolulu is the largest Filipino or Asian Church in the Episcopal Church and the second largest congregation in the Diocese of Hawaii.

Following Tim Quintero was another IFI priest, the Rev. Eugenio Loreto. Unlike Quintero who was sent specifically to plant a church under the auspices of the Episcopal Diocese of Hawaii, Loreto was sent to the United States by Obispo Maximo Delos Reyes to attend a Christian Stewardship Conference sponsored by the Episcopal Church in 1964.

At that time, the IFI financial structure was operating on a “stole fee system,” an offshoot of the Arancel system of the Roman Catholic Church. In this system, performance of sacraments by clergy was the main source of church income. The people were neither tithing nor pledging but whenever there was baptism, confirmation, funerals, church blessings and fiestas, the people gave money. The “stole” is the priestly vestment that covers the cassock or alb which the officiating clergy wears, hence the phrase “stole fee.”

Loreto’s side trips following the Stewardship Conference brought him to many parts of the United States to see relatives, friends and acquaintances. He traveled to New York, Ohio, Florida, California, and Hawaii. The expressed purpose of his attending Stewardship Conference was for him to learn from the church in America and to go back to the Philippines in order to train other IFI clergy about stewardship, Episcopal Church style.

He indeed went back to the Philippines but instead of holding a national office for stewardship program, he was assigned as parish priest of St. John the Baptist Church in Tipas, Taguig, Rizal. He had just graduated from St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary and excelled in growing the parish. In Tipas, he met his wife, Dr. Maria Lourdes Umali, a physician applying for US residency. They married in 1967 and four years later, her application for green card was approved. Loreto left Tipas and joined his wife as immigrants landing in New York in 1971.

Having neither invitation from any Episcopal Church diocese nor missionary assignment from the IFI, Loreto started his work in the U.S. by volunteering as supply priest at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Woodside, New York. He later found a clerical job at the Episcopal Church Center in Manhattan. There he met a friend who introduced him to Grace Episcopal Church in Jamaica, New York. He was appointed assistant priest at this predominantly African-American congregation. Hoping to meet Filipinos and invite them to church, Loreto went into street preaching, often meeting people in the markets and train stations.

When his wife, Maria Lourdes moved to Tampa, Florida to begin her medical practice in 1975, Loreto developed a vision of planting a church that would serve the Filipinos who were starting to move from New York and other cities in the United States. Florida was just beginning to be a destination for American retirees as well as a job market for immigrant Filipinos, along with California, New York, Illinois and Hawaii.

Fr. Loreto continued what he learned from Queens, New York. He would stand on the street corners of downtown Tampa telling people about Jesus Christ. He succeeded in connecting with recent Filipino immigrants and started a “travelling novena.” In that “traveling prayer evangelism,” the icon of the Virgin Mary would be brought to the house of a devotee; the host family would invite their neighbors, relatives and friends to observe a nine-days novena (prayer meetings). After the nine days, the Icon would be brought to another home and the new host family would likewise invite neighbors, family members and friends. It can be called “oikos evangelism” (evangelism for the extended family). The result of the novenas was spiritual renewal and a burning desire to continue the fellowship and visioning of a more permanent and centralized place of worship.

So in 1977, with the support of his family and other Filipinos in Tampa, Fr. Loreto built the “Church of Jesus of Jesus of Nazareth.” The Church grew, drawing its membership not only from the IFI diaspora but also from nominal Roman Catholics who wanted a Filipino-led American Church. In 1982, Loreto was elevated bishop by the Supreme Council of Bishops of the IFI and became the “first IFI Bishop in America.” The church he founded became “The Iglesia Filipina Independiente Cathedral of Jesus of Nazareth.”

For many years as the first IFI missionary bishop in North America, Bishop Eugenio Loreto would travel to emerging congregations throughout the United States and Canada to perform confirmations and to offer moral and pastoral support to the immigrant Filipino priests who were starting to form theirown IFI congregations. He passed away in 2003.

·      CHAPTER XI: FILIPINO AMERICAN DISCIPLESHIP

“Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded and lo I am with you till the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19)

In March 8, 2019 I had the privilege of attending and addressing the annual “Seminarians of Color Conference,” which the Ethnic Missioners of the Episcopal Church sponsors year after year since 2007. This particular SOCC was held in Miami and we were first welcomed by the Rt. Rev. Peter Eaton, bishop of the Diocese of Southeast Florida.

In welcoming the seminarians, Bishop Eaton said, “I wish to emphasize what is probably not being emphasized in your seminaries. We are a Church in decline and sixty percent (60%) of the parishes in my Diocese could no longer afford a full-time, seminary-trained clergy.”

What Bishop Eaton said is the hard truth in the 21^st century. The American Church as a whole is experiencing a seemingly-irreversible decline and this is mostly true with mainline denominations including the Episcopal Church (USA).

In October 5, 2018, the Episcopal News Service (ENS) published an article from David Paulsen with the banner headline “Episcopal Church’s parochial report numbers fuel discussion of decline and rebirth.”

In that Parochial Report for 2017, the number of active baptized members in the church’s 110 domestic dioceses had dropped 10 percent to 1.7 million. (Note: In the 1960’s the ECP was 3.4 million strong in mid-1960’s.)

Sunday attendance from 2012 to 2017 was down 13 percent. There were 175 fewer parishes and missions reporting parochial data than in 2013. The 10 year trend was even sobering especially in dioceses hit by sharp membership drops due to splits over doctrinal disagreements, including Forth Worth, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and South Carolina.

In September 4, 2019 The Living Church (TLC) published an article by Kirk Petersen with the banner headline, “Episcopal Membership Continues to Decline,” stating the following hard data from Parochial Report 2018:

·       Baptized membership was 1.68 million, down 2.1% from 2017 and down 18.5% since 2008.

·       Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) was 533,000, down 4.2% from 2017 and 24.4% since 2008.

·       Plate and pledge income was $1.33 billion, down 0.4% from 2017 and up 0.0015% since 2008.

Doubtless such data would continue to generate a good amount of discussion within and outside the Episcopal Church. On Facebook, an Episcopalian from Massachusetts, Kevin Miller asked, “What can we do to buck this trend? Lord, help us!”

The prayer is apropos. As St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:6, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gives the growth.” Our task is to be faithful in planting and watering but the growth is up to the Holy Spirit, the Lord of the Harvest. The Rev. Chris Arnold, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Oshkosh, Wisconsin was right in his comment, “The church will continue to shrink until we rediscover that our primary purpose is to be a community of pilgrim disciples.”

What is meant by disciples? Disciples are followers and Christian discipleship is the art of making followers of Christ. In Scriptures, Jesus preached and taught crowds of people but He picked out some individuals to be his disciples. Some of His words are a summon to Himself and to His ministries. In calling fishermen of Galilee, His challenge was “Come, follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” In calling those who were looking for meaning, His challenge was “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden and I will give you rest.” And in calling for deeper commitment, He said “If anyone want to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.”

So what has discipleship got to do with growing the Church? A lot! Discipleship is the art and science of imparting commitment to church members so that they will not neglect the mission that they are supposed to do. Christianity is not an armchair religion. It is not a passive religion; it is an active religion. Christian spirituality is not an escape from the world but an engagement in the world. God loved the world so much God gave His only Son. Jesus was mission driven. He set His face on Jerusalem and labored to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. He told His discipleship that “we must work the work of God while it is day; night comes when no one can work.”

Followers of Jesus are not keepers of aquariums but fishers of people. The clergy are supposed to teach, equip and empower the lay to do the work of the ministry. The lay are not supposed to be recipients of clergy services but partners of the clergy in the ministry (Ephesians 4:12).

So how would discipleship training work out in the Filipino American Church?

A MODEL OF FILIPINO AMERICAN CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP

Discipleship happens in context and the context I have in mind is the map of the Cathedral Heights in Quezon City, Philippines. This is the context that shaped the formative years of my own ministry. This is the context that reveals the “trinitarian” beginning of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines (ECP).

The ECP started as a missionary district of the Protestant Episcopal Church in USA (PECUSA) in 1901 and was shaped in its beginning by American missionaries led by the Rt. Rev. Charles Henry Brent, who also happened to be the first Episcopal missionary and resident Bishop to the Philippines.

The ECP was born in the vortex of socio-political ferment. The era saw the end of the 300 years of Spanish colonization; the Philippine Revolution of 1898; the brief rise and sudden fall of the first Philippine Republic; the advent of American neo-colonization of the Philippines (1900-1946); and the birth of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente as a product of the Philippine religious reformation.

Bishop Brent, an ecumenist and missionary saw the vision a Trinitarian mission---a three-fold ministry to body, mind and spirit. He and his successor, Bishop Norman Binsted visualized the Cathedral Heights as the container and show window of that trinitarian approach.

So in this Cathedral Heights compound, there is St. Luke’s Hospital and Medical Center (Ministry to the Body); Trinity University of Asia (Ministry to the Mind); and St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary and Cathedral of St. Mary and St. John (Ministry to the Spirit).

These three institutions become the show windows of an effective and holistic ministry. If we adapt this three-fold ministry and train our lay people to this holistic concept, our parishes will not simply endure but prevail. The late bishop of El Camino Real, the Rt. Rev. Richard Shimpfky adapted this concept and name it as the “three C’s”--- Church, Campus, and Community Center.” An effective discipleship is a training to develop the parish as a church, a campus and a community center. The must be taught how to worship, how to reason, and how to heal. The followers of Christ must be equipped so they would excel in worship, in reason and in body ministry.

How would this “trinitarian training” take place? There are three frameworks in which training can take place:

A. The Triangle Framework:

In this framework, there is a large ministry base but the vision is small or non-existent. Proverbs 29:11 says, “where there is no vision, people perish.” No matter how large a congregation is, if the leadership has no vision, it will eventually fade away. If the parish exists only to serve its current members and no vision of community outside of its four walls, very soon it becomes a club and an enclave. The parish must have a vision beyond itself. Disciples of Christ do not live by themselves alone but for Christ who died and rose again. 

B.  The Inverted Triangle Framework:

In this framework, there is a large vision but the ministry base is small. The parish wants to grow, the parish wants to reach out, the parish wants to be known in the community but the rector or priest-in-charge is the only ministry base. The know-all, decide all and do-all clergy does almost everything; he is she is the only one who makes the parish go round; while the rest of the people practically do nothing.

This was the situation of Israel in the wilderness after Moses liberated them from the Pharoah’s Egypt. Exodus 18 says, “Moses was ruling the people from sunrise to sunset that he was on the verge of burn-out.” His father Jethro came to him and said, “what you’re doing is not good. You will burn yourself out and also your people.” If the clergy fails to delegate the ministry based on the spiritual gifts of his or her lay members, he or she would soon die of exhaustion or  burn-out.

C.  The Open Ended Triangle.  

In this framework, the vision expands and the base increases vice versa. This is only possible when the clergy train, empower and delegate to the lay people to do the work of the ministry. Jethro told Moses, “What you should do is to train your people to become leaders: leaders of tens, leaders of fifties, leaders of hundreds and leaders of thousands. You concentrate on the most major task which you alone can do, but the rest, you must learn to delegate. If you do so, you will not suffer burn-out and your people will have fun.”

MODEL OF TRAINING

Now let us look at the specific training that you will do to make your parish alive. This is a discipleship pattern. More often, the typical Episcopalian go to various rites of passage: baptism, confirmation, marriage and funeral. As someone said, a typical member walks towards the altar two times---during his confirmation and his marriage---and he is carried to the church two times---during his baptism and his funeral.

THREE STAGES TRAINING

A Discipleship Training can therefor take place in three stages: Evangelism Stage, Nurture Stage and Ministry Stage.

1.  EVANGELISM STAGE: Let me make this statement: “Most Episcopalians are sacramentalized but not evangelized.” Since many of us are baptized when we were babies, we need to develop a kind of baptismal course in the form of Basics of the Christian Faith, “Christianity 101.”

Does your church have an Introductory Welcome Course for New Comers? Such examples are ALPHA Course, Life in the Spirit, etc.

2.  NURTURE STAGE: Let me make this statement: “Most Episcopalians do not know why they are Episcopalians.” When asked, ‘What makes you an Episcopalian?’ and their answer was “I was a cradle Episcopalian; I was born in an Episcopal home.” Well, if you were born in a garage, does that make you a car? So I have a little book with the title, “Being Episcopalian.” I also have a Facebook Live teaching on “Walk Thru the Bible,” a basic bible course.

3.  MINISTRY STAGE: Let me make this statement: “Most Episcopalians think that Confirmation is graduation and there’s nothing else to learn.”

In the Episcopal Church, ministry starts at baptism. The moment you get baptized, you are already a minister. Your baptismal vows already defines your ministry.

a.  Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, breaking of the bread and prayers.

b.  Will you seek and serve Christ loving your neighbor as yourself?

c.  Will you share the Good News in Christ Jesus?

d.  Will you strive for justice and peace and respect the dignity of every human being?

So the third stage of training is to equip disciples with the skills for effective ministry. A “How To” module should be developed in areas where individual members are spiritually gifted with. Examples of “how to” modules include sharing the gospel, praying for the sick, leading bible studies, leading worship, reading scriptures in liturgical services, lay eucharistic ministry and others.

TRAINING AND MINISTRY-DYNAMICS OF GROUPS

It is not enough that you give them training; you must deploy them to a specific lay ministry. This is where understanding of the dynamics of groups is important:

There are three levels of groupings and the type of ministry that takes place on each level:

1.  The primary level is a small group called cells. The orientation is intimate relationships such as Bible Study, Prayer Group, Pastoral Visitation, Acolytes and LEM.

2.  The secondary level is congregation. The orientation is task-oriented such as Choir, Youth Group, ECW.

3.   The tertiary is celebration; the orientation is an event such as Sunday Eucharist, Festivals, Anniversary events, major services.

What kind of ministers would you need in these groupings? What kind of training do you provide?

TOWARDS “ANDREWS” -THE ART OF MAKING DISCIPLES

It is against this background that ANDREWS came about. It is not just my brainchild; it is a product of years of experience and now a burning desire to promote the Christian legacy of “disciples making disciples.” ANDREWS is the acronym of “Asiamerica Network of Disciples, Revivalists, Evangelists, Witnesses and Servants” of Christ.

It is our Asiamerican response to the visions and dreams of what the Presiding Bishop Michael Curry called “the Episcopal Branch of the Jesus Movement.”

The vision of ANDREWS is to develop a cadre of clergy and lay leaders trained to be mentors to other leaders. For the next three years (2019-2022), we will engaged in training at least seventy (70) leaders---lay and ordained---to the art and science of mentoring.

The training will consist of three levels: (1) The Process of Mentoring (2) Ministry-Skills Training and (3) Spiritual Pilgrimages.

The first training for Lay Mentors will be on August 22-24, 2019 at Cathedral Retreat Center in Los Angeles with the theme “Soul Companioning” which will be facilitated by the Nouwen Center Quest Legacy Foundation.

Nouwen, one of the greatest spiritual writers of the last century is a master of soul care. He models for us, through his vast experience what it means to be a versatile spiritual companion to others on their journey. This retreat/workshop exposes the lay mentors to some key companioning approaches. It provides conceptual dynamics and practical methodologies on how we can come alongside others effective based upon Nouwen’s vital constructs of listening, presence, space, hospitality, etc. With Nouwen as our guide, we will explore together this important arena of spiritual accompaniment and learn how we can be better soul care providers for others who desire to deepen their own spirituality and formation.

The first ANDREWS Clergy Mentors Training will be held on September 16-19, 2019 at the Serra Retreat Center in Malibu, California.

The theme of the Clergy Mentoring is “Thriving in Ministry” designed to develop cells of “peer mentors” nationwide, regionwide and diocesan wide. The challenges of the 21^st century call for clergy who can effectively navigate the dynamics of change, become inspirational leaders and able to “disciple” others. Among the expected results of this Clergy Mentor  training are:

-a healthy balance of vulnerability and “thick skin”

-a deeper grounding in spirituality and character development

-a honing of skills you are good at and learning of new skills you lack

-a sustenance of ministry through network of support, learning and accountability

We have partnered with “Thriving in Ministry –Virginia Theological Seminary” to conduct this training with supplement from “Rulers’ Guide: Wisdom from Tang Taizong” thus contextualizing the training with the sages from Asian cultures.

In terms of our pilgrimages, some of the mentors will have a Pilgrimage to the Holy Land to deeper their biblical perspective to the mentoring and ministry skills training.

ANDREWS is our adaptation of Ephesians 4: 11-12 “And He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachings, for the equipping of the saints to do the work of the ministry, for the edification of the Body of Christ.”
The task of the spiritually-gifted members is to equip the saints (the laos, the whole people of God). The apostles model church mission and church planting, the prophets inspires and admonishes the flock, the evangelists presents the gospel clearly, the pastor-teacher skillfully handles the Word of God and the priest celebrate the sacraments that sustain the Church, the Body of Christ.

CONCLUSION

If every Episcopalian minister (lay or ordained) is trained how to mentor at least two mentees who in three years will also mature into skilled mentors, there will indeed be an exponential growth of new leaders our church.

Compassion is the heart beat of pastoral care. “When Jesus saw the multitudes, he was filled with compassion for they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to the disciples, ‘The harvest is plenty but the laborers are few; pray to the Lord of the Harvest to increase the laborers for the harvest” (Matthew 9:337-38).

ANDREWS is the fulfillment of the Great Commission “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded, and lo, I am with you to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

It is my prayer that God will raise up life-long disciples of Christ “in the Episcopal Branch of the Jesus Movement” who will move though this land with the Spirit of God empowered to be witnesses of Christ’s love and reconciliation. Amen.