“After three centuries in a convent and two generations in Hollywood … the Philippines is a nation in search of an identity and purpose within Southeast Asia.… The country is caught in a bewildering collision between modern aspirations and ancient attitudes.” So did one of the speakers at the All Philippines Congress on Evangelism, held earlier this year in Manila, put the plight of his native land. And what is true of the country at large is, of course, true in its measure of the Church.
The Spaniards and the Americans have left their mark on those picturesque islands and their people. But the Filipinos are not Spaniards and they are not Americans. And they are asking, What is the authentic form of Christianity for Filipinos?
The congress had some overseas speakers. But it was a healthy sign that the speakers who evoked the most enthusiastic response were Filipinos. The presence of visitors from other countries and the courteous hearing they received are evidence that the Filipino church is not trying to cut its links with the wider Church. But the sturdy independence of its best thinkers shows that there is a determination, at least in some quarters, to find an authentic Filipino expression of the Gospel. These men do not want simply a pale reflection of the best American model.
The search for a genuinely indigenous Filipino form of Christianity raises problems. What is the place of the missionary? Who are to be the leaders in the Christian Church? What is the place of the foreign aid channeled into Filipino churches and organizations? The answers to such questions are to be given not by outsiders but by the Filipinos themselves.
It is significant that this first great ecumenical gathering ever held in the Philippines was concerned with evangelism. And it is to be an ongoing evangelism. Plans have been drawn up to go right ahead with the formation of 10,000 home meetings that will be centers of Bible study and evangelism. They will also represent a grass-roots involvement that cannot but produce something authentically Filipino as well as genuinely Christian.
All this throws up the question of nationalism and the Gospel, a very live question in many parts of the world. For a long while most Christians, Western and Eastern alike, seem to have been content to regard Christianity as an European export. Its authentic expression was held to be that given to it by the countries from which the missionaries came. The aim of the recipients, accordingly, was to make their version as near a replica of the authentic model as they could.
Now all this is changed. It is realized that Christianity should never have been understood as Western. It originated in the East and it is truly catholic—it belongs to no one section of mankind, but to all.
By now this is old hat. But to current religious thought belongs the continuing debate over the precise form a right nationalistic expression of the faith should take. Granted that the Filipinos should not try simply to imitate the Spaniards or the Americans, would it be right for them simply to produce a totally new product unrelated to that of Spain or the United States? If they did, would this not be some new thing and not authentic Christianity?
In other words there are constants as well as variables. In the revolutionary mood of many developing countries it is not easy to attain a balanced solution that does justice to both aspects of the problem.
For that matter, it is not easy in the more developed countries. It is a curious fact that Australia, which in some respects is an irreverent country, ready to thumb its nose at the world, has always tended to get its episcopal leaders from England. Melbourne, the city from which I write, for example, has never yet had an Australian-born archbishop (the nearest we ever came to it was with one who came out from England as a migrant and was ordained here). In the Church, the colonial mentality dies hard.
We should also notice a tendency in any given community to confuse what is properly a part of that country’s general outlook on life with Christianity. Rightly or wrongly, many Christians think that in the United States there is a tendency to identify “the American way of life” with the Christian way. Whether this be true or not is for our American friends to work out for themselves. It would be presumptuous for an Australian to pronounce on the question. But it would be equally remiss of him not to raise it when the impression is so widely held. And when Americans perform so much of the world’s missionary work, it is important that they distinguish between what is American and what is Christian. To export “American Christianity” in a package deal may lead to disaster.
It is the most natural thing in the world for anyone who has been brought to know Christ in a certain culture to identify that whole culture with the Christian way. Here there is room for much careful thought. There is no need for American Christians or British Christians or Australian Christians or Filipino Christians to renounce their heritage. There is that in their background which appeals to them and which they find of value as they survey their task of living for Christ in the complex modern world.
But they should not demand that other people look at life the same way. For example, those of us who live in parliamentary democracies often see this set-up as peculiarly in line with the Christian doctrine of man. I can see no reason why we should not value it highly. But that does not give us the right to regard as sub-Christian anyone who prefers a completely different political system.
Distinguishing between those elements in our way of life that are merely cultural and those that are necessary expressions of the Christian faith is not easy. But it is very necessary.
Let me close with some words of Arsenio Dominguez: “I must recognize my oneness and complicity with the Church of the world. No Christian is an island. Christ’s Church in the Philippines should be concerned with the mission and role of the whole Church. The problems of evangelicals anywhere should be our problem. The Church under persecution in other places is our concern. We are part and parcel of a truly ecumenical body in the different hues and colors of redeemed humanity. We have a world responsibility. We are catholic because we recognize our universal brotherhood as God’s children in Christ. But catholic or universal without ceasing to be Filipino. And proud in serving God according to our ways and culture.”
LEON MORRIS
Lutheran Congress
Loyalty To The Scriptures And Confessions
Chicago, Illinois—Aug. 31–Sept. 2, 1970
Presentations on The Nature of Scriptural Truth, Faithful Confessional Life in the Church, and Evangelical Communication of the Word.
Some Participants: Dr. E. R. Bertermann, Dr. R. Bohlmann, Rev. Wm. Gast, Dr. Lowell Green, Dr. R. Preus, Rev. E. Reimnitz (Brazil), Dr. M. Roensch (Germany), Dr. Frances Schaeffer (Switzerland), Dr. G. Stalsett (Norway), Prof. M. Warth (Brazil), Dr. Paul Zimmerman.
Chairman: Dr. Edwin Weber, Frazer, Michigan. Co-Chairman: Rev. Andrew Anderson, Costa Mesa, California. Committee: Church leaders and members of various Lutheran Churches. Write for a free descriptive folder to: Registrar, Rev. Roy Bleick, 2751 South Karlov Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60623.
