Christology: Respectful and Critical Re-appropriation
A. Enlightened Christian
For the enlightened Christian the underlying understanding of salvation and how Christ brought it
shows particular characteristics. The classical doctrine of “satisfaction” remains in force. “God
chose the way of suffering and death as the most fitting... It was triumph of divine justice.” A
docetistic, disincarnated Christ “satisfied” for our sins, paid the price. An arrangement has been
made in heaven. “Heaven is ours, has been ours from the moment of Christ's death, but ours to
fight for and to win in a lifetime of struggle.”
As an individual we have to “win”salvation through a lifetime of hard work, discipline and
moderation. A successful career and a comfortable life are sign that we are on the right road.
Our guide is the disincarnated “sweet rabbi of Galilee,” a womanish figure altogether estranged
from daily life, who was ever disposed to bless the status quo and who did not make it too
difficult for charitable and virtuous people. With him, we will also have to suffer, yet his death –
this supernatural arrangement in heaven – seems to have taken out the sting of suffering.
Christian masochism has to deal with the unavoidable end of the individual, suffering and death,
which is “the royal road to lifefollowing Christ who blazed the trail for us.”
We need to criticize such an individualistic andspiritualizing view of Christianity in our
confrontation of the New Testament portrait of Jesus. We should be aware that many of the good
middle-class Christians arrive at a strong awareness of Christ's presence in their lives leading to
discipleship. Yet we feel that even such exemplary Christian lives are challenged in our society,
by the structural evils of injustice and by the religious cultural history of our people who search to
become active subjects of their own message and their own historico-cultural project.
B. The challenge of the Conscientized Christian
How can Christians say that God is a God of salvation when they see so many people suffering
in oppression, poverty, and misery?
It is sufficient to point out that some Christians will opt for a “structural analysis” of Marxist
inspiration to bring out the inequality in our society caused by the existing economic relations.
Such an analysis is often colored by the intransigence of Marxist ideologists who look for
practical and pedagogical tool to make the exploited masses aware of the inequalities in society.
An example would be the “New Society”(BagongLipunan) ideology of the former Marcos regime
which was the object of analysis of and criticism which the “left” made us strongly aware:
poverty.
During the recent years, the challenge to Christians in the Philippines became more and more:
can we listen to the cry of the poor without being Marxist? Freedom from Marxism can only be
achieved by solving the problems that Marx pointed out.
Christians who attempted to respond to this challenge start from a model of salvation in terms of
“liberation”,focusing in a particular way on the problem of socio-political-economic liberation in
present day society. This focus does not imply that they want to reduce salvation to political
liberation. Rather, this is in adherence to the experiential character of salvation and its
eschatological dimension. It also includes the different “anthropological constants” which
together form the experience of salvation. These constants ca be expressed in the model of
liberation which describes human existence as freedom in bondage.
Bound freedom comprises the different aspects of human existence. A first aspect is the
individual or strictly personal dimension of human life. A person is a center of responsible
activity, reflection, choice, decision and creativity. This uniqueness and personal identity is
constantly threatened not only by fellow human beings but also by physical and natural
determinations. Secondly freedom is shaped by interpersonal and social relationships which
result in creating social structures. These same structures may, however, also suppress
freedom. Thirdly, human freedom transcends the self by submitting itself to values and ideals
and, implicitly to the ground of these ideals which is transcendent and absolute.
A Christology which tries to address the concrete context of the inequality, suffering and
oppression of the poor in our Philippine situation will make the model of “liberation” central. The
question which will be asked is, first of all, a soteriological one: what meaning does Christ’s
message and practice have for today’s poor who are searching for liberation in the midst of
suffering? This question focuses on Jesus’ liberating role within the socio-political structures of
his time, trying to translate his stand towards our situation.The second question, the question of
Jesus’ identity, can only be asked in a meaningful way when Christians start again to realize the
salvific impact of Jesus’ deeds and words in the concrete context of their own struggle for
liberation.
The Conscientized Christian is also the “Christian activist” who starts from a secularized vision of
history, with a strong accent on the ethical character of our faith. This “secular vision of history”
may simply not be understood by the majority of the people, who live in a sacred and theocentric
worldview in which they are as it were in symbiosis with the divine. The strong secular and
ethical accent may lead to a crisis of faith and to the total rejection of a universe in which the
believer sees God present. What may be left is the bitterness of a Christian turned activist who
will “liberate” society on the strengthof his own will, involvement, and violent struggle. This partial
model of liberation should be complemented by the proper understanding of our culture with its
history, values and wisdom and its potential to lead to fuller humanity.
C. The challenge of the Folk Christian
The Christology of the Folk Christian is deeply grounded in the wellspring of the indigenous
culture. The lowland Filipinos have remained faithful to their “rural” culture with its sense of
identity, its values and attitudes. On the religious level, this is manifested in folk Catholicism
which is basically an indigenous interpretation and incarnation of official Western Christianity.
People are inextricably cultural. It is difficult to speak meaningful language in our Christological
reflection if one does not also address the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the people, starting
from their indigenous culture with its own thought patterns.
The question of “salvation.” Analyzed within the context of the Filipino culture, leads to a general
contrast experience alive in folk consciousness: hirap (difficulty, suffering) and ginhawa (ease,
relief, rest). This framework based on the “anthropological constants” provides a glimpse of how
Filipinos look at the reality of wellbeing or salvation.
Hirap– may refer to oppression and domination, implying that liberation is an experience of
ginhawa. The condition of poverty is also hirap. “Surfacing from this condition”
 (makakaahonsahirap) isginhawa. The same can be used of the transformation of
strained or broken relationships into pleasant and restored ones. Ang hirap ng
kalooban ay napapawi at angtao ay gumiginhawa.
Ginhawa– interprets for the lowland Filipino as the reality of wellbeing. It is also known as “ease
of life,” “relief from pain, sickness, straits or difficulty,” “consolation received,” “freedom
from want” and convenience”. For the lowland Filipino the model, ginhawa, does not
need any explanation; it’s something interiorized unlike the previous models of
“satisfaction” or “liberation” which have to be adopted consciously
Analysis and Evaluation of the Model of Ginhawa within the Context of an Indigenous
Christological Reflection.
1. Characteristics of Ginhawa
Ginhawa exhibits a sense of realism regarding historical wellbeing. Since life is both
imperfect and finite, ginhawacan never be experienced in its fullness in the world: it will always
be accompanied by hirap, difficulty, and suffering. For this reason, suffering is accepted by
Filipinos as a matter of fact. By the same token, one finds relief, albeit limited and non-lasting, in
any given difficulty and suffering.
Ex. “Kung may hirap may ginhawa.” Life then is seen as an alteration of hirap and ginhawa,
ginhawa and hirap: Ganyanangbuhay! Paranggulongangkahambing. (Life is like that! It is a
wheel). Folk wisdom is given expression through the imagery of the wheel.
Life is a gift and there ought to be moments which make one experience it as such. Moments
like this are moments of ginhawa. The fragmentary experiences of happiness and wellbeing are
sufficient to maintain the conviction that life is worth living expressed very often as
“remedyolang,”“gawan ng paraan” or even as “delihensya,” ginhawaassumes thathirapis neither
eliminated or vanquished for good. It is not really a change of the overall situation which is being
aspired for.; it is oriented over some experience of rest, respite or relief from a burdensome
condition.
Thus, ginhawa, can be construed as a search for “what is humanly possible” in a given
historical situation rather than a looking forward, or even a concentration on a long-term goal at
the end. Later times are not always better than earlier times. People of any specific culture and
of a particular history try what they consider to be the best for their situation and time.
Intrahistorical wellbeing can only be ginhawa, not “lubosnaginhawa” (total wellbeing). To
believers of ginhawa, salvation is always in the present tense. As a consequence, Filipinos in
search of ginhawa are easily content with little. Life can be and is enjoyed even with just the little
that people have.
Ginhawa then manifests a double strength.First, it recognizes as obvious the finitude which
is life. The phrase, “sapagka’tako’ytaolamang,” need not be understood as a convenient excuse
for failure. It is an expression of a down to earth recognition of limits which do exist in human life.
Finitude ought not to be regarded as a wound. To want to transcend finitude is arrogance which
alienates people from themselves, the world and nature. Such an attitude to life makes lowland
Filipinos readily see how finite earthly life and the limited joy it offers come from God.
“SalamatsaDiyos” is a common expression of people who bless God because He is the source
of life and grace.Secondly, ginhawa sees the experience of rest, respite or relief as delightful and
something to be relished. It recognizes the impossibility of a perfect situation within history,
ginhawa assumes that each and every opportunity of respite or relief should be striven for and
welcomed, for that is all that there is in life. This makes it easy for Filipinos to appreciate
“salvation” which Jesus offers when he says: “Come to me, all whose work is hard, whose load is
heavy; and I will give you ginhawa” (Mt 11:28).
2. Achieving Ginhawa
How is ginhawa achieved? A life of ginhawa is attained through a combination of capability
or capacity (lakas)and winsome goodness (ganda).Lakas is necessary if something is to be
accomplished. Without power, good intentions and orientation are inadequate to effect
something. Malakas ought to be accompanied by what is considered to be maganda, i.e. what is
humanly good. Ginhawa or the situation of happiness and wellbeing in the world, is only possible
with the partnership (i.e. synthesis) of Malakas and Maganda.
3. Ambiguity of Ginhawa
Realism can be lost sight of when suffering becomes overwhelming and intolerable. A
fatalistic attitude can develop. Example, Jesus, the Nazarene, reminds the Filipino that suffering
is inevitable; it has a purpose in God’s infinite wisdom whether it makes sense or not to us. Kung
angDiyos ay naghirap, angtao pa kaya? Without intending to explain the mystery which is
suffering, an attitude which regards suffering as “part and parcel of life” can obscure and
undermine human responsibility and this may contribute to inhuman situations and conditions in
society. People who get used to “tiding themselves over” can get so easily content that they tend
towards complacency. Discontent is necessary for things to move and change, and, at times, no
less than a great discontent will do. Otherwise, it is all too easy to accept the situation as a
matter of fact: talagangganyanangbuhay (life is just like that).
4. Accent on the Positive aspects of Ginhawa
Ginhawa as a model of “salvation” has obviously, something to offer to illumine both the
human condition and the wellbeing which is God’s gift in Jesus. Ginhawa can give sense and
direction to the question of salvation in the lowland Filipino context. The humble recognition and
acceptance of the finitude found in ginhawa can make lowland Filipinos appreciate Jesus’ limited
humanity. This indigenous way of perceiving wellbeing will help them to gratefully acknowledge
the simple joys found in life. One does not need a perfect and an ideal situation to be able to
enjoy the gift of life, albeit fragmentarily and provisionally.
Analysis and Evaluation of the Model of Kaloobanwithin the Context of an Indigenous
Christological Reflection.
A. Jesus: angtaongmagandaangkalooban
It is identified that ginhawa is the cultural soteriological model of the lowland Filipino. This
highlights the significance of the New Testament which is “a reservoir-of-meaning” which can be
read from the perspective of different models. The reading of “what Jesus did” from the
perspective of ginhawa helps in arriving at meaningful insights regarding the person of Christ in
our own cultural context. Jesus is someone who graciously and unconditionally offers and bring
about ginhawa, not for what he can get out of it but simply for the sake of others, inevitably elicits
a response in the form of identification. Seen from the perspective of what he effects in the lives
of people, Jesus is ginhawa-bringer. Considered, however, from the viewpoint of his personhood
in relationship to others, the lowland Filipino culture would designate him another way.
We can be sure that if Jesus went “out doing good and healing, all that were oppressed by
the devil” (Acts 10:38) in the Philippines, he would have been regarded as a person with
magandangkalooban, not immediately but gradually in the whole course of his life and ministry.
Kagandahang-loobis not something which one would casually attribute to a person one does not
know well; the determination of whether he or she is experientially founded on perceptive
knowledge.
Kagandahang-loob connotes all that is good in someone, which is, in fact, an ideal among
Filipinos. It is a quality of being which has its roots in the very heart of a person and which is
given expression in the totality of one’s life of interrelationship.
1. Loob: the inner and most authentic self
Loob– (literally, the inside or the inner self) is the most authentic self of the lowland Filipino, that
is, what he/she is in his/her innermost reality.
– it is the core of one’s personhood and where the true worth of a person lies. It is the
ultimate, organizing center of human reality. It is the very zone of creaturehood which is
the substratum of ideas, feelings, and behavior. To speak of the loob, then, is to speak of
the person as a whole.
Loob implies that knowing someone in his/her outside appearance and behavior is not
enough. It is imperative to have an insight into what the person really is “in his/her heart” (the
loob). The true person, as considered by the culture, is what he/she is “inside” him/her. This is
why the Filipino always wants to know what is the kalooban (inner self) of another person in
sizing him/her up. It is what you may designate as the view of the human being “from the inside.”
Appearance are deceptive, one can only know another if he knows the other’s loob.
Moreover, the Filipino expects that a person outwardly ( ang pang-labas) shows what is truly
“inside” him/her (bukassakalooban i.e. welling up from the innermost self). But the disjunction
between the reality of the loob and the outward appearance is, unfortunately, a reality too.
Hence, it is not surprising to hear remarks like “lumabas din angtunaynyangkulay!” or “lumabas
din angkanyangbaho!” if it is a reference to a negative reality. This is an effective use of the
concept of kagandahang-loob for describing the recognition of Jesus.
In the Philippines, the relational aspect of one’s personhood is understood by describing
what sort of loob a person has. A person is said to be of magandang-loob (literally, a beautiful
inner self) or alternatively, of mabutingloob (literally, a good inner self) because he/she generally
relates well an positively towards others. If a person has a bad character or relates negatively
with others he/she is considered as masamang-loob. Ex.Robbers are colloquially referred to as
masasamang-loob.
Kagandahang-loobis characterized as maganda not only because it means “beautiful” but it
means “what is good” or simply what is ethical, proper or humane. The beautiful is the good but
the beautiful is much more than just the equivalent of the good. There is a kind of goodness,
after all, which is cold and unattractive. Holy people who have no human warmth, for instance
tend to repel rather than to attract. In contrast, goodness which is warm and winsome is
beautiful. Ex. Jesus as the “Beautiful (Greek, kalos) Shepherd” (Jn 10:11).
2. Characteristics of Kagandahang-loob
Kagndahang-loob is conventionally translated as “goodness,” “kindness” or “kindheartedness,”
“benevolence,” “helpfulness” and “generosity,”.
First, kagandahang-loob is a relational concept. It cannot be demonstrated in isolation from
fellow human beings. It does not only assume that to become human is to become human “with
others” but also to become human “for others”.
Second, kagandahangloob comes from the personal initiative of the one acting. The act of
kagandahang-loob is graciously free. It should arise froma genuinely free decision and option of
the person concerned (i.e. kusangloob). An indigenous expression points to a level deeper than
just the free decision of a person. Example: “Bukalsakalooban” (welling up from the inner self).
Third, kagandahang-loob is directed towards the wellbeing or welfare of the other.It is other-
directed, not self-oriented; it has the other in mind and not the self. Kagandahang-loob does not
seek for anything in return in a concerned reaching out towards the other. It is not self-seeking
and does not look for a “return of the favor.”
Fourth, kagandahangloob is ascertained through the test of repeated experiences and time. It is
only throughthe repeated experiences of the words and deeds of a person that one can glean
the genuine condition of another’s loob. It matters to discern the quality of the most authentic self
of a person through the course of time.
3. Jesus and Kagandahang-loob
In faith, Jesus can surely be regarded as a man with a magandangkalooban. One can only
go through the characteristics of this attribute to discover how well they apply to Jesus. The man
from Nazareth was known through his relationship with others. In welcoming people in table-
fellowship with him, relieving them from sickness and burdensome mental anguish, he has made
known to them who he really was: a man for others.His freedom with regard to life, manifested
sharply in his attitude toward the law, expressed that the source of his actions came from within
himself (bukalsakalooban). It was not dedicated nor manipulated from external factors. What he
did, he did for the well-being of people. He championed whatever it is which brought ginhawa to
people. He wanted to bring people out of hirap so that they can experience ginhawa.
The ginhawa-bringing activity of Jesus “sacramentalizes” (i.e. makes the unseen palpable)
for us his kagandahangloob.It is the cultural clue as to the inner self of the man from Nazareth.
Traces of kagandahangloob were seen, in his wonderful deeds for the wellbeing of people. For
the comforting word that is Good News as well as his compassionate dealing with people, he
must have evoked the sentiment: isangmabutingtaosiya.
4. Table-fellowship: ginhawa para sakatawan at kalooban
In the Near East, to admit a person to a table fellowship was always a sign of friendship.
Example: You have prepared a banquet for me in the sight of my foes” (Ps 23:5). There was,
moreover, a regular custom of ratifying a treaty, or an agreement, or a covenant with a common
meal. The book of Exodus states that after the covenant had been offered, accepted and made,
it is said of the people: “They beheld God, and ate and drank” (Ex. 24:11)
When Jesus practiced table-fellowship, all the native power of the symbolism of sharing one’s
food with another and all the added religious symbolism which allows a meal to make claims
about God were being put forward. There was something distinctive in this table-fellowship and
this characteristic revealed his particular understanding of God’s ways with the world.
Jesus’ breaking bread with people, especially on occasions when he played host, was gracious
action, unlimited and unconditional. It was intended for all regardless of merit and worthiness. In
other words, God’s friendship, his life and love, His Kingdom, his forgiveness, his salvation is
offered to all as an invitation. Pure graciousness on the part of God – pawangkagandahang-
loob.