MODULE 1 everybody have faith, religious or non-

FAITH IS A WHOLISTIC CONCEPT religious

• Second, it is a process which may echo James
“Faith without works is dead” James 2: 14-16 Fowler's 1981 theory of faith development.
- Even without deep exegetical analysis or without For now, it's safe to assume that faith does
going into the official interpretation of this text not start in full and complete state; it passes
by the Church, common sense tells us that Faith on to certain stages of development. It is a
to God or faith per se, in itself, requires ACTION. process.
It is not just limited to the aspect of the MIND, of • Third, it is interesting how Niebuhr uses the
BELIEVING. Faith obligates us to extend it to word "trying" to describe the action by
ACTION... which the person finds meaning in his/her
- But what kind of action? life. It underscores the complexity and
somehow the difficulty of attainment of life's
Wholistic Framework of Faith (3 Dimensions of Human meaning and purpose because no matter
Living or Totality of Human Person) what happens, anybody's attempt to search
1. Cognitive for meaning is just that - an attempt... a
- faith is an act of belief or conviction that continuous cycle of trial and redoing.
something is true
• Fourth, Niebuhr emphasizes that the process
2. Affective
of faith involves finding meaning. But how?
- faith is an act of trust to something or someone
It is by placing their trust and loyalty to
because one deems it as not only true but good
something or someone that is considered
- naturally, a person desires or entrusts oneself
their "center of value". The center of value is
to someone or something that's desirable
a reality (imagined or actual) that sustains
because he/she finds it good and true
the person and something he/she can rely
3. Performative
upon and depend.
- refers to the performance of faith through the
- faith for Niebuhr is “one that emerges from the
act of love, compassion and care
human person's initiative and choice”
- earlier, it is mentioned how faith is inadequate
without works; faith is complete only when it
Paul Tillich
corresponds to performance into action
- refers to faith as a “total and centered act of the
personal self, the act of unconditional, infinite
THEORISTS ON FAITH
and ultimate concern.”; “faith is the state of
Richard Niebuhr
being ultimately concerned”
- one of the most important Christian theological
- a Protestant philosopher and theologian and if
ethicists in 20th-century America
God is the Ultimate Concern (in capital letters), it
- best known for his 1951 book “Christ and
demands a complete surrender of the person
Culture” and his posthumously published
- God is both the object of faith as well as the
book “The Responsible Self”
subject of a person's faith
- taught in Yale Divinity School for decades
- speaks of faith as something integrative to the
- defines faith as "a universal human process that
life of the person
involves people trying to find meaning in their
- says that includes all elements of the personality,
lives by placing their trust and loyalty in some
both conscious and unconscious... that although
attractive centre(s) of value that represent(s) for
it is a conscious act, it causes the unconscious
them a reality that is sustaining, reliable and
elements of the personality to take into the
dependable"
center of the personality and transcend
- examining his definition:
themselves
• First, faith is universal, in other words, it - Another key idea that Tillich posits in the theme
does not limit itself within a certain religious of faith is the idea of mediated experiences
background or tradition. Everyone and
 - Faith as an abstract category is mediated by
various human experiences and in those sensible
experiences of beauty, warmth, pain, emotions,
moods, etc. are things that we feel as human
persons and by going beyond those mere
sensorial experiences is the place of meaning,
value, and faith
- Faith is the realm of the abstract mediated by
sensorial experiences.
Roger Haight
- an American Jesuit theologian
- “faith is the center of gravity”; faith is the anchor
or the fulcrum that holds your life. It's the center
of the pendulum that no matter where one
sways in the event of life, faith holds the center
of gravity to make one stable and grounded
- To illustrate, say Juan, a 20-year-old guy has
been overwhelmed with vices and bad company.
He has been dragged into a life of immoral and
illegal activities. He has lost connection with his
family. His parents especially his mom is hoping
he could find a way to get back and straighten his
crooked life. Until one day, Juan realizes that he
has lost himself in his pursuit of wealth and
power. He realized that it's his parents who has
stood behind him despite everything. He wanted
to change and only because there are such
people like his parents who has been the anchor
that holds his life no matter what. They are his
center of gravity; no matter where he is pulled or
pushed in life. It is a life with his parents that he
finds life meaningful.
- faith is manifested in the very ordinariness of
life. Our common daily human activities are
manifestations that can provide further meaning
to faith. It is laid hidden and implicit but if only
we decide to find it, it is the where the heart has
been set.
- Faith is in one's very heart (central) as it also
defines the character and behavior of the person
(centering).
Everyone has Faith
As faith is universal and that every person has
faith, admitted or not, confessed or not, the
main question to ask is actually which faith to
choose and which faith makes sense. Everyone
has faith. Everybody believes to such extent that
it may be referred by others as God or a being
higher than oneself. In the context of organized
religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Taoism,
Buddhism, Hinduism, the main question is which
faith makes sense?
Similarity of Neibuhr, Tillich, and Haight
- All of them speak about the importance of faith
in one's life particularly on how faith is
concerned about the things that are beyond
perception and sensation. Where faith delves in
the affairs of the heart and soul on making sense
of things around us through meaning-making
and purpose-driven endeavors
Differences of Neibuhr, Tillich, and Haight
- Niebuhr on faith as the center of value; Tillich on
the concept of sensorial and actual life
experiences as mediations of faith; and Haight
on the idea of faith as the center of gravity.
Wholistic Framework of Faith (Cont.)
- faith as integration of 3 important components
of mind, heart, and limbs (legs & arms)
- mind component refers to the intellectualist
dimension of faith (cognitive) where the image
of God is a Teacher and the mode of faith is the
act of BELIEVING
- heart component refers to the fiducial
dimension of faith where God is seen as a
Merciful Benefactor or Lover and the dominant
mode of action is faith as personal trust
- performative component is based on the limbs
component of faith that zeroes in on the action
or performance dimension of faith where God is
the Great Emancipator and the mode of faith
activity is praxis or emancipative action
Seven Primary Stages of Faith by James Fowler
Stage 1
- "Intuitive-Projective Faith"
- between the ages 3-7
- Faith at this stage is experiential and develops
through encounters with stories, images, the
influence of others, a deeper intuitive sense of
what is right and wrong, and innocent
perceptions of how God causes the universe to
function.
Stage 2
- "mythic-literary faith"
- ages 7-12
 - Children at this stage have a belief in justice and
fairness in religious matters, a sense of
reciprocity in the workings of the universe (e.g.
doing good will result in a good result, doing bad
will cause a bad thing to happen) and an
anthropomorphic image of God (e.g. a man with
a long white beard who lives in the clouds).
- Religious metaphors are often taken literally
thus leading to misunderstandings.
Stage 3
- "synthetic-conventional faith"
- ages 13 to 18, however, some people stay at this
stage for their entire life
- This stage is characterized by the identification
of the adolescent/adult with a religious
institution, belief system, or authority, and the
growth of a personal religious or spiritual
identity.
- Issues of religious authority are important to
people at this stage
Stage 4
- "individuative-reflective faith"
- from 18 to 22 years old
- People in this stage start to question their own
assumptions around the faith tradition. Along
with questioning their own assumptions about
their faith, people at this stage start to question
the authority structures of their faith.
- In the end, the person starts to take greater
ownership of their own faith journey.
Stage 5
- "conjunctive faith"
- People do not usually get to this stage until their
early thirties. This is when the struggles and
questioning of stage four give way to a more
comfortable place.
- Some answers have been found and the person
at this stage is comfortable knowing that all the
answers might not be easily found.
- People at this stage are also much more open to
other people's faith perspectives. This is not
because they are moving away from their faith
but because they have a realization that other
people's faiths might inform and deepen their
own.
Stage 6
- Rarely does any person reaches this stage of faith
- Fowler describes people at this stage as having
"a special grace that makes them seem more
lucid, more simple, and yet somehow more fully
human than the rest of us."
- People at this stage can become important
religious teachers because they have the ability
to relate to anyone at any stage and from any
faith. They are able to relate without
condescension but at the same time are able to
challenge the assumptions that those of other
stages might have.
- People at this stage cherish life but also do not
hold on to life too tightly. They put their faith in
action, challenging the status quo and working to
create justice in the world.
- Notable persons like Gandhi and Mother Teresa
are examples of people who have reached this
stage.
Faith as a Dimension of the Human
Faith is a universal human phenomenon. All
people live by some faith.
People accept some center of gravity that
balances the weights of the various values in their lives.
They adopt a system of meaning that establishes certain
truths as fundamental. Societies inculcate a variety of
objects of faith that provide a unity, comprehensive
order, and intelligibility to life. These are objects of faith,
because faith is the clinging commitment to those
objects, truths, and values which give meaning to human
existence at its most fundamental level.
Faith is a common human phenomenon, an
essential dimension of human action that constitutes
integral human existence. All people have faith. Such a
view may seem contradicted by certain data….Like
butterflies, some people cannot commit themselves to
anything stable…. North American culture has
engendered passionate consumers, whole society of
people who need, by, and use things up, ever new things,
and whose life of work seems geared to this end.
Although H. Richard Niebuhr describes faith in
one central and commanding transcendent value as an
ideal, the fact is that people are usually polytheists or
henotheists who either have many different faiths or
whose god is always compromised by lesser gods.1 Yet
beneath seemingly erratic behavior, insofar as it is
responsible at all, one can find by reductive analysis a
dedication, a faith commitment, a direction, a path upon
which the heart has been set. The object of faith may
rank fairly low on any scale of values. It may be concealed
from reflective evaluation. It can lie embedded in the
implicit logic of a person’s or a people’s behavior. But
some object of faith is always operative insofar as it is
constituted by the sum total of all one’s actual decisions.
The ultimate issue in the question of faith does
not deal with yes or no, faith or unfaith. Rather the point
at issue is always which faith to choose: Which faith
makes most sense? ….
Paul Tillich, in his classic Dynamics of Faith,
[defines] faith as ultimate concern…faith is being grasped
by an ultimate concern.2 When the objective concern is
really ultimate, transcendent, and infinite, it is
experienced as that upon which one stakes one’s being.
The essential point of this characterization of
faith lies in the recognition that faith consists in a
dynamic commitment of the whole of human freedom in
action…. This response cannot be reduced to any specific
“faculty.” It is not simply intellectual assent; not a pure
decision of the will; not merely an emotional feeling.3
None of these aspects should be excluded from
faith….Faith reaches out from the depth of human
freedom. Whether it be defined as ultimate concern or
as “setting one’s heart upon,”4 it takes the form of an
engagement of all of a human being’s energies and
powers. It can in turn be mediated by a variety of
different kinds of experiences: a response to beauty, a
negative response to human suffering, an attraction to a
supreme value or good, a decision to direct one’s whole
life in a certain way.
Faith is central and centering: central because it
emerges out of the center of one’s free being; centering
because it unifies, integrates, and holds together all
aspects of the personality. Of course, such a
characterization of faith describes it in an almost ideal
form. Faith takes on different psychological forms
according to different stages in its development.5 The
principal or confessed object of faith may actually have
rivals that may or may not be conscious. Faith most
distinctively is an adult phenomenon, although it can still
exist in less developed forms. Even though they are
human, new-borns do not have faith in the sense
described here, any more than they possess language in
a developed way. Yet one should see continuities; basic
human trust can be nurtured from the very beginning of
human life.6
Source: Roger Haights, sj. Dynamics of Theology.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001.
Faith within the Hebrew-Jewish Context
The first expression of Christian theology was
within the Jewish culture. It was in Palestine, among Jews
that Christianity was born (or a movement around Jesus).
Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, who spoke Aramaic, and it
was among the Jews that he lived and died. His teachings
were framed within the Jewish worldview and his first
disciples received them as Jews. Is there something in the
cultural context of the disciples and early communities of
Christ, which made them see Jesus in a more significant
manner? Were there some elements in their tradition as
Jews, which were re-interpreted and re-formulated to
give meaning to their experiences of Jesus, the Christ,
Emmanuel, Messiah, Son of David, and so on?
Who is God and what is God’s will?
In order to understand the message of Jesus and
how his disciples interpreted it (read: how they
“theologized”), it is important to situate them against the
background of Israel’s faith in God. The written texts, in
now what we call Old Testament (or the First Testament),
did not develop its own concept of God’s self-
communication but elaborated categories in which the
reality is expressed. The revealing activity of God shows
itself: (a) in inner experiences of God (inner voices,
visions, oracles, dreams, such as in Nm 22-24, Isa 1:1, 6:1-
13, 1 Sam 10:17-27, Gen 20:60); (b) in historical
experiences that are grasped conceptually in the
categories of promise/fulfillment, slavery/freedom,
perdition/salvation (e.g., Dt. 26:5-9) and that have high
points like the calling of Abraham, of Moses in Israel’s
process of becoming a people, and of the prophets in the
stabilization of Israel; (c) in the experience of the word of
God that reveals God’s self as the God of human beings,
the God of people (Ex 6:7, 8:6, 9:14; Ez 7:9, 21:10); (d) in
the experience of the covenant through which Israel, the
unique people from the very beginning, is made God’s
people (Gn 17:1-14).
 Central to the Christian faith is the fundamental
horizon of a God-with-us. Nothing is exempted, no space
is left out, and no time is constrained by God’s presence.
The presence never ceases and is never withdrawn; it
keeps on pouring, as it were, or something dynamically
in movement. The Scriptures is filled with images that tell
of the creative and freeing power of God let loose in the
world. God is a God who creates, sustains, and guides all
things. In the reflections of Israel, God was, is, and will
forever be with them, giving hope and encouragement in
a troubled world, fulfilling divine fidelity to the promise
of shalom. The plurality of human speech for God’s free,
enduring and unwavering presence, coaches us that His
or Her presence is thoroughly inclusive, existential and
experiential.
The content of this manifold revelation is above
all: Yhwh is the God of Israel, lord of history, creator of
the world, person, and initiator of the covenant. For the
Hebrews (the name for the Semitic people in ancient
Israel), history is the scene of God’s mighty acts. The
Exodus deliverance is the exemplar or paradigmatic act
of a God who saves and liberates. From this perspective
we have a story of an enigmatic encounter in the book of
Exodus 3:1-15.
A bush is burning in the wilderness without being
consumed. In respect for the presence of the holy, Moses
removes his sandals. From the bush, he hears words of
divine compassion for people who are enslaved, and
feels challenged to partner this God of the Hebrews in
winning their release. In this context, the exiled shepherd
asks the central God for a self-identifying name. It is
graciously given: ehyeh aser ehyeh, safeguarded in the
sacred tetragrammaton YHWH.
In the first place, “to be” in the Hebrew thought
is phenomenal; to be is to be there concretely and in
evidence. The God of Israel is a God who acts out his
word within history. Israel has a strong sense of looking
at its secular history as religious history, i.e., the world,
life, people, events are the locus of God making himself
or herself present and known. One of the beautiful
symbols or metaphors used to describe the presence of
God is that of a tent or dwelling (shekinah). It conveys the
idea that Yhwh has no other shekinah than the world,
and it is in the world that he or she both discloses and
saves. (Jürgen Moltmann)
Secondly, taking into account the cultural mind-
set of the Hebrew believer, the human being is
inescapably a social being, one who is related to others,
to the world, and to God. The “world” is seen from a
communal perspective through families, the tribe, or
clan. This way, human existence is not only historical but
also social. In the Hebrew context, “to be” is relational;
that is, to exist is to be with others. Ancient Israel prizes
community; one’s identity is bound to the community
(family, tribe, nation) where she or he belongs. The
individual is incorporated into the tribal alliance. Israel
thought and lived out its want faith in Yhwh in a very
strong tribal alliance. Yhwh is not there for the individual,
but for the community as such. Certainly, the Israelite
does not ignore the redemption of individuals, but it puts
strongest emphasis on the truth that full human life is life
in the community. A God who is intimately related to
humankind, therefore, is the God whom Israel puts its
faith (cf. Genesis story wherein the Israelite puts his faith
in a God who does not want the human being to be
alone.
Thirdly, “to be” in the Hebrew thought is
affective; to be is to be in action; to exist is to influence
or affect others. As already mentioned above, God is
known through his mighty deeds in history, i.e., by what
he does as God in the ordinary events of people’s lives.
The question of “who is God” is reflected upon by the
believer via the question, “what has God offered or
effected to our lives?” This way of thinking will be carried
out also by the disciples in their reflection of Jesus. It is
because God has effected deliverance, liberation,
salvation, or redemption, that the name of this God is
solidarity (cf. Emmanuel, God-with-us). In such a culture,
to have a name in the community means that one has
done good things in and for the community. The worst
thing that can happen to anyone is for his or her name to
be blotted out and forgotten, i.e., he or she failed to do
good things to be remembered by people. As the men
and women of wisdom have it: “The mourning of men
and women is about their bodies, but the evil name of
sinners will be blotted out. Have regard for your name,
since it will remain for you longer than a thousand great
stores of gold. The days of a good life are numbered, but
a good name endures forever” (Sir 41:11-13; cf. Prov
22:1, Eccles 7:1). Everything possible must be done to
gain a good name, which Yhwh deserves this God has
shown that his/her presence is effective.

Taking into account these three aspects of
“existence” in the Hebrew culture, it can be posited that
the name which Moses heard from the voice, ehyeh aser
ehyeh, is the name of God as “I am with you” or “I am
solidarity with you” - a God who is experienced
phenomenally, relationally, and effectively. Herman
Hendrickx puts it more clearly: “When we use the word
revelation, we usually think first of all of God or Jesus
speaking. But strictly speaking, God does not speak. God
has no mouth! What the Bible means is that at a given
moment God makes something known to people or to a
particular person, like Abraham, or Moses. But God has a
hundred ways to make his will or his plan known.” The
interpretation of ehyeh aser ehyeh, if it is at least valid,
can also explain another response of the Hebrews to the
question, “what is God’s will?” This will of God is
expressed in the central idiom of the covenant.
The covenant is an international political treaty
between a great king and a lesser prince or the vassal. In
ancient Mediterranean system of treaty, the great king
gives the conditions of the treaty and makes promises for
the well-being of the vassal, including its protection. The
promise of well-being consists of economic, social,
political, and so forth. To make the treaty operational,
the lesser prince or the people pledge their obedience
and enjoy the protection of the great king. For obedience
means life; disobedience means death. This entails
following laws and decrees of the king.
The Old Testament term for covenant is berith.
Israel uses this interpretative model of the covenant to
express and explain the relationship between God and
humanity.
The story of the Sinai covenant begins as the
people suffer oppression in Egypt in the 13th century BCE.
God hears their cry and moves to deliver them because
“he remembers his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob” (Exod 2:24). The exodus from Egypt creates for
God a special people. The experience at Sinai solemnizes
the bond created through the exodus.
Experienced as a God whose name is “I am
solidarity with you,” Yhwh is like a great king who desires
nothing less, and cares decisively, about the secular,
social, historical and political realities of people. The
“will” of this God-king is humanity’s total well-being.
Within the Hebrew/Jewish, there is no such thing as
sacred and profane, soul and body, spirit and matter
which are divided dualistically. They see reality
historically; hence when we say that God cares for the
“secular, social, historical and political realities,” we are
us emphasizing in words the whole of reality which later
tradition and language in the church used because of the
changed (Greco-Roman) context.
God promises this well-being and the protection
for this well-being. In this covenant perspective, Yhwh
initiates the covenant relationship, forging the people
into a relationship. This covenant is sealed by a dual
ceremony: a meal and a blood rite (Exod 24:1-11). Those
who eat together share the nourishment that sustains
their lives, and ancient custom understands that to share
bread with someone is to become responsible for that
person’s life. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar,
which signifies Yhwh, and on the people indicates that
Yhwh and the people have become blood relatives, next-
of kin (again, remember the Semitic mind-set of a
communitarian personality). Blood was a symbol of life
for the Hebrew people, as it was for many other ancient
peoples. Moses’ action of sprinkling the blood on the
twelve pillars (representing the twelve tribes of Israel)
thus affirmed that the life of Israel was joined to the life
of Yhwh. Yhwh’s deliverance of the people in the exodus,
which is an exercise of the responsibility of the next-of-
kin to ransom one who is enslaved, has already
demonstrated this relationship. The Sinaitic covenant
idiom affirms a God whose primary investment has to do
with the total welfare of people.
It is within this covenant that Israel understood
its identity and mission. It provides the Jewish people
with a special identity, the twelve tribes are now one
people whom God had gathered and sent. It also
provides them with a mission; Israel now had special
responsibilities in the spheres of ethics and worship, and
to bring the knowledge of the one living God to all
humankind.
The covenant experience affirms how Israel’s
faith understood God’s revelation as something that
happens in history. A crucial element I the belief that God
is faithful to his promise, that this God works within
history and will show that he/she will conquer evil i.e.,
suffering, injustice, and oppression. This fidelity is
embodied protologically in the biblical account of the
covenant of Yhwh with Israel, where God is portrayed as
pledging everlasting faithfulness (e.g., Exod 19:24). The
theme of divine fidelity is the dominant theme in biblical
religion, and revelation is the story of the mighty acts of
a God who remains faithful in spite of our lack of trust.
What the Hebrews appropriated from the cultural-
religious milieu was this basic framework of a binding
relationship (i.o.w., walang iwanan). They, however,
rejected eventually the politico-legal aspects of
protection and submission while injecting new things,
such as the elements of faithfulness (from the imageries
of parent-child, husband-wife) and the ethical response,
which in the words of prophet Micah, consists of acting
justly, loving tenderly, and walking humbly with God. In
short, Israel’s mission is to proclaim a God who cares
decisively for his people, and so, we too must care
decisively for the total well-being of people. We may
infer thus that “faith” in the Old Testament, from the
covenant perspective, is rooted in God’s fidelity to the
divine promises. Faith is not so much a matter of
believing as of hearing: hearing the word of God and
accepting it with trust and obedience. The prophet Micah
puts it aptly: What Yahweh demands is this – act justly,
love tenderly, and walk humbly with Him/Her.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Kingdom of God
Central to the words and deeds of the historical
Jesus was his proclamation of the kingdom of God. As a
Galilean Jew, Jesus used the kingdom of God as a
category to speak of Yhwh’s relationship with and
promise for humanity. The idea finds origin in the notion
of the Kingship of Yhwh (cf. covenant) or the reign of God
(in Hebrew: malkuth Yahweh; in Greek: baseliea tou
theo). In the first century Palestine, the world where
Jesus lived, the kingdom of God is associated with the
Roman empire, and the emperor called himself as Son of
God. Among the Jews, God’s kingdom was an anticipated
reality in the light of Israel’s hope for the covenantal
promise of total well-being. Such expectation, in
connection to the framework of our course, belongs to
the pole of “tradition.” For the Jews, God’s reign is
understood in three ways.
a. The kingdom of God as an eschatological
promise, a transcendent, universal rule
which God alone would establish in the end-
times. The “community of the poor” in
Qumran had this kind of understanding. It
was thought that God would come in the
imminent future to establish a thousand-
year kingdom of peace after his judgment
over the people and the downfall of “this
world,” that is, the world of injustice,
oppression, betrayal, and so forth. Only
initiates who knew the signs would escape
the wrath.
b. The kingdom of God as the restoration of the
kingdom of David. Some of Jesus’
contemporaries hoped for the restoration of
national political theocracy in Israel, against
all its colonizers, oppressors, and enemies,
which at the time was the Roman colonizers.
The Zealots represented this view.
c. The kingdom of God is provisionally hidden in
the hearts and lovers of the Torah, a kingdom
which had to take shape in social
righteousness in Israel. Without
righteousness, the kingdom of God cannot
come to completion. Rabbis and Pharisees
held this view. The malkuth Yhwh (Hebrew)
or basiliea tou theo (Greek) comes to
fulfillment in faith-observance of God’s will.
Accordingly, conversion, change-of-life
orientation and observance of the law again
make it possible the rule of God in oppressed
Israel and in the long run (it was thought, if
not in the near future) would break foreign
rule. Following the precepts of the Torah was
doing God’s will, and this accelerated the
coming of the kingdom. Finally, the Lord
would exercise universal rule over all people
who accepted belief in Yhwh, “the One.”
During the time of Jesus, there was high
expectation of the coming of the kingdom of God. This
expectation rests on Israel’s own history, which was
marked by oppression, injustice, exile, and
marginalization (i.e., the negative experience of
contrast). In such contexts, hope played a central role in
Israel, and the hope for God’s promise took the form in
the expectation of a kingdom where God rules.
Jesus himself did not define the kingdom of God.
He went around to carry out a mission. In relation to the
tradition that God’s reign is a future transcendent reality,
Jesus was convinced of the nearness of God’s kingdom
(Mt 3:17; Mk 1:15). It is highly probable that he got the
idea of God’s kingdom from John the Baptist. Unlike
John’s proclamation of God’s kingdom with a threatening
warning, Jesus proclaimed it as good news. God’s
kingdom is not disastrous or something to be feared but
a welcome hope of new life. The nearness of God’s reign
was spoken in parables and sayings, but Jesus also
demonstrated through actions what the experience of
God’s reign is. In his healings, people experienced
wellness of the whole self; in his identification and
protection of the poor, people felt their human dignity is
restored; in his table-fellowship with the outcasts,
people realized how important they were in God’s eyes;
in his forgiveness of others, people were released form
the ideologies of their culture that had placed them in
the margins of society. Jesus thus was seen by his
disciples as a prophet of the kingdom in the tradition of
the old. Yet unlike the old prophets, Jesus put into action
the kingdom of God as a here-and-now experiential
reality and still a future reality.
In relation to the tradition that says God’s reign
is a matter of political governance, Jesus’ words and
deeds were not directly about political governance as
much as they have significant political repercussions.
According to Juan Luis Segundo, for Jesus the poor are
the primary beneficiaries of God’s Rule not because of
any merit of theirs or because poverty in itself is holy. The
Kingdom is for them because of their inhuman condition
as poor people, a condition that God does not want.
God’s Rule implies that the poor will cease to be poor.
This conviction of Jesus was considered irregular or even
scandalous by many of his contemporaries because it
suggested a close and positive relationship between
God’s Rule and the situation of poor people. In his
declaration of beatitude to the poor, Jesus was not
concerned with the poor’s inner dispositions or their
moral and religious worth. His declaration pointed at the
kind of God he believed in and the will of this God. Jesus
reveals a God who does not want the miserable state of
the poor even if some of the poor themselves have vices
or are inclined to vices. Furthermore, by declaring that
God’s Rule, the highest kind of rule, belongs to the poor,
Jesus indicates that God takes their side in their hidden
and open conflicts with their oppressors among the rich
and the elite. Thus, for Segundo, the beatitudes and
God’s Rule are not only religious proclamations but also
political ones. Jesus of Nazareth was definitely a politico-
religious figure and not a solely religious one.
The political dimension of Jesus was comparable
to the political dimension of the ancient Israelite
prophets who announced the coming of a messiah (in
Hebrew: mashiah); in Greek: christos; cf. 2 Sam 7:11-14).
In Jewish tradition, the messiah is the anointed one who
would bring justice, peace, and righteousness. The
political dimension of Israel’s prophets and that of Jesus
referred to the relevance and impact of their practices on
public affairs in general. The proclamations of Jesus were
primarily concerned not with private behavior but with
public behavior. Furthermore, their political dimension
did not exclude their religious dimension: the political
interacted closely and reflexively with the religious.
Moreover, Jesus rejected the title “messiah” because of
its narrow meaning in terms only of political activity in
relation to administering a state, as the Zealots thought.
Jesus’ kingdom of God is in its broader and in fact more
fundamental meaning: it is about the restoration of
justice, peace, and righteousness.
Historically, Jesus’ concept of the rule or reign of
God is closely related to that of the Pharisees. However,
for Jesus, this rule is something original and distinctive.
As the stories in the Gospels attest, Jesus rejects the
Pharisee’s identification of righteousness with cultic
purity. He also rejects domination and exploitation of
urban elites (Pharisees, temple priests, Sadducees). For
Jesus, human beings, not temple and Torah, are locus of
God’s power and presence. Through his parables and
sayings, and evidently in his healings, caring for the poor
outcasts and sinners that Jesus indicated how he
understood this kingdom. For Jesus, the kingdom of God
is not a place but an event or an experience: the kingdom
of God is to be found where human life becomes whole,
where “salvation” is realized for men and women, where
righteousness and love begin to prevail, and enslaving
conditions end. Jesus made this reality of the kingdom
imaginable in terms of a common participation in a
festive and splendid banquet in which the cripples, the
poor and the social outcasts can share. Clearly connected
with this is the fact that he ate illegally (in religious terms)
with people who were ignored, rejected and denied of
their human dignity in his society. Jesus radicalized and
transcended the Pharisaic notion of table-fellowship. In
the communal eating together, Jesus implemented God’s
kingdom by his concern for his fellow humans of the
coming reality, and thus anticipated the coming to
fullness or completion of the kingdom of God. The
coming kingdom is a kingdom of God. It is at the disposal
of men and women, though they are demanded to
participate in its realization. This kingdom takes concrete
form in human action. The kingdom is not wholly present
and final, but wherever and whenever Jesus performed
his work of salvation, the kingdom of God is realized.
Whereas in the Old Testament and the Pharisees already
understood it to be strongly focused on the whole of
human reality, Jesus made this visible by his action:
physical and social life are also part of the sphere of the
offer of wholeness of life or salvation. The kingdom of
God is a new world in which suffering is done away with
(e.g., not by master-slave relationship).
Conclusion
In the Hebrew-Jewish culture, God reveals God’s
self in and through human experiences not only of the
individual but also the Israelite community. God’s
revelation happens in history. Faith is not so much a
matter of believing but as the prophet Micah puts it
aptly: What Yahweh demands is this – act justly, love
tenderly, and walk humbly with Him/Her.
Emmanuel S. de Guzman
Agnes M. Brazal
INTRODUCTION TO THE MODELS OF FAITH
Avery Dulles
….There is no one thing “out there” that demands to be
called “faith.” The word “faith” is a conventional sign that
has been used to designate certain aspects of the
religious life, especially in the biblical religions. Christians
use it predominantly to designate a basic saving
relationship with God into which people enter by
responding to God as he reveals. Beyond this, there is
little agreement. The biblical usage of terms such as the
Hebrew ‘emunah, the Greek pistis, and their cognates
(usually translated in the Vulgate by fides and its
cognates) is sufficiently flexible to allow [interpretation
in] ….different directions. (1994)
Intellectualist: Faith as Believing
Avery Dulles
[Faith is] an assent to revealed truths on the authority of
God the revealer….The theory does not necessarily look
7 instructions are primarily liturgical, and other matters are
Dt 6:9, 11:20. 7 Ex 24:7, Dt 6:6-7, Ps 19:7-11, Ps 119. 8 Mt
5:18. ―Not one letter, not the least stroke of a pen will
disappear from the law. cf Mt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 16:17,
21:33, Isa 40:8, Ps 119:89-91. 9 Mt 4:4 (citing Dt 8:3).
8
Ex 24:7, Dt 6:6-7, Ps 19:7-11, Ps 119
9
Mt 4:4 (citing Dt 8:3) E
10
Laws and advice on moral matters are often interwoven
with liturgical instructions but the point remains that these
on revelation as coming in the form of verbal statements,
but it insists that the truths, once known, can be
formulated in declarative sentences, for example, “The
Word was made flesh,” “The Lord is risen.” (1994)
Peter Holmes
The … model seems to find some support in the
Scriptures. In the Old Testament the people of Israel are
invited to receive the laws of the covenant, to ―write
them on your doorframes of your houses and on your
gates.7 The covenant of God with his chosen people
seems to take the form of specific propositions. The law
is emphatically pronounced from the stone tablets
Moses brings from the mountain, placing great emphasis
on the fact they are written, literally carved in stone, for
all to see, seek to understand and to do.8 In the New
Testament Christ himself affirms that all of God‘s Word
is eternal. He insists that man shall live ―by every word
that comes from the mouth of God.9
On the other hand, it could be argued that the covenant
cannot be reduced to mere propositions. It describes a
relationship between God and his people. The covenant
contains a great deal more physical action or ceremony
than specific propositions. The establishment of the
covenant itself includes a few verses of commandments,
followed by approximately forty chapters consisting
largely of liturgical instructions.10
Fiducial: Faith as Personal Trust
Avery Dulles (1994)
[In this model, faith is identified] more closely with
trust…. In the Bible, terms such as pistis are often more
suitably rendered into English by “trust” than by “faith.”
Avery Dulles (1977)
[The fiducial model] highlights the believer’s personal
relationship with God. [It] looks on God less as revealer
than as Savior….In general the biblical…notion of faith
(enumah, pistis) is much wider than in the intellectualist
approach. The believer confidently relies on God who has
fully committed himself to the people of his choice, who
has promised them salvation, and who has shown
himself faithful to his promises in the past. The central
promises in both the Old and the New Testaments are
placed into a liturgical context with liturgical implications. cf
John W. Kleinig, Leviticus (St Louis: Concordia, 2003), 22.
11. For example Ps 19, 119. 12 1 Tm 6:20, 2 Tm 1:14. 13 1
Tm 1:13. 14 cf 1 Cor 11:2, 15:3, Gal 1:12, Eph 4:20
represented in the form of covenants, that is to say,
collective contracts in which God, as senior treaty
partner, offers to protect the people who faithfully serve
him. Through the revelation given to the patriarchs,
prophets and kings, the Israelite nation was urged to rely
on God’s covenant promises and was blessed if they did
so.
In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is practically
equivalent to trust. Praise is given to those who rely on
the power of Jesus to heal, to forgive sins, and to bestow
salvation and life. After the resurrection, the apostles in
their kerygma and proclamation called for confident
trust in Jesus as the one in whom alone justification and
remission of sins were to be sought “for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we must
be saved (Acts 4:12)….
In Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians,
Abraham is the prototype of faith because “in hope he
believed against hope that he should become the father
of many nations as he had been told (Rom. 4:18, cf. Gal.
3:6-9). The live by the promises given by God in Jesus
Christ. They are saved neither by the justice of naturally
good works, nor by obedience to the Law, but by the
promise of free grace stemming from Christ who is both
just and obedient. (23-24)
Performative: Faith as Praxis
Agnes Brazal
Unlike in previous models where faith is
regarded a response to revelation (our understanding of
God’s will), here anthropological faith as expressed in
commitment to the poor and the oppressed precedes
revelation. Faith comes first before revelation;
orthopraxis (right action) precedes orthodoxy (right
teaching). In a person’s social engagement with the poor,
one gets to know who God is and what God’s will is for
us. This reversed order is biblically-based: John 3: 21
states: “whoever does what is true comes to the light.”
Jeremiah 22: 13-17 likewise states, “To know God is to do
justice.”
Juan Luis Segundo, sj, illustrates this reversed
order in his reading of the biblical text on the correct
interpretation of the Sabbath.
Jesus’ adversaries have already gone to Scripture,
seemingly with all necessary scientific apparatus
and a neutral heart, to ask what may and what
11
Gustavo Gutierrez, “A Theology of Liberation,” in
Wogaman & Strong, Readings in Christian Ethics, 341.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
may not be done on the Sabbath. But Jesus begins
with something else. He tells them that the
Sabbath is made for the human being, and not the
human being for the Sabbath. That is, whether the
Sabbath is sacred or not is not in the word of God
speaking of what is permitted or forbidden on tht
day, but in what God intends for the human being
for the good of the human being. God has made
the Sabbath for the good of the human being, and
therefore only those who seek the good of the
human being understand what is written
concerning the Sabbath. (Segundo,123)
One who intends human well-being and acts accordingly
is able to get into right interpretation of God’s will or law.
Segundo relates this reversed order of theologizing to St.
Augustine’s expression: “If you cannot make me better
than I was, then why are you talking to me?” Human
beings understand only what affects them, what makes
them better or worse.
Peter Holmes
[The father of liberation theology Gustavo
Gutierrez] insists that faith, while not providing a specific
plan for social organisation, demands that we work
actively for a just society. This faith, lived within human
history, brings Christ ‘s victory into the world in order to
overcome it. He contends that the God of the Bible is a
God who acts in concrete historical salvation within
history, and that God orients history in a specific
direction. Through his faithful people, God changes the
world better to resemble his kingdom. God calls his
people to be faithful to his social ideal, specifically in his
constant call to uphold the downtrodden, oppressed and
powerless. In Jesus Christ, God becomes the poor and
suffering whom we must tend and defend. Faith does not
end in personal belief but shines in action, in lived faith.
To believe, then, is to ―love God and to be in solidarity
with the poor and exploited of this world‖, and an
engagement in the struggle for greater justice and
liberation.11
Sources:
Dulles, Avery, sj. “The Meaning of Faith Considered in
Relationship to Justice,” in The Faith That Does Justice:
Examining the Christian Sources for Social Change, 10-46,
ed. John C. Haughey. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1977.
Dulles, Avery, sj. The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A
Theology of Christian Faith, Chap. 8 “Models and Issues.”
NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Holmes, Peter. “Models of Faith and Reason.” Master of
Theology (Th.M)), University of Notre Dame Australia,
2010.
http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/50?utm_source
=researchonline.nd.edu.au%2Ftheses%2F50&utm_medi
um=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Segundo, Juan Luis, sj, “Option for the Poor:
Hermeneutical Key for Understanding the Gospel,” in
Signs of the Times: Theological Reflections, 119-127.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.
MODULE 1
THE ECCLESIAL MOVEMENTS
Ecclesial movements
- a collective term for many volunteer groups and
associations that have arisen within the Church,
mostly in the twentieth century (McCord 2012).
- In a message by Pope John Paul II in 1998 during
the 1st World Congress of Ecclesial Movements
and New Communities, the pope acknowledges
the encouraging presence of ecclesial movements
and liken them to springtime moment in the
Church where it offers freshness of experience
based on personal encounter with Christ.
- In the Philippines, we have a significant number of
them and are very much immersed and embedded
in local dioceses and parishes as well in national
fronts. Examples of these are El Shaddai
movement, Couples for Christ, Focolare, Opus Dei,
Knights of Columbus, Legion of Mary and more.
Slide 2:
As defined, ecclesial movement is a collective term for
many volunteer groups and associations that have
emerged in the 20th century particularly after the Second
Vatical Council. In one of the documents of Vatican II,
Lumen Gentium #12 defines "movement" as having
characterized by "newness, dynamism, spontaneity, and
charismatic quality". It is new as it offers freshness in the
Church whose air had been stale due to long centuries of
cleric-centered hierarchy and structure that denied any
non-ordained laity (non-priests) any meaningful
participation and involvement in Church affairs and
ministry. Its dynamism is a result of increased participation
by laity ithrough their high-spirited and lively initiative in
ecclesial affairs. It is spontaneous too as many of these
movements emerge from needs of particular situations
and a product of love and concern of the people for the
Church. And because more people are enjoined to
participate, each one's giftedness and talent is put to full
use allowing for an immense appreciation of charisms or
gifts from all people.
Pros and Cons in Ecclesial Movements
Pros
- more homogenous and focused as each
movement is specifically catered to a ministry
allowing people to participate according to their
giftedness and vocation.
- there is also a more relational and communal
ambiance in ecclesial movements due to less-
hierarchical and more collegial structure of
leadership and organization.
- Laypeople are also more attracted to participate
and join as these are usually the areas of church
ministry that they can join in to given the limited
sacramental offices that laypeople can join into.
- It is also appealing to cultural minorities due to its
more focused charism or orientation in relation to
its ministry and target activity.
Cons
- the impression that these movements, at least
some of them, have become elitist and absolutist,
perhaps owing to the fact that some of them have
only catered to exclusive groups and classes.
- a tendency of these organizations to demand their
members strict adherence as membership has
become exclusive and highly selective.
- Some of them have also become too much
identified with their founders resulting to
tendencies of false worship or quasi-idolatry.
Parishes too sometimes clash with these groups as
some of these groups have their own national
offices that do not want their local networks to
fully comply with parish directives as they assert
full authority of their national leadership and
policies.
Examples of ecclesial movements in the Philippines
- movements founded by clerics or religious as well
as those by laypeople
- movements initiated by religious communities like
the De La Salle Brothers Philippines as well as
communities that are transparochial or those that
do not emerge as a parish-based initiative but are
present in a network of parishes but whose
 leadership, policies, and management are beyond accountability, implantation, authentic doctrine,
and outside the parish priest and council. complementarity, social involvement, and holiness.

Slide 4:

There are about 122 associations that are officially

recognized by the Pontifical Council of the Laity yet
only about 15 of them are active in the Philippines.
On the other hand, there are also initiatives from
the parish ground but have not achieve official
designations but inasmuch as the local parish priest
and bishop allows it, then it is fine.

Slide 5:

We can categorize ecclesial movements according to their

apostolic direction or to which specific direction their
ministry and mission is in relation to Church and the world.
The ecclesial movement is categorized as "ad intra" if it is
mainly concerned with internal engagements and affairs in
the Church. For example, the ministry of Legion of Mary is
more on developing and practicing habits of prayer
particularly the praying of rosary among the faithful hence
the focus is internal formation of people within the church
space. Ad extra movements are those that are concerned
with the affairs of the world or those that are outside the
church space; venturing into dialogue and address of
political situations, economic, cultural and ecological
concerns. The main aim of ad extra movements is to
contribute to the transformation of social structures in the
name of social justice and charity. Examples of these
movements are PPCRV (on safeguard of honest and fair
elections) and some activities on environmental
awareness and education.

Slide 6:

A certain ecclesial movement may also fall in the middle of

the so-called spectrum of movements where it is a mix of
both the ad extra and ad intra orientations. Here, the
movements provide their members activities that range
from spiritual and sacramental formation as well as extra
ecclesial activities like service to environment and
alleviation of poverty of people.

Slide 7:

In order to safeguard the entire faithful of the Church and

guide them in their choice of membership to an ecclesial
movement, the Church offers certain criteria and
attributes for a movement to gain a sense of legitimacy. In
an exhortation by Pope John Paul II in 1988, he offered the
criteria of ecclesiality as the ultimate sole basis for
legitimacy of any emerging ecclesial movement. This
criterion is further explained in six (6) attributes, namely,