Rev. Everett Mendoza, D. Theol.
Divinity School Church Workers Convocation, Silliman University, Dumaguete City
28-30 August 2011
Introduction: In my first year of teaching at Silliman I was given a teaching load at the Dept. of Philosophy and Religion – Rel. 12. At the end of the semester, my students took the final exams. One student wrote on her paper the following note: “Thank you sir, you are really a good preacher.” I realized then that I couldn’t tell the difference between a lecture and a sermon. For five months I was preaching to my students. I haven’t change much. Now, I must confess that for some thirty years at the Divinity School, I was actually an evangelist disguised as a professor. Whether it was in the classroom or the church or at the stage in a public plaza I spoke in order to persuade and to make a call to action. I’m now at UTS, you know. Its motto is, “Preach the Word.” I thought I’ve found a home there. This morning, I bring a message in the guise of a lecture.
There’s another problem. Many generations of DS students have had the misfortune of having to listen to only one theology teacher whose views have not really changed with the times. That perhaps is the reason why I have not been asked to do this thing for the Convocation in the last 20 years. I might have already exhausted the patience of my colleagues for having been forced to listen to me saying the same things over and over again. (This may be unsettling to my long-time colleague and friend, Rowland Van Es and Judy, who came all the way from the U.S. only to hear me say what they have already heard before.) I may have developed a different language and look different with my all-white hair, but the thoughts underneath it haven’t changed color, I assure you.
I
Jesus’ Ministry
Let me begin with an understanding of the ministry of Jesus. What was Jesus’ ministry like? Let me cite four things that mark Jesus’ ministry. First, Jesus had a passion for the gospel, a passion to proclaim the good news. As recorded in Luke chapter 4, verse 18ff, he introduced his ministry at a synagogue, saying, “I have this passion to preach the good news to the poor, a passion to proclaim liberty to the captives, sight to the blind and freedom to the oppressed, a passion to announce the year of the Lord.” Behind this great passion, Jesus says, is the Spirit of the Lord that moves him to speak boldly, throwing caution into the air. The Scripture was not supposed to be read that way. He was supposed to observe proper decorum, not to read the holy book like a rabble-rouser. But Jesus just couldn’t contain the Spirit inside him. The message is very exciting: it is good news to the poor; it is power that can open the eyes of those walking in the darkness of despair; it is meant to awaken hope for those whose spirits have been crushed by oppression and captivity; it is a news of great joy for it announces the Day of the Lord that the nation has been waiting for so long. How can one remain unemotional, placid and read the passage the way the rabbis and the Pharisees do, eloquently perhaps but without passion, even boring?
Not only did Jesus preach the gospel with a great passion but also with a great sense of urgency. The kingdom of God was just about to erupt in history. In fact, he said, some of them would still be standing when it will happen. And it will come like the coming of the bridegroom in the dead of the night surprising everyone. For Jesus, the world was at the edge of something absolutely wonderful and terrible. When Jesus spoke the room temperature rose to boiling point. The respectable teachers of the law couldn’t contain Jesus’ surging emotions, so they drove him out of the synagogue.
If it is not with a great passion and a great sense of urgency, it is not gospel.
Second, Jesus had an eye for discerning the truth behind the ordinary ways of seeing things. It was considered a duty for righteous people to stone an adulteress to death and feel justified. Jesus looked through the woman’s sins and saw God’s forgiveness. He observed the Pharisees display their regard for the law to the letter, enjoying the praises heaped on them by the crowd. Jesus saw not devotion to God but hypocrisy, so he openly and loudly denounced them before the crowd. The leaders of the nation went about their business believing that everything was in order and secure. Jesus saw catastrophe coming upon them and the whole nation. Many came to ask him about the kingdom and how they might enter it, but Jesus looked into their hearts and saw malice and wicked motives. By speaking the truth Jesus made the comfortable uncomfortable, the secure insecure, the peddlers of lies exposed, the high and the mighty vulnerable. On the other hand, Jesus made people see a world where God reigns and his justice flowing like a river. He opened to them a vision of the future and urged them to start living in that world now. People saw only chaos and disaster, Jesus saw divine order and showed them how to live accordingly. His enemies finally silenced him but not before many other eyes had been opened. And so, Jesus’ vision continues.
A ministry without vision is a dead-end.
Third, Jesus had a heart for those who have been left without company, comfort and support. Jesus was a preacher of the kingdom of God and he knew that his time was running short. But his compassion was stronger than the urgency to finish his mission. On his way to Jerusalem to meet his destiny, he was always stopping here and there – stopping by a well to talk to a Samaritan woman, or stopping by the roadside to heal a blind man or had his feet anointed by a crying woman. If Jesus had a weakness, it was his soft heart for people who had no one else to turn to. No one was too small, insignificant or notorious to deserve his precious time. He never used his high calling, in fact God’s mission, as an excuse for turning down people of this kind seeking his help. For Jesus, it was not a matter of principle that the little ones have to be given first attention. He was not dictated by a code of ethics for messiahs. Rather, it was out of sheer compassion.
If it is not compassionate, it is not ministry.
And fourth, Jesus had a pair of hands that picked up the tools to accomplish the tasks required of his mission. There are stories from extra-biblical sources saying that Jesus spent the better part of his youth in India learning magic. That suggestion is not really necessary since Jesus did things indicating that he possessed extraordinary knowledge and skills. He learned the art of healing and exorcism to demonstrate the signs that the kingdom of God has broken into the world ruled by Satan. He mastered the rules of rabbinical argumentation as he confronted experts of the Jewish Scriptures. Above all he knew the Law and the Prophets not only the letter but also its spirit in order to fulfill in his life the real demands of the Law and the new reality foretold by the Prophets. Finally, he struggled with the Devil and the demons inside him so that he won’t be distracted by the ghosts of his past as well as by personal ambitions. Before he launched into his ministry, he rid himself of all inner hindrances and equipped himself with its tools and weapons. And so, everywhere he went, people were amazed at his power and authority.
No one who is not prepared and equipped is fit for the ministry.
In sum, the original man behind a Christ-like ministry was this: this man had a passion for the gospel. He possessed an extraordinary gift of discernment. He was filled with compassion. He prepared himself and acquired personal and vocational tools for his ministry. These enabled him to face and overcome all kinds of situations. He prevailed over his powerful detractors and made people believe that the kingdom of God was at hand.
II
Called and Elected to the Ministry
Who are called to the ministry? The call to the ministry of Jesus is for all believers. It is a call beyond the call to believe in the gospel in order to achieve salvation. But not everyone called to Jesus’ ministry is chosen. Jesus said, “Many are called but few are chosen.” Does it mean that those called who are not chosen are to be excluded from the ministry? No. It doesn’t follow that not being chosen is a negation of the calling. Indeed many are called but from among them some are elected to do another set of duties. To illustrate, many are called to the navy but from among them some are chosen to become navy seals. It is up for the many to respond to the call, but they have no part in the election of some of them to another office. Every Christian is called to the ministry of Jesus but not all are elected to the ministry. This is not necessarily in particular reference to the call to the ordained ministry, which is a function or perhaps a status but not a quality of being a Christian. More than obtaining the title of a reverend, it means the attainment of a sense of loyalty and love for Jesus that surpasses all loyalties and aspirations in life. It is a loyalty that is more than loyalty to the institutions of the church. In final sense, it is a loyalty that is not achieved by hard work but a gift from Jesus who calls and chooses whom he wills. Jesus calls and chooses or elects who would follow him to become his disciples or followers of his very ministry.
Classical theologians call this divine election or predestination, which most modern theologians dismiss as a theological artifact that has outlived its usefulness. But unlike Luther’s or Calvin’s theory of predestination and election whereby some are elected to inherit heavenly glory while others are predestined to go to hell, this is about the Elect who are chosen to follow the very steps of Jesus up to the cross. It is to the elect that Jesus asked the question, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” It is Jesus who elects, and this election is affirmed or seconded by the church. Sometimes the church is right in seconding one truly elected by Christ, but at other times the church can be careless and clueless.
Essentially, those who are elected by the church to be dedicated to the ministry are mindful that Jesus has first elected them. [When students first come to the DS, they are asked why they enter the ministry. Invariably they declare, “We are called by the Lord.” At the end of three years of theological education, however, they are not so sure anymore.] By their election, they owe allegiance to no one but Jesus. They are, in effect, being set apart in order to be devoted solely in the service of Jesus and his ministry. Their natural loyalty to family, their institutional obligations to the church end when loyalty to Jesus begins. Although family and church are encompassed by Jesus’ mission, there are points and moments when these loyalties may actually come into conflict with loyalty to Jesus. But those who are elected to the ministry have the duty to conduct themselves as exemplars of unequivocal unflinching loyalty to Jesus and to Jesus alone. The church can tell that those it has elected but have no desire, no inclination to fulfill this special duty may have been called but not really elected by Jesus. “By their fruit you shall know them.” For instead of directing the faithful to Jesus by their lives, they are prone to make the little ones stumble by behaving worse than the pagans. Jesus has a solution for the pseudo-elect: better tie a millstone around their necks and throw them into the sea.
III
Preparing and Equipping the Elect for the Ministry of Jesus
Theological seminaries are set up especially for the preparation of the elect for Jesus’ ministry. Certainly, these institutions also serve other purposes for the benefit of all the faithful. But these other purposes are but corollary to the main purpose. For that reason, it is appropriate to call seminaries as formation centers. The medieval equivalent for that is monastery, meaning cloistered community. There, those who are being prepared for the ministry devote themselves entirely to the disciplined life of an elect together with others in the context of community. I find it appalling, totally disconcerting that some theological institutions are more interested in the granting of academic degrees than in molding personal character for the ministry. They offer “distance” programs in which candidates are deemed ready for the ministry on the sole basis of their ability to reproduce on paper a quantity of concepts required of a course. But this kind of theological education does not offer opportunities for developing critical thinking, deep reflection, creative interpretation, integration of theory and practice and above all discipline and character formation that a face-to-face interaction among learners and mentors can offer in the context of community life.
While it is impossible to tell which candidates for the ministry are truly elected by Christ, the church can establish standards for the kind of formation programs that are appropriate and supportive of a Christ-like ministry. What are some of its characteristics? One, learners and teachers go through the various curricular experiences from the standpoint of the socially excluded. Taking the standpoint of the poor and powerless is critical in theological education. The reason is biblical, theological and historical, meaning, faithful, to the ministry of Jesus who stood with the under-classes of his time. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom from the perspective of the poor, the sorrowful, the lowly, the deprived of human rights and justice – “Blessed are you poor for yours is the kingdom of God.” He confronted the religious authorities and eventually the power of the Roman Empire from the standpoint of their victims. And ultimately, he suffered their fate. Holding on to the standpoint of the “least of Jesus’ brothers and sisters” is the anchor that prevents theological education from drifting aimlessly to the point of losing connection with Jesus’ ministry. Academic excellence is a good thing but it can lure a theological institution away from a Christ-like ministry. The MFC is a community that teaches and trains a disciplined kind of seeing, understanding and doing things from the standpoint of the outcasts. Whether one is assigned to a wealthy urban church or to a small rural church, the standpoint should be the same.
Two, it aims for community-building in study, worship, work and fellowship, which are the components of ministerial formation. Starting from the standpoint of the outcasts, members of a theological community are led to move from self-centeredness outwards to others to form community. The purpose of proclaiming the gospel is not just to convert individual persons but to gather them into a community that together hears the word of God. Worship is not simply an exercise for the spiritual enrichment of the individual soul but also a venue for the disciplining of the spirit against ego-centrism and for the cultivation of an expanded and inclusive self. Members of the seminary community engage in work not just for the promise of compensation but to learn the value of cooperation and to acquire the virtue of helpfulness. More than participating in fellowship activities for recreation, fun and entertainment they come to develop a sense of having a common spiritual ancestry and destiny. Study, worship, work and fellowship – these are the four corners of a theological community.
Three, it practices a pedagogy that instills freedom and courage to go beyond the outer limits of tradition to new insights and forms of obedience to the gospel. Learning is not only about acquiring and preserving what has been passed on as wisdom of the ages but also of refreshing ancient truths for the discernment of present realities. Professors tend to measure academic competence in terms of regurgitating the results of ground-breaking or recent research rather than in venturing into unchartered territories of knowledge and truth. Learners who get the idea that knowing who says what (footnotes and bibliography!) makes one a good theologian, because they get good marks, are likely to be timid or contented being unoriginal and uncreative. Traditioning is indeed an indispensable requisite to an informed and responsible theological craftmanship but once tradition is taken as the supreme authority that draws the limits of theological exploration it can become a fetter that imprisons the mind and spirit. As a result, graduates are likely to turn out into their professors’ clones whose sermons are cluttered with second-hand ideas that don’t really instruct, let alone inspire. In a theological community, there ought to be a restlessness of the mind and spirit that is constantly agitating both teachers and learners to test old beliefs and practices, like new wine threatening to burst the old wineskin, in Jesus’ parable.
IV
Supporting Ministerial Formation
How does the church support its ministerial formation institutions? It should be realized that a ministerial formation program of the kind described above is more likely to alarm rather than charm the economic and social elite within the church. We aren’t really surprised that rich contributors would rather channel their support elsewhere. It’s nothing less than wishful thinking if we continue to hitch our wagons to the wealthy class in mapping out strategies for a financially viable MFC. More than wishful thinking, this is a contradiction: an MFC that strives to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus from the standpoint of the outcasts should not aspire for the benevolence of the affluent segment of the church and of the larger society, except perhaps the enlightened ones who believe that their wealth is not a special blessing to be kept but to be given away. But even then their contributions are not to be sought after but received with thankfulness.
As Peter declared to the cripple at the Beautiful Gate, “Silver or gold I have none. But what I have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk!” We are acutely aware of what UCCP’s MFCs don’t have – silver and gold. But what do they have? The churches, most of them are poor and very poor. They have alumni, most of them have families struggling to rise above their members economically. They also got something that is priceless, more than what money can buy – love, loyalty, trust and respect of many, if not most, churches and church members. But let’s not forget another thing much more material and concrete – earthly properties, however modest they are, bequeathed them by the missionaries.
Union Theological Seminary may be the exception for having most of these – local churches, alumni and plenty of land much more than what it needs. But the irony is these material assets have not lifted UTS above the less endowed MFCs. Like other struggling seminaries, it seems to be a place to prepare theology students to a lifetime of penury as pastors. There appears to be a disconnect between material assets and institutional viability. In truth, the problems are the same and the solutions also the same: the UCCPs MFCs are not digging deep into their own resources. It seems like they are unable to break away from the early years of passivity and dependence on their so-called benefactors. Like over-grown children, they would rather put their future in the hands of self-appointed surrogate parents who see to it that they remain dependent and de-empowered. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of neglect and betrayal they continue to pin their hopes on their benefactors’ good sense and benevolence. This is hope misplaced.
Across time, theological school originally established to meet the needs of churches for professionally trained church workers eventually entered into partnership with the more financially viable church-related institutions of higher education. The relationship was meant to be complementary but in the process, theological schools invariably lose their financial capability in reverse proportion to the growing financial strength of the host institution. In other instances, church-related institutions of learning expanded their academic programs by creating a theology department as part of their institutional goals and also to serve the needs of churches for professional church workers. An MFC that came into being because it is perceived to be an asset, an insignia, to a Christian institution’s academic identity and development inevitably becomes a function of the institution’s educational goals. Here, it submits fully to the authority and mandate of the administration and its governing board. Well, the situation could be different if those who sit in the board rooms represent peasant, workers and advocates for human rights and justice. But this kind of people doesn’t get elected to our school boards.
A dependent, mendicant theological institution does not enjoy the freedom that is needed to support a Christ-like ministry. For example, it is obliged to be in compliance with the policies of the institution even if they fall short of the standards of economic justice. Its faculty and students naturally feel inhibited to be critical of programs that compromise the church’s ethical stance on certain issues. Owing to the fact that institutions of higher learning operate within the ideological and legal framework of the state, an MFC cannot exercise its prophetic independence under its auspices. Just as a church cannot be truly a church unless it is free, an MFC that has no real autonomy suffers from institutional constraints that won’t allow it to realize its mission alongside the church.
No less than a self-reliant, self-sustaining and self-governing MFC can truly serve a Christ-like ministry. Achieving that goal is a historical process of regaining its freedom and autonomy. Even more formidable is the task of freeing the mind of a mentality that finds security and comfort in a relationship of dependency. We have been made to believe that seminaries cannot and can never support themselves. This mistake comes from a failure to remember history but even more a failure of trust in God’s faithfulness.
Conclusion: The story of the feeding of the five thousand should give us a clue as to how to feed our MFCs and more. Jesus got only five loaves of bread and two fish from a nameless boy. But he made those few pieces of food able to feed the whole crowd with so much more to spare. Every one of our MFCs can make use of what it has, mostly meager. But its loyalty to Jesus, its love for the church and trust in the power of God’s Spirit have the combined force to create a miracle no less amazing as Jesus’.