UTSEM.NET

Luke 2:8-15

Introduction: The passage in Luke is a marvelous Christmas scene. Nay, it is a scene for all seasons for it shows the overcoming of the unbridgeable divide between heaven and earth. It displays in one brief moment the heavens opening up and pouring out to earth “a great company of the heavenly host” with a message of peace to the world. What an amazing sight it must be to the shepherds who knew of nights disturbed only by insect bites and occasional sounds of animals. Christmas season or not, this is a moment in history when our society, the whole world, could use peace for a change.

Ours is a time of confrontations, conflicts and warfare. The sudden and simultaneous rising of the Arab people in the Middle East and North Africa, known as the Arab Spring, has punctured the myth of world peace under the auspices of the so-called pax Americana or American peace. In a space of several months various parts of our country, including peaceful Dumaguete, have been hit by killer storms and flooding even as fighting between government forces and insurgents goes unabated. There is widespread poverty and displacement of people everywhere in the world, including rich America. Then the usual fare of modern human life: deadly diseases, broken families, addiction and youth suicides, lonely old people. The list is longer.

What is the meaning of peace in times like this? There is this peace proclaimed by the angels to the shepherds. First, it is a kind of peace that comes from heaven. It is “peace to people on whom God’s favor rests.” This peace is not something achieved by means of suppressing or wiping out trouble-makers from the face of the earth. All the bombs of the world, all the jails and rehabilitation centers cannot silence the restlessness inside the hearts of the discontented. This peace from heaven is not created by material wealth and comfort since many people of superabundant means may have to take bottles of alcohol and sleeping pills just to buy a few hours of sleep.

This peace comes upon us as a gift from God. There is nothing we can do to achieve it no matter how hard we try. All that we can do is to yield to God, submit to God’s will, put our restless souls in God’s hands trusting alone in God’s mercy and love. But this is done without the thought that it is by our submission to God that peace is attained. For, again, that would be peace achieved by human effort rather than a free gift.

Second, the peace proclaimed by the heavenly host to the shepherds is not automatically given to all. It comes to people “on whom God’s favor rests.” Only those favored or having God’s goodwill may receive it. I like the English translation of the old King James Version that renders the Greek eudokia as “goodwill” rather than “favor”. The word “favor” suggests an unfair capricious bias, whereas “goodwill” indicates a well-grounded, spontaneous and consistent disposition of the heart. But since the God that we find in Jesus Christ is a totally generous and hospitable God, it would be more consistent to say that nobody is excluded from the benefit of God’s goodwill. The view that God has goodwill to some and ill-will to others is quite inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus. But that is only to answer human curiosity. For God to choose who will receive divine favor is also consistent with the view of God’s absolute freedom and sovereignty.

But one thing is clear: peace comes in a package together with goodwill. Peace and goodwill are one reality. This means that God’s peace is available on account of God’s goodwill. Peace is a fruit of the goodness of God’s heart. Not only that, divine goodness is not a passive attribute of a distant God but rather an intentional and purposive motion of the One who is in heaven towards earth as the angels sang, hence, goodwill. Many a troubled hearts have found peace this way. One of these was Martin Luther who discovered that God’s justice is nothing else but his mercy. Luther later developed a theology of the cross for the comfort and consolation of those who suffer much in life. He said that believers may find themselves afflicted by God’s hand, but God’s other hand also has a balm that soothes and heals the hurting soul. There is no pain in the world that God’s balm cannot overcome. It is by this soothing and healing balm that people who are hurting from any kind of affliction or misfortune may find peace in life and hope for the future.

The divine motion of peace and goodwill is a paradigm for the work of peacemaking. Every effort for peace won’t work or last unless it is built on goodwill. Gestures of peace are hollow, if not hypocritical, if they proceed from ill-will. A handshake or an embrace, a smile and kindly words, a peace agreement and guarantees of compliance are but tactics for continuing a conflict and sustaining hostility. As a pastor, I’ve seen things like this happening in the church. The same thing has also happened to several peace agreements between government and rebels.

Even worse, relationships tend to turn from cordiality to outright hostility without goodwill. At one time or another we have had a share of having been stabbed on the back by people we thought were our friends. When there is ill-will anything that we do is seen with suspiciousness. Behind what appears to be constructive criticism or an effort to set things right is actually unsuppressed malice and cruelty. Malice and cruelty are beyond rational thought. Ill-will muddles the mind and loads feelings with a perverse sense of righteous indignation. Hurting acts and words against the object of ill-will lose their sting and don’t bite the conscience. In the end, ill-will poisons human community and turns it into an arena of perpetual warfare, open or silent. It is truer in human relations and communities that only those who are favored may have peace.

The off-and-on peace process between Government and MILF and Government and NDF is a reason to be hopeful to end the long war. The formal agenda on the negotiating table are very promising but if skeptics are to be believed it’s really nothing but part of a strategy to achieve victory via military conquest. But that depends on what lies in the hearts of the protagonists. Is it goodwill or ill-will? There is no doubt that decades of fighting have caused deep wounds on each other. A great load of political and emotional baggage is on the shoulders of the negotiators. They certainly look at each other with suspicious eyes. At any rate, they’re there carrying the hopes of the nation. Perhaps, the process itself would be able to generate a modicum of goodwill to carry it through to the end. That measure of goodwill at the negotiating table may multiply itself and spread out to the rest of Philippine society.

There is no genuine peace without goodwill. Goodwill, however, does not prevent mistakes or behaviors that hurt others. But whenever they happen, forgiveness which is the basis of reconciliation is not far behind. When there is goodwill amongst members of a community, there is patience, understanding and consideration for human weakness and shortcomings. Goodwill is perhaps more enduring than love in that love needs passion for it to be sustained. Goodwill, on the other hand, is like the constant flowing of a great river whose source comes from the bottom of the earth. The waters of a great river are in fact clearer during summer when it’s not being fed by the rains. The steadiness and constancy of goodwill makes genuine peace possible and sustains it through trying times.

Conclusion: As we celebrate Christmas Day, may it be a day of hope and prayer for goodwill to be born in the hearts of all in and our midst. But hoping and praying for goodwill from God has a cost that must be paid first: repentance. True and effective repentance requires clearing our hearts of ill-will by surrendering them all to God. God’s compassion is bottomless and able to contain all of our anger, resentments, mistrust, malice, disappointments, vengefulness – all of which may have filled us up with ill-will and leaving no room for God’s goodwill to dwell in us.

May the glory of the new-born Messiah shine upon each one of us and fill us with goodwill and peace.
—————————————
Rev. Everett Mendoza, D.Theol.

Exodus 6:6-7; 2 Samuel 19:43-20:1-2

Introduction: On this the 104th anniversary celebration we have also started the countdown of the 50th anniversary of the transfer of UTS from Manila to the Dasmariñas campus. It is real time jubilee that we are moving towards, but jubilee is also symbolic of the long struggle of the Seminary to achieve a vision. At the same time, the journey and struggle have given shape to the vision from gains and losses encountered along the way.

Two words in our anniversary theme, “Journeying” and “Jubilee” are a mixed metaphor and a fusion of two visions. One, Jubilee as understood in the history of ancient Israel signifies the return and restoration of an inheritance. The story in 2 Samuel is an obscure Jubilee story about Sheba, a descendant of Saul who blew the jubilee horn declaring revolutionary independence from David’s kingdom. The royal chroniclers of the Davidic dynasty called him a “mischievous” person but this act was a precursor to the eventual separation of the northern tribes from the Davidic kingdom.

On the other hand, journeying evokes the primal event that defined ancient Israel’s history, the Exodus from Egypt and the possession of Canaan. The Exodus and Jubilee gave rise to two distinct but closely related theological paradigms adopted by Christians for the articulation of the Christian faith.

I

In the faith-history of ancient Israel, the jubilee in 2 Samuel was invoked by a segment of society that had been dispossessed of their inheritance. It was a unilateral declaration to reassert possession of inalienable territory that was removed from them under duress and unjust circumstances. The Jubilee as described in Leviticus 25 was a piece of social legislation designed to correct an injustice. People might have lost their land inheritance because they were weak, foolish or oppressed. But for whatever reasons that misfortune should not be passed on to the next generation. The succeeding generation should have a chance to have a fresh start in life and not burdened by the mistakes or weakness of their parents. Jubilee was a promise to be claimed by the new generation.

But the Jubilee had invariably failed to realize its goals owing to its cooptation by the rulers of the nation that had gained control of the people’s inheritance. They lost control of their inheritance not because they were powerless, for contrary to what they are made to believe people are never without power. Misled and deceived, they turned their power against themselves by their in-fighting, petty rivalries, betrayal, compromise and opportunism. Their inheritance rightly belonged to them but they couldn’t do the right things together as a people. Eventually they lost their spirit and dignity, and began to look upon their own despoilers for their salvation. Turning their backs on their vision, they looked over to an imaginary golden era of the past. A vision of the future became nostalgia for a past that never was.

On the other hand, the Exodus was a vision of freedom from foreign domination, for self-determination and self-rule. It was a vision from the standpoint of the nation’s leadership that considered governance as the principal problem. The main solution was to break out of national bondage in order to set up a free and sovereign nation. From the start, the journey was fraught with problems. The leaders alternated between making wars and building alliances. They had to deal with grumblings and dissent from among the people and must use extraordinary powers to suppress outbreaks of rebellion. The leaders had to constantly guard themselves against poisonous intrigues, coups and countercoups. In the process, the rulers gained more and more power for themselves and got infected with the expansionist ambitions of despotic kings around them. The vision of Exodus turned into an ideology of domination and colonial expansionism.

The history of ancient Israel is a history of failed visions. But that’s only the prelude that sets the stage for God’s mighty act of redemption. At the crucial juncture of ancient Israel’s history two great prophets emerged – Jeremiah just before the Exile and on the eve of Restoration, an unknown prophet who used the name of a venerable predecessor, Isaiah. Jeremiah saw a vision of a new Israel where God’s law would be carved not on stone tablets but on the hearts of the people. And to show his faith in the new vision, he bought a piece of land – actually an inheritance from his family – just when the whole land was devastated and put under colonial occupation.

The other prophet announced a cosmic vision that encompassed the whole earth, nay a new heaven and a new earth. This new vision is superimposed on the original vision of the Jubilee, and transcended thereby abolishing the vision of the Exodus. In this super-vision, the whole earth becomes the inheritance of all creatures. Instead of rulers governing the rest of society, the division between rulers and ruled disappear, the contradictions that make enemies of nations and of different creatures are erased from the minds and hearts of every inhabitant of the earth. The roots of conflicts and domination by one over another are forever removed. Jesus’ life and work was governed by this vision. By his passion, suffering and death, Jesus demonstrated what it would cost to make the vision come true. By raising Jesus from the dead, God made the guarantee that the vision was a divine promise made at creation.

II

As a student of the life-history of Union Theological Seminary I find it as a confluence of the Jubilee and the Exodus. It is a fusion of two visions. Underlying its historic struggle for autonomy is the Exodus paradigm. The movement for separation from the merger agreement demonstrates the drive to break free from institutional bondage. Indeed, its loss of sovereignty as an institution devoted to serve the church’s theological tasks has stunted its own development and capacity to realize its calling. The drive for autonomy is the historical expression of the Seminary’s deep longing for freedom and identity.

The Jubilee paradigm underlying the Seminary’s journey and struggle , on the other hand, has been there alongside the Exodus paradigm but lately a new and stronger wind appears to be blowing behind it. It has been occasioned by the fact that PCU is going through a debilitating institutional condition that has largely sapped its capacity to fulfil its institutional commitments to UTS based on the merger agreement. Contemplating on its own future, UTS is experiencing a new appreciation of its land inheritance. Following the merger with PCU, UTS has relinquished direct management of its land and financial resources having the mistaken idea that its energies are best suited for purely theological endeavours and should not be distracted by worldly tasks. A lesson has been learned: receiving an inheritance carries a responsibility. We don’t deserve an inheritance if we don’t take care of it.

Jesus’ Parable of the Talents comes to mind. The third steward thought he was faithful when he buried the talent under the ground. Little did he know that keeping an inheritance untouched is a sign of unfaithfulness and disloyalty. The parable is about the kingdom that must grow and prosper before the end of time comes. There is a time of reckoning for those whom the mission of advancing the cause of the kingdom has been entrusted. In the same manner, the inheritance entrusted to UTS is not just a property to enjoy but also comes with a mission to develop it in keeping with the changing times.

In addition, a new vision may be needed in view of the emergence of new historical realities. The old vision may now be short-sighted as it was restricted by the horizons of the time. It was the experience of a new vision that gripped Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah. They saw God in a new vision that surpassed the old one, a vision with a new faith in a God who was absolutely greater than the one showed to them by the older prophets. For us at UTS, there may a need for a renewed vision, not a rehashed version, much less a mere piece of it.

Conclusion: But first, we must achieve Jubilee – to recover our rights to the land in order to be true to a vision of 50 years. The struggle to achieve Jubilee is not going to be forever, like reaching for the horizon that recedes farther away with every step. It has a time to achieve because if we fail to act within the time, it will be taken away from us as in the Parable of the Talents. There is one critical point in Jesus’ parables of the kingdom that often escape us: there is a definite timeframe to accomplish a mission and its tasks. And when the time is up, those who are entrusted with it will be judged. The doors of the kingdom will be shut, some will enter to inherit it while others will be shut out and dispossessed.

There is this tendency to leave an urgent task to the next generation of administration, faculty and students. Perhaps, that’s what the UTS community of several generations ago did, that’s why today the promises of the Jubilee have yet to be realized. But more probably, the fullness of time has not come then. In this year’s gathering we must resolve in faith that the time has indeed come.

On the eve of the Jubilee, we remember with gratefulness God’s accompaniment through the years. Let’s ask for God’s forgiveness for moments when we wandered away from the straight path. And at this moment, we stand before God as we make the pledge to finish the journey.

=============================
Rev. Everett Mendoza, D. Theol.
Union Theological Seminary
30 November 2011

Please check out home newsletter 5.

As of October 5, we have received PhP482,500 in pledges for the dorm renovations. This is from 39 alumni, 43 seminarians, 23 faculty and staff membes, and 27 friends and partners. We have also received a PhP400,000 pledge for McLennan repairs.  A friend of the seminary who wants to remain anonymous has pledged to sponsor renovations for one wing of the dorm. PhP112,600 in cash have been received from our pledgers.

Renovations on the dorms’ bathroom facilities are now on its 3rd week. We have spent PhP 285,634 so far. Visit qik.com/unionseminary for live streams of the on-going work.

By Rev. Dr. Benoni Silva-Netto
Nineteen sixty seven. That was the year I graduated from Union Theological Seminary after three years in a theological degree program that helped prepare me for a long adventure of pastoral ministry. Many formative experiences and significant relationships remain deeply etched in my memory. I remember with much gratitude my relationships with fellow travellers and the professors who helped us significantly as we tried to navigate through the deep waters of theological investigation and ministerial formation.
Dr. Benjamin Guansing stands out among those who touched my life with their caring and guiding as I tried to discern the leading of the Spirit. I remember the tall, lanky figure of a humble man who regularly walked around most of the 97 hectare campus with his wide-rimmed buri hat to cover his head under the hot summer Philippine sun.
I started my Seminary program in 1964 just two years after this visionary president of the prominent theological institution in Asia moved the campus from its location in Manila to the rural and at that time deserted barrio of Palapala, Dasmarinas, Cavite. Faculty houses and classroom buildings were still under construction and supply of water among other things made the transition quite a challenge. Dr. Guansing asked me if I could lead daily evening devotion for the construction workers which definitely provided me outlet to my passion and training for the work I had been called to do. He also arranged for my appointment to a newly organized congregation of Andrea Village UMC which has now become a thriving congregation in Bacoor, Cavite, the Church by the Highway United Methodist Church.
What stands out in my memory most of all was my many conversations with him – occasions when he convinced me to deepen my understanding of my cultural roots while doing my seminary work, occasions when he shared his vision of Union Theological Seminary as one of the “top-notched” theological schools in all of Asia, occasions when he provided me with much encouragement to listen to God’s call to pastoral ministry. I must confess that he made me feel special by providing me with those one-on-one conversation times.
He made me feel that the most important person in the campus was the student. Without the students there would be no need for the institution. By spending time with me and others of my classmates, he made us students feel that we were not just cold enrolment statistics but flesh and blood human beings with feelings and emotions and most of all called to be trained for pastoral transformative leadership; not just people to be tolerated so that the faculty can do their own thing; not just an interruption of their work but the purpose of it. He was not doing us a favour by seeing us but rather we were doing him a favour by giving him the opportunity to do so.
I remember Dr. Ben Guansing in genuine gratitude as I offer a portion of what God has given me in generous and extravagant grace.

home magazine 4
Renovations on the Men’s and Women’s Dorms at Union began today, September 19, 2011. As previously reported, the work is being supervised by Architect Joel Capulong. Assisting him are Armando Madrid and Celedonio “Donie” Deligero, both from the seminary’s maintenance personnel. Albert Velasquez, secretary to the VPTE, heads the 4-person committee on materials requisitions. (The other members are Mila Satimbre, Pastor Julius Abundo, and Rev. MarLu Primero Scott.)

The first phase of the project involves major repairs and the construction of an extension on all bathrooms of the dormitories. These renovations are expected to be finished before the seminary’s 104th anniversary in late November.

After the bathrooms, renovations will commence on the kitchen, laundry, and dining facilities of the dormitories. Click on “Renovations LIVE!” in the menu bar for the latest updates on the on-going work and on the Home of the Prophets campaign. You can also look up “Union Theological Seminary” on facebook.

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’.

As of 12 September 2011
Presented to the Faculty

Introduction: As the semester crosses midpoint, the general and specific tasks of administration – aside from the day-to-day management of the institution – have taken shape. This didn’t happen all at once but one thing led to another. I address these tasks not just in terms of my interim administration but from the perspective of Administration mindful of UTS’ unique historical situation.

1. Make-over of the dormitories – The “Home of the Prophets” campaign is the vehicle for raising funds for the project. In charged of the campaign is Prof. Connie Semy Mella as Assistant to the President for Alumni Affairs. The estimated cost of Phase 1 of the project is two million pesos. A special credit facility will be availed of and paid gradually from the proceeds of the fund campaign in the next two years. Actual work will start within the week or the next upon submission by Architect Capulong of the working drawings and bill of materials. Phase 1 is expected to be completed within the period of two months.

2. Reviving the UTS Corporation and reconstitution of the UTS Board of Trustees. At the special meeting last Sept. 6, the CTE has given Administration the go-signal to start the legal and institutional processes. During Dr. Apilado’s time SEC handed down an opinion that UTS Corporation is still alive. The CTE Chair will sound-off the UMC and the UCCP to convene the Members of the Corporation in order to elect UTS’ Board of Trustees. The Articles of Incorporation will then be amended to insert a provision on the corporation’s life-time of 50 years in order to make it compliant to corporation law.

3. The CTE also approved a general concept of development authorizing Administration to consult with development planners to pursue the project. A preliminary development plan will be submitted to the CTE for approval, which will be the basis for drawing up a formal Development Plan.

4. Review of academic programs, particularly TEE, D. Min. and BRE. Off-campus programs are designed to allow non-theologically trained pastors or lay church workers to obtain formal theological training. As an alternative, it seeks to uphold the seminary’s academic standards that are applicable to its residential programs. Secondly, since an off-campus program lacks the element of community which so important in pastoral formation, there is need to review our admission policies.

The D. Min. program needs to review its admission policies, especially on international students who lack proficiency in English language communication. There is also a need to clarify its administrative aspect particularly in relation to PCU and its place in the regular faculty’s teaching loads. As it is now, it appears to be a semi-independent program with its own rules and policies when in fact it is a regular academic program of the seminary. On the other hand, the B.R.E. program is completely dormant although there is a great need for religious educators in church-related schools from early childhood up to college. An off-campus master’s degree program may also be appropriate to meet this need.

5. Preparations for the 2012 accreditation visit – The importance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated. I wish to organize now the various task forces to attend to the various aspects of accreditation. We should take special attention to notations made in the previous visits.

(SGD) Rev. Everett Mendoza, D.Theol.

CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT OF DASMARINAS PROPERTY

Steps:
A.   Revive UTS corporation.
B.   Development strategy – in keeping with new merger agreement, joint venture development program.

1.  Seminaryville – financed through bank credit facility, for long-term support for maintenance of UTS buildings and facilities.

2.  Opening of road connecting Aguinaldo and Gov’s Drive.

3.  *Lease of areas at both sides of new road and Gov’s Drive fronting Manila Memorial Park (# 3 to finance # 4).

4.  *Eco-park : run course, trekking, camping – proceeds of # 3 & # 4 as long-term support for UTS administration.

5.  Conference and retreat facilities for local and international ecumenical events (# 3 & # 4 plus credit facility to finance # 5) – long-term support for UTS programs and operation.

* UTS-PCU joint venture

A report on financial aid and scholarships received from June to August 2011 (from the Office of Student Life)

In Memory of/ In Honor of
Oblepias-Amparo Scholarship Fund
John Scott Merit Scholarship
De Vera Living Trust, Venus de Vera, Trustee
Norma Songco-Mendoza Fund, Afrie Songco-Joye, Trustee

Individuals and Families
E.A. Adamos
Irvinio and Nenita Arpafo
Cathy Bauer
Vera B. Bergen
Paul and Miriam Blanco
Carmen Born Geliman
Diana Bruno
Clermagrine V. Buen
Paul Cabotaje
Eduardo Cajiuat
Nelson Castorillo
Peggy and Dan Clark
Lucena de Leon
Robert A. Eigenbrodt
M. Grace Foster
Edgar de Jesus
Manny de los Santos
Bob and Wency Gonzales
Emy Hernandez
Bert Mendoza
Diosdado and Gina Narvasa
Sam and Marilyn Nicolas
Adorlito and Ruth Paguio
Irene Parungao
Levi and Dominador Raquel
Norman T. Raquel
Annabelle S. Razon-San Angel
Nahone Fajardo Rivera
Thelma and Zacky Sadoy
Lourdes Sevilleja
Dante Simon
Eden Songco
Afrie Songco-Joye
Robert Stromm and Irma Mayers
Ronaldo Terrado
Jose Velasco

Churches, Fellowships and Organizations
Filipino Ministry of Sta. Ana
National Association of Filipino American United Methodists (NAFAUM)
Rosewood United Methodist Church

Siliman University Divinity School, in celebration of its Annual Church Workers’ Convocation’s Jubilee, presented the DIAKONIA award to Rev. Everett L. Mendoza, D.Theol., last August 30, 2011. The citation, below, describes Union’s current president as a “nationalist scholar, theologian, pastor, and educator.”