PENnED

I am tempted to try to express my thoughts in the Visayan language of my Facebook friends. But for the sake of those who cannot understand it, I’d rather not. Also, at the outset, let me say that my intention for doing this is not to vilify anyone. In truth, I have great admiration for those that stand their ground on any issue, including this one. My purpose is to present an alternative, perhaps unpopular, view of the Davao City issue that has actually already been there way before the punching incident involving the mayor and the sheriff was shown in the media (with the latter at the receiving end). And if this will help promote a friendly discussion, let me inform anyone reading this that Merwin and Doc Jon are my FB friends who became part of my life when I was assigned in Davao City as a junior intern from a Bible college I attended in southern Philippines. (And now we’re together again! Sort of.) In fact, Nong Merwin and his wife, Nang Flor, had been so nice and hospitable to me during my stay in Davao City that I often found myself at their kitchen table, eating! Daghang salamat! (Thank you very much!). It is my hope that this conversation will help all of us become more mature and enlightened in our thinking. My suggestion is that we all try to understand where each one is coming from, fairly weigh the arguments presented, and show mutual respect even if in the end we agree to disagree.

I was born and spent the first forty years of my life in the Philippines so I understand the Filipino people’s strong desire for a societal change that leads to a better life, especially to those that struggle daily to survive. And I understand why many of us have become impatient with the government officials who are as quick as a fox in pocketing public funds but as slow as snail in responding to the needs of their constituents. So when the likes of the Dutertes come into power, they are a breath of fresh air to many. And because the Dutertes have shown a strong political leadership that has effectively delivered the peace and order and the ensuing prosperity that other problematic cities can only dream about, Davaoeños wholeheartedly support them. So I think I know where my friends who disagree with me are coming from and I think I do understand them.

However, as we ponder upon how societies might go about the process of societal change, we have to remember that we are a civilized people who are part of a civilized world. And we are also Christians! So we have to ask ourselves the question: What is the civilized and Christian way of doing things that would effect change and accomplish the same goals that we so desire for our city, province or country?  Some think that the use of force, killing, bloody revolution, and anything we ordinarily consider to be morally wrong are justifiable when used to accomplish good ends. They embrace an ethical theory (teleological ethics) that holds that the ends or consequences of an act determine whether it is good or evil. Communists, for example, espouse such teleological ethics. But the fact that Communism is falling tells us that the civilized world is not buying the idea. But in Davao City, this particular consequential ethics is used and supported perhaps by most Davaoeños, and I think that’s really sad because the steps they have taken lead backward. Perhaps the Duterte supporters indeed feel a sense of peace as criminals and other “undesirables” have been rooted out of their city (through “salvage”?  In the Philippines the word has taken on a new meaning: “to summarily kill or eliminate”). But to those that cannot “put up” or “shut up,” do you think Davao City is a safe place for them? I doubt. A quick fix that utilizes an “iron hand” or, perhaps better, “iron fist” (and uses vigilantes who have been given by the authorities the blessing to “do what they have to do”?) is obviously not the right answer to the problems in Davao City or any other place in the world for that matter.

It is quite appalling that human rights violations in other countries such as Great Britain are also used to justify the Iron Lady’s act of violence. I don’t understand the kind of reasoning that seems to go this way: if human rights violations are also committed in other countries why criticize our mayor? There is absolutely no logic there.

As Christians, Scriptures along with reason should be used as tools as they can guide us in critiquing or promoting ideologies or in doing anything in pursuit of a better world. We need to realize, however, that Scriptures can be taken out of context, misunderstood and misused, especially when we are too eager to support an idea that for some reason we want to keep, perhaps because it’s “good for us.” On the other hand, when Scriptures are read within their context and understood properly, they are very useful for out of them we can draw principles that can guide us in our effort to “seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness” which assures those of us that actually do of the Lord’s promise: “all these things (God’s provision and other blessings) will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33; all Scripture quotations here are from the New International Version).

To determine whether an act is good or evil, I think we need to reflect on the life of Jesus: his words and deeds. Let us remember that Jesus was also born in an oppressive world controlled by the Romans and those that connived with them. And we know that he had the concerns of the poor and the needy at heart because he responded to them! But how? He performed miracles on behalf of them and gave them hope through the message of “the kingdom of God” that he preached. Did he denounce evil? Oh yes! In fact the authorities got so mad at him that in the end they crucified him! Did he lead an armed rebellion? Clearly no! But did he resort to violence (as in assault) in obeying the will of the Father? Well, let’s take a look at Jesus who appeared to have lost his cool in the temple as it is the story alluded to in support of what I’d call “the Duterte way.”

The narratives in Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-16 and John 2:14-16 all show Jesus entering the temple, driving out those that buy and sell, and overturning the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. John adds that Jesus “made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle” and said to those who sold doves, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” Clearly Jesus made a whip of chords and although he used them to drive out the merchants from the temple courts he does not appear to have used them as a weapon that would inflict physical damage and pain to them. Besides, the lesson of the story is not for any of us to follow Jesus’ act in a literal way but that like Jesus we are to be passionate about the things of God and how we are to maintain a sense of awe in response to them. So if we apply it to the Davao City issue, where is the sense of awe to the things of God when God’s kingdom and righteousness are blatantly disregarded in the human pursuit of gain such as the peace and prosperity of the city?  Isn’t this a case of seeking first “all these things” rather than “the kingdom of God and his righteousness”? So if there is peace in Davao City, is it the kind of peace that comes from God? And if Davao City is prosperous, is it a blessing from God? Obviously not!

Reaching a societal goal of peace and prosperity the biblical “narrow way” (the right way) may take a long time, but the quick fix of the Iron Lady of Davao City and her cohorts is just plain wrong. It is the “broad way” (the wrong way) that will lead to the city becoming a modern Babel. So if things will remain the same in Davao City, if the Duterte way will prevail, why in the world stay there?