Re-Thinking the Faith with

Indigenous Categories
JOSE M. DE MESA
MARYHILL SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

The author of this article, a lay theologian teaching at a Catholic major seminary in the
Philippines, takes an important step beyond the general critique against doing theology with
western categories to show how indigenous Filipino categories contain a wealth of untapped
possibilities for creative reflection and “re-rooting.”

If there is one thing that has gradually dawned on the consciousness of Christians
with regard to theological re-rooting of the Gospel from one cultural and historical
milieu into another, it is the necessity of re-thinking rather than just translating this
Gospel within a new frame of reference. While the possibilities are many and inviting,
the lack of points of reference and non-existence of past models are disconcerting. It
means that the process of re-thinking will just have to proceed with the risks inherent
in a new enterprise and will be painstakingly slow. This, of course, does not come as a
surprise. After all, it was only in Vatican II that the Church gained the possibility to
be truly a world Church and to go beyond the confines of the Jewish and Graeco-
Roman cultures, and that only after practically twenty centuries.1 Asian, African,
Latin American, and Oceanian Christians are all confronted with that enormous task
of re-interpreting the Good News to their peoples in a fresh and an intelligible way.
In responding to this challenge, it will be necessary for us here in Asia as well as
elsewhere to go back to our cultures to learn from this wellspring of wisdom and in-
sights. As a time-tested tradition of experiences which have been patterned and insti-
tutionalized, culture provides us with ways of looking at life, our world, and the whole
of reality. Through these we experience reality in a particular manner. Our experi-
ence of any given reality is made possible by interpretative elements, most of which
come from our very own culture — that integrated system of beliefs, of values and
customs and which binds a society together, giving it a sense of identity, dignity, secu-
rity, and continuity.
Clearly, familiarity with culture is a must for those who wish to contribute to the
re-thinking and reformulation of the Christian faith in their own cultural context.
This is not necessarily easy, even for people who belong to the culture in question.
For one, there is the long tradition and experience of western theology which may be

18 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

difficult to “shake off.” Furthermore, the experience of colonization as well as
industrialization which a number of countries have had makes of the task more dif-
ficult than easier. And finally, one has to contend with the fact that “culture hides
much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most
effectively from its own participants.”2 This is because one’s assimilation of the culture
is generally so successful that he is no longer aware of the cultural nature of what he
thinks or does. It is in this connection that consciousness raising becomes necessary
even for the native of the culture. Only when he is explicitly aware of his culture can
he adequately examine, assess, and make use of it to give expression to his Christian
faith. This is, perhaps, why Vatican II made it a point to speak about this matter.

A dialogical approach to theological re-rooting

In the dialogical approach suggested by the Decree on the Church’s Missionary
Activity of Vatican II, Ad Gentes,3 a positive outlook on culture is promoted. It states
that “by sincere and patient dialogue” the disciples of Christ can “learn” about “the
treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth.” It is
striking that the decree emphasizes an attitude of humility when one is confronted
with a culture because the primary aspect of the dialogical process is listening and
learning.
It does not deny, to be sure, a critical aspect to the dialogue whereby the faithful
are to “try to illumine these treasures with the light of the Gospel, to set them free,
and to bring them under the dominion of God their Savior” (AG. 11). Nevertheless, it
is not this element of challenge to the culture that takes precedence; it is rather the
element of listening, learning, and appreciating. By the very fact that the decree
speaks of “treasures” God has given to a particular culture, it is only appropriate that
in the task of theological re-rooting one should assume a “listening heart,” that is, a
profound and sincere attitude of respect and appreciation.
Bishop Kenneth Cragg formulates this posture beautifully: “Our first task in ap-
proaching another people, another culture, another religion, is to take off our shoes
for the place we are approaching is holy. Else we may find ourselves treading on
men’s dreams. More seriously still, we may forget that God was there before our arri-
val.” The attitude is doubtlessly applicable in approaching one’s own culture, too.
This is all the more true since many, if not most, of the practitioners of theological re-
flection are probably more familiar with western theological modes of thought than
they are with indigenous ones.
This stance of humbly learning from the culture, to be sure, is related to the first
criterion of theologizing in a specific context, that of intelligibility and meaningfulness
of a particular articulation of the Gospel within that very context.4 We can only en-
sure such relevance if we listen carefully to the culture of a people to whom we shall
speak, especially if it is our own culture.

Reasons for a respectful posture

Vatican II acknowledges explicitly the presence of God in cultures. In Gaudium et
Spes. article 58 it says, “For God, revealing Himself to His people to the extent of a
full manifestation of Himself in His Incarnate Son, has spoken according to the

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 19

culture proper to different ages.” It then speaks of the “spiritual qualities and gifts of
every people and of every age.” Because of this “each branch of the human family
possesses in itself and in its worthier traditions some part of the spiritual treasure
entrusted by God to humanity, even though many do not know the source of that
treasure” (G.S. 86).
This, of course, is the very reason why the same council can say that there are
many links between the message of salvation and human culture. In a way this only
echoes what Paul had earlier exhorted the Christians in Philippi to do:
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, what-
ever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there
is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (4:8). Hence, it is not surprising
that the Council urges Christians to be familiar with their national and religious tradi-
tions and to gladly and reverently lay bare “the seeds of the Word which lie hidden in
them” (AG.l 1).
The respect and the seriousness with which the Council treats culture is shown by
its determination to follow what has always been customary in the Church, i.e. the
use of culture to understand, express and preach the Gospel. “Living in various cir-
cumstances during the course of time, the Church, too, has used in her preaching the
discoveries of different cultures to spread and explain the message of Christ to all na-
tions, to probe it and more deeply understand it, and to give it better expression in li-
turgical celebrations and in the life of the diversified community of the faithful” (G.S.
58, emphasis added).
The disciples of Jesus, then, profoundly penetrated by the Spirit of Christ who
searched the hearts of men and led them to divine light, i.e. to the treasures God has
given them in their culture, must first be listeners and discoverers. Only in this way
will they both find out and eventually retrieve the real genius and strength of the cul-
ture. They need to listen with great care and empathy to the culture into which the-
ological re-rooting of the Gospel is to take place. Otherwise, they will impose their
own views and criteria on the culture and, to be sure, on the people (even their own)
of that culture. Furthermore, they risk answering questions that have never been
really asked and confront issues that have never been raised in the socio-cultural con-
text.

PROBING LISTENING: THE FIRST METHODOLOGICAL STEP

The first methodological step in this process, in contrast to the so-called traditional
way of theologizing5 consists in “discerning the fruits of the Holy Spirit in consciences
and making an inventory of the spiritual values to be found in a people’s religious
culture” in order to discover, through the investigation of the culture, what God is
already doing and saying in people’s hearts.6 The recognition of the intrinsic goodness
of cultural values is the point of departure.
Even indigenous Christians would need to be careful regarding this point. The
western theological influence in Asia cannot be underestimated. The tendency to view
culture from a western frame of reference can block sympathetic listening to the posi-
tive aspects of the culture. It is not easy at times to recognize the cultural dimension of

20 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

a given theological reflection since we are not fully conscious of our own presup-
positions. Moreover, it cannot be denied that many of our theological presuppositions
and formulations do come from our western theological mentors. This, of course, is
understandable. The missionaries from the West could only preach and explain
Christianity in the way they have understood it and to blame them for doing so would
be unreasonable. But this was not the whole story.
A particular understanding of theology which thought of a-historical eternal truths
and, consequently, of a theologia perennis gave little room for the possibility of a new ex-
pression of the gospel. A sense of cultural superiority also accompanied the process of
evangelization and this hindered the inculturation of the faith in another cultural con-
text. Theologically and culturally, western Christianity was thus not disposed to listen
and learn but to speak and teach.
A complaint voiced out by the Japanese theologian, Kosuke Koyama, about
Christianity can serve as a caution for those who wish to approach the matter dialogi-
cally. He said that Christianity has become so self-righteous and arrogant. It simply
wants to teach but not to learn. It is suffering from a “teacher complex.” Christianity
is most interested in “teaching people” while at the same time it is not interested in
being “taught by people.” In speaking to people but hardly listening to people, Chris-
tianity in Asia has really ignored people for the last four hundred years.7
A listening attitude and a willingness to learn are indispensable elements for the
Church in her attempt to re-root the Gospel in each particular culture. An “apprecia-
tive awareness” is called for.
Such a “regulative principle in thought which, as an orientation of the mind, can
make for a maximum degree of receptivity to the datum under consideration on the
principle that what is given may be more than what is immediately perceived, or
more than one can think.”8 Indeed, a positive mark of true dialogue is a “probing lis-
tening” and there is little doubt that Christian witness in the past, if not in the pres-
ent, has been “slow to hear and quick to speak.” This attitude of sensitive listening
and humble learning derives from the principles of the Incarnation and the Paschal
Mystery, for it is what we may call a kenotic mind (Phil. 2:5—8) or a “crucified
mind”(Mt. l6:24).9
We shall, therefore, be primarily concerned in this discussion of the Gospel-culture
dialogue with probing listening vis-a-vis the culture, particularly in its language as ex-
pression of cultural genius and strength, without denying the important role that a
critical aspect plays in the process. We focus here on the task of the local Church to
re-root the Gospel into its own cultural milieu through an exploration and eventual
creation of an indigenous theological language. There is no intention here of present-
ing a whole methodology for theological re-rooting.10 Our aim is more modest: to pin-
point and highlight the necessity and advantage in becoming more aware of the
cultural dimensions of theologizing in a particular context.

Probing listening and respect

In interacting with its culture the Christian community must, first of all, be respectful.
Without this respect there cannot be a genuine listening to the “treasures” which are
present in a given culture. Respect for the culture, an attitude which the Council itself

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 21

commends (cf. G.S. 42), is essential in humble learning from that culture.
Theologically, one can say that respect is imperative because we touch the humanity
of fellow human beings in dealing with culture and because the source of the treasures
to be discovered in a culture is ultimately God Himself.
I believe that insisting on the primacy of a respectful stance helps us not only to
discover the positive, life-giving aspects of a culture but also to appreciate them.
There is no intention here of romanticizing any culture which, after all, is ambiguous
with a mixture of positive and negative elements and aspects. I am aware that this is a
possible pitfall and remains to be so. But there is equally danger connected with the
critical dimension of the gospel-culture dialogue, that of being overly critical at the
expense of seeing the beauty and strength of the culture.
While a certain naiveness regarding the positive in a culture has not been absent in
discussions and treatment of this subject matter, there seems to have been, neverthe-
less, an over emphasis on the critical element in theological reflection to the extent
that the real wisdom and genius of the culture is not given “space” to surface. The
habit of being critical in theology has led largely to the neglect of the respectful and
appreciative modes of thought which are just as valid and legitimate as the critical
one.
It is true, to be sure, that a critical perspective does not necessarily mean a nega-
tive outlook. It has, however, tended (perhaps, unintentionally) to function negatively
towards culture. Even the legitimate attention given to ideological suspicion in theo-
logical matters has had the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the potential of the
positive resources of a people’s culture. Whatever it is that seems to cause this blind
spot in theologizing, it is only appropriate to avoid the temptation of only asking what
is wrong and ignore what is right in a culture.

Listening and the indigenous language

A most important aspect of listening and understanding the indigenous culture is the
comprehension which arises from a grasp of the language within its cultural context.
Language, we must bear in mind, are not labels on reality which we can stick and
remove at will because they do not make any difference. Hans-George Gadamer
rightly insisted that language “is not only an object in our hands, it is the reservoir of
tradition and the medium in and through which we exist and perceive the world.”11
In other words, with language we touch a tradition of time-tested experiences of
people in dealing with reality. It is not just a conceptual play of words.
I am easily reminded at this juncture of the similarities and differences in the con-
cepts metanoia, conversion, and the indigenous term pagbabalik-loob. While the three
terms refer in general to the same reality of a positive change in a person towards the
good, each of the concepts has a unique way of understanding it. Metanoia focuses on
the change of the nous, the mind, while conversion emphasis the change in direction.
But the Filipinopagbabalik-loob interprets the same reality as a “return to the most
authentic self.”
Clearly the words are not just equivalents from one culture to another. They are
interpretations of reality. And interpretations are our access to reality, not simply for-
mal designations of it. When we listen to the culture, then, it is imperative that we lis-

22 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

ten to it in its own terms, that is, in the language or indigenous categories through
which the culture expresses itself. In this way, we can begin to understand the reality
as the reality for that culture.

FOREIGN CATEGORIES AS A HINDRANCE

Foreign categories imposed on the culture may inhibit the culture from speaking for
itself; they may even mislead a person trying to understand that culture. Take, for
instance, the search for Filipino values.12 Ordinarily, Filipinos do not speak of
“values” (mga pinahahalagahan?) in the native tongue. It would be possible, but certainly
not common to talk about things that Filipinos value (=pinahahalagahan) in the
vernacular.
More pertinent, perhaps, than “values” to Filipinos are the things that they would
stand for: mga paninindigan, convictions “paninindigan” makes us focus our attention on
things like “paggalang at pagmamala.sakit” (respect and concern), “pagtulong at pagdamay”
(help and active involvement), “pagpuno sa kakulangan” (empathy for human limitations)
and “pakikiramdam” (sensitivity and regard for others), “gaan ng bob” (rapport and ac-
ceptance), “lakas ng loob” (inner strength, courage, daring), “haganclahang-loob” (gra-
ciousness, generosity, benevolence) and “pakikipagkapwa” (human concern and
interaction as one with others).
The token use of Filipino concepts and the local language has led to the identifica-
tion of some supposedly Filipino national values such as hiya (shame), pakikisama (yield-
ing to the will of the leader or the majority), and amor propio (sensitivity to personal
affront). Consider pakikisama, for example. This is a supposed value which was identi-
fied by western-oriented social scientists during the period of token use of the native
language in Philippine Social Science. Isolated as a value, pakikisama was removed
from its original context in the Filipino worldview of relationships. It was thus forgot-
ten that pakikisama is just one among the many possible levels and types of interaction
among Filipinos. The sphere of pakikipaghapwa (relationships with fellow human be-
ings) includes modes of interaction such as pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in rapport),
pakikilahok (participation), pakikisalamuha (interaction with), pakikiisa (being one with),
pakikitungo (civility with) as well as pakikibaka (struggling against). At times it ispaki hibaka
rather than pakikisama which is called for in a given situation.

FOREIGN CATEGORIES AS POINTS OF REFERENCE?

Another problem connected with the token use of the indigenous language is the
reliance on the English language categories which are used as basis and point of
departure. Equivalent vernacular terms are, then, found to translate the English (or
Spanish) categories instead of looking for English (or Spanish) terms which
approximate the vernacular concepts. Thus, rebebasyon and kaligtasan would be
equivalents of the English “revelation” and “salvation” respectively. Dependence on
English and translation of it into the vernacular hinders the re-thinking of the
Christian faith in a new cultural situation.

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 23

 This is not to repudiate in any way the need for translations which are necessary
for inter-cultural communication and sharing of insights. But translation cannot be a
substitute for listening to the culture in its own terms because every language has its
own genius, its own distinctiveness, its own special character. It has its own grammati-
cal patterns, its own peculiar idiom, its own areas of vocabulary strength and its own
weakness and limitations. These should be respected. But this also means adequately
formulated and represented in another. what can be conveyed clearly in one tongue
may only be articulated poorly in another. Traduttore traditore.
It is, moreover, imperative for the local Church to take its solidarity with the in-
digenous culture more seriously. She should really begin exploring the many ways
open for creating a theological language which has a recognizable reference to the
lived experience of people in which she finds herself. This would mean serious study
and analysis of key terms and concepts which are truly indigenous and which proffer
concrete possibilities for creating a new theological language. For us in the Phi-
lippines, it is really high time that we began to think in the vernacular rather than in
English. It is moreover important for us to realize that, while theologizing in English
has its value, our primary responsibility in doing theology is to find a theological lan-
guage which speaks to the experiences of our people in a manner that they culturally
comprehend. For the majority of the population, English is not a functional and prac-
tical language. Working primarily in English and maintaining such a practice is detri-
mental to a real cultural understanding of the Gospel by people.
In the section which follows, this is what I am attempting: a probing listening to
the culture in order to re-think an aspect of the Judaeo-Christian tradition within the
indigenous mode of looking at reality. In the spirit of exchange and solidarity with
other local churches, however, it remains necessary to translate somehow into a com-
mon language like English so that an example of re-thinking is shared with a wider
audience. I find this situation better than translating from English concepts to ver-
nacular equivalents, if there are equivalents.

A probing listening to “kagandahang-loob”:a cultural analysis13

We explore here, by way of an example, the concept of kagandahang-loob. Rendering

kagandahang-loob in terms of “benevolence,” “kindness,” “generosity,” “helpfulness,”
and “goodness” do not quite capture the flavor which is found in the original
vernacular term. One would have to reckon with the various connotations and
associations linked with the concept of kagandahangbob such as the reality of the inner
self, the drive and motivation which comes from such an inner resource, as well as the
positive relating which contributes to the well-being of the other.
Kagandahang-loob connotes all that is good in someone, which is in fact an ideal
among Filipinos. It is a quality of being which has its roots in the very heart of a per-
son and which is given expression in the totality of one’s life of interrelationship. For
kagandahang-loob does not only mean goodness and benevolence; it is the goodness and
benevolence that arises from the very core of one’s personhood.

24 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

 To understand this notion properly, one has first to explore the meanings con-
nected with the key concept, loob. Loob (literally, the inside or the inner self) is the most
authentic self of the Filipino; that is what he is in his innermost reality. Loob, the inner
self, is the core of one’s personhood and where the true worth of a person lies. It is
what makes the lowland Filipino what he is and who he is as a person. The loob, I
would say, is the ultimate, organizing center of human reality. And more than that, it
is the very zone of creaturehood which is the substratum of ideas, feelings, and behav-
iors. To speak of the loob, then, is to speak of the person as a whole.
As a way of looking at the whole person, loob implies that knowing someone in his
outside appearance and behavior is not enough. It is imperative to have an insight
into what the person really is “in his heart” (the loob). The true person, as considered
by the culture, is what he is “inside” him. This is why the Filipino always wants to
know what is in the kabooban (inner self) of another in sizing him up. It is what you
may designate as the view of the human being “from the inside.” Appearances are de-
ceptive; one can only truly know another if he knows the other’s loob.
Moreover, the Filipino expects that what a person outwardly (ang pang-labas) shows
what is truly “inside” him (bukal sa kabooban=welling up from the innermost self). But
a disjunction between the reality of the loob and the outward appearance is, unfortu-
nately, a reality of the loob and the outward appearance is, unfortunately, a reality too.
Hence, it is not surprising to hear remarks like “lumabas din ang tunay niyang kulay!” (i.e.
“he has shown his real color!) or “lumabas din ang kanyang baho!” (i.e. “now we know he
has a foul odor!”) if it is a reference to a negative reality. What is implied in the ex-
pressions just mentioned is that it takes time for someone to really know the kalooban
of another. There is a process involved and not a “one shot deal.”
This suggest that loob is a relational concept and as such is an appropriate concept
to describe a person in relationship to others. We cannot truly encounter a person
and gain insight into his personhood except in relationships. Contemporary psychol-
ogy has brought out strongly the point that the person is defined by his relationship to
others. In the lowland Philippines, this can be done by describing what sort of loob he
has. A person is said to be of “magandang-loob” (literally, a beautiful inner self) or alter-
natively, of “mabuting-loob” (literally, a good inner self) because he generally relates
well and positively towards others. If, however, he is a person of bad character be-
cause he relates negatively with others, he is considered as “masamang-loob” (i.e. an evil
inner self). Robbers, in fact, are colloquially referred to as “masasamang-loob.”
In the phrase kagandahang-loob, the loob is characterized as “maganda,” that is, “beau-
tiful.” But while “ganda” on one level of meaning refers to the beautiful, on another it
means “what is good” or simply what is ethical, proper or humane. It is in fact com-
mon practice on this level of meaning to simply use the adjective maganda (the beauti-
ful) and mabuti (the good) interchangeably. “Hindi iyan maganda!” (That’s not beautiful!)
or “Pangit iyan!” (That’s ugly!) is often said in disapproval of a a mode of behavior
which is not considered good.

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 25

Approval and encouragement are, by the same token, communicated by saying,
“Maganda yan!” (“that’s beautiful!”). Thus, the verb magandahin or ipalagay namaganda
means “to consider something as beautiful or good” as in “minaganda ho ang kanyang
paghingi ng tawad” (I considered her asking for pardon as something good). To forget
the obvious here would be no less than an oversight. “Good News,” the Gospel, is
often translated as “Magandang Balita” (beautiful news) which means “MabutingBalita”
(good news). It is undeniable that the Gospel is used in Christian circles as the main
criterion for making not only doctrinal judgments but ethical ones as well. For these
groups nothing could be more maganda or mabuti, showing once more the ethical
content borne by the concept “maganda.” Perhaps, one can speak here of the aesthetics
of ethics or, if you please, the ethics of aesthetics.
The “beautiful” is the good, yes. But the “beautiful” here is really still much more
than just the equivalent of the good. There is a kind of goodness, after all, which is
cold and unattractive. Holy people who have no human warmth, for instance, tend to
repel rather than to attract. In contrast, goodness which is warm and inviting is
“beautiful.” This must have been in the mind of the evangelist when he designated Je-
sus as the “Beautiful Shepherd” (cf.Jn. 10:11).
We see on the basis of these considerations that kagandahangloob is not only good-
ness that wells up from the very depths or core of one’s personhood but a goodness
which characterizes the person. It describes the kind of person one is, what his “na-
ture” is, his character. This is what kagandahang-loob denotes. What is implied further-
more is even more revelatory of the rich associations which the concept carries.
Kagandahang-loob exhibits certain features which characterize it. Translated conven-
tionally as “goodness,” “kindness,” or “kindheartedness,” “benevolence,” “helpful-
ness” and “generosity,” kagandahang-loob is, first of all, a relational concept. From the
lowland Filipino perspective, a person is only known to be of magandang-loob through
his relationships with others. Kagandahangloob cannot be known or demonstrated in iso-
lation from fellow human beings. The concept, to be sure, assumes that to become
human is to become human with others. The very notion of loob has already indicated
for us this relational understanding of man in lowland Filipino thought.
Secondly, kaganda hang-loob is only hagandahang-loob if it comes from the personal ini-
tiative of the person acting. Forced or manipulated kagandahangloob is not authentic.
Not only should it come from within (loob) but it should also arise from a genuinely
free decision and option of the person concerned (i.e. kusang-loob). An indigenous ex-
pression even points to a level deeper than just the free decision of a person (which,
after all, can be the result of certain pressures). Bukal sa kalooban (=welling up from the
inner self) suggests that the kagandahang-loob being manifested is truly in harmony with
the most authentic in the person.
A third characteristic of kagandahangloob is that it is directed towards the well-being
or welfare of the other. This is recognized as such within the relationship by that
other. It is other-directed, not self-oriented; it has the other in mind rather than the
self. Someone who clearly does not intend the well-being of the other in relationships

26 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

cannot be regarded as one who has “magandangloob.” Because of this other-
directedness of kagandahang-loob, it does not seek for anything in return in a caring
reaching out towards that other. It is, as it were, pure goodness oozing out.
Any manifestation of kagandahangloob which is ultimately based on a do ut des princi-
ple falsifies its reality and substance. If anyone, therefore, shows hagandahang-loob to
another because it will eventually be of advantage to him, but that very fact his “ka-
gandahang-loob” is not real. Kagandahang-loob is not self-seeking and does not look for
a “return of the favor.” When one considers the use of the notion of kagandahang-loob
in media commercials, one can only deplore the corruption of this beautiful concept.
There, a particular company is usually said to be “generous” (because it sponsors the
show, gives discounts, and promotes games which has many prizes) but it is obvious
that they really want people to pay attention to their product and eventually but it.
Kagandahang-loob such as this is surely false.

“Kagandahang-loob” and the faith experience: a theological analysis14

Because of the richness of meaning embodied by the concept kagandahang-loob as well

as the specificity of denotations and connotations, I have found it useful in
articulating the notion of the faith experience in the lowland Filipino context. By
“faith experience” I mean God’s self-initiated offer of life and love in and through the
human experiences of people and the response of man to that offer by entrusting his
whole self freely to God in an obedience which is faith (cf. Dei Verbum 1 and 5). The
one and the same “faith experience” then, is constituted by revelation (divine activity)
and faith (human activity) as correlatives.
In re-interpreting “revelation” through the use of loob and, therefore, of kaganda-
hang-loob, it is rendered as “pagpapadama ng Diyos ngkanyangkagandahang-loob,” i.e. “God
making us experience his gracious goodness.” It is, of course, flat in the translation.
Perhaps we can glean somewhat the freshness of the original in a more literal transla-
tion: “God making us experience the winsome and gracious beauty of his innermost
self.” If we consider the whole range of meanings which we have seen when discuss-
ing the concept of loob and kagandahang-loob itself, then we see how rich this notion is in
the vernacular. It is the very depths of his Godhood —designated as “beautiful” or
eminently good—which we experience. God, as it were, does not merely share some-
thing peripheral to himself. What is communicated comes from the core of his God-
ness. It becomes clear to native speakers that when God “reveals” it is really God’s
gift of himself that is at stake unlike what is understood in God’s revelation of truths
about himself (although this functions differently for those who assume that the essen-
tial in man is reason). He gives and he gives what he is in his innermost reality: kagan-
dahang-loob.
What we discover here in the use of the cultural concept kagandahang-loob for reve-
lation is that revelation is indeed “ grace,” and “salvation.” Somehow, it becomes eas-
ier to see the intimate and necessary links between “revelation,” “grace” and
“salvation” a problem which arises because of the way of we customarily treat these

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 27

themes. I mention this because even seminarians have a difficult time in seeing
connections between the different subjects they study in theology and due to this have
a hard time perceiving the whole. Perhaps, this is one of the advantages which await
us when we allow the culture to speak in its own terms.
Our response in this faith experience, on the other hand, can be designated as “pa
gsasaloob ng kagandahang-loob ng Diyos” which can be rendered as “interiorizing or mak-
ing part of one’s core of personhood God’s will” or “interiorizing or making part of
one’s self God’s very ‘nature’ —what he is like towards us.” There is no relationship
more binding that this process of interiorizing (=making part of one’s innermost or
most authentic self) God’s kagandahangloob. Is this not the exhortation of the Gos-
pels: “Be merciful, even as your Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48) or “Be merciful, even as
your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:36)? Surely, this is the deeper meaning of doing God’s
will as meant by Jesus himself (cf.Jn. 5:30).
This way of formulating our understanding of faith, moreover, avoids the conflict-
ing stresses on the vertical and horizontal dimensions of this faith. Precisely by saying
that it is the “kalooban ng Diyos” which we make part of ourselves (i.e. interiorizing the
will of God), we affirm our primary allegiance to God who alone is worthy of our su-
preme dedication; and by stating it is the “halooban ng Diyos” that we make our own
(i.e. the will of God), we equally affirm that this pagsasaioob is intrinsically related to
working for the well-being of the neighbor since this is most certainly what is expected
of us as disciples of Jesus and the characteristic sign of that discipleship (cf. Jn. 13:34-
35).
This interiorizing reminds us also that God’s revelation is something which perme-
ates the very depths of our being. Loob, no doubt, reminds us of this very well. If fur-
thermore recalls to mind St. Paul’s own understanding of revelation as a dynamic
reality reaching our most authentic selves in Galatians 1:15-16: “But when he who
had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased
to reveal his son in me (en emoi), in order that I might preach him among the Gen-
tiles. .“ Through the notion of bob this point is easy to grasp within the cultural frame
of reference.
Summing up
Re-rooting the Gospel into our own culture requires a re-thinking and re-in-
terpretation rather than just translation of theological systems and categories into the
vernacular. Because of this, a good familiarity with the culture is imperative. In
following the dialogical approach advocated by the Second Vatican Council in the
decree Ad Gentes, we spoke of “probing listening” to the culture. Respect, we stated,
is an essential ingredient of this sort of “listening” and necessary in order to know,
understand and appreciate the genius and the strength of a particular culture. While
we do not deny the critical element in this Gospel-culture dialogue, we insisted that it
is not this which takes priority. it is not only that intelligibility of meaningfulness is a
criterion which takes precedence in theologizing anew, but also because of the
experiences of colonization and industrialization that we emphasize the need to be
aware of the cultural dimensions of theological re-thinking.
In this exposition we focused on one way, among many, of listening attentively to
the culture, i.e. through language and the experiences embodied in that language. As

28 Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988

an illustration we analyzed the notions of “loob” and “kagandahang-loob” in order to
become aware of the wealth of meaning connected with these key concepts. Then, we
re-interpreted the faith experience (revelation-faith) in terms of these very meanings
and indicated how they express this aspect of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in a cul-
turally relevant manner. Both the cultural analysis and theological analysis have ex-
emplified for us the advantage of taking into account this element of listening to the
culture in rethinking the Christian faith today for our situations.
NOTES
1. Karl Rahner, “Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II,”
Theological Studies 60/4 (December, 1979): 716-27.
2. See Pierre Casse, Training For the Cross-Cultural Mind (Washington, D. C., 1981),
p.252.
3. All quotations from Vatican II are taken from Walter Abbott, ed., The Documents of
Vatican II (New York, 1966).
4. Jose M. de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Theology: Basic Realities and Processes
(Quezon City, 1982), pp. 19—21.
5. Doing Theology, pp. 6-7
6. H. de la Costa, “Evangelization and Humanization,” Teaching All Nations 12/3
(1975): 141.
7. And God Said, “Bahata Na!”: The Theme of Providence in the Lowland Fillipino Context
(Quezon City, 1979), pp. 64-65.
8. J. J. Mueller, Faith and Appreciative Awareness (Washington, D. C., 1981), p. 135.
9. Kosuke Koyama, No Handle on the Cross (London, 1976).
10.For a further elaboration of a method, see “Doing Theology as Inculturation in
the Asian Context,” Ketygma 20 (1986): 151—73.
11.Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1976), p. 26.
12.I am following here Virgilio G. Enriquez’s discussion of this point in Filipino
Psychology in the Third World (Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research House,
1977). pp. 3-8.
13.See “Understanding God’s ‘Kagandahang-loob’, “Witness 1:1 (First Quarter,
1981), 4-13 “‘Loob’ and Prayer,”Witness IV:2 (Second Quarter, 1984), 52-60: Ang
Eukaristiya: Bagong Uganayan (Manila: Asian Social Institute Communication
Center, 1987).
14.Isang Maiksing KatesLsmo Para Sa Mga Bata:A Study in Indigenous Catechesis (Manila:
Wellspring Books, 1985).

Inter-Religio 13 / Summer 1988 29