PeaceBuilding and Transformation: PAR Theological Framework

PEACE-BUILDING AND TRANSFORMATION:
BEING A GOSPEL WITNESS
IN THE MIDST OF
UNJUST GLOBAL REALITIES
A
Biblical-Theological Framework
for a
Peace and Reconciliation Ministry
by
Rev. L. Daniel Pantoja, M.A., Th.M.
President & CEO
PeaceBuilders Community, Inc.
www.peacebuilderscommunity.org
January 2007
Davao City, Philippines

PEACE BUILDING AND TRANSFORMATION PAGE 2
© 2010 L. Daniel Pantoja, PeaceBuilders Community, Inc., Davao City, Philippines 8000
PeaceBuilders Community, Inc. (PBCI) exists to be a Gospel witness in the face of unjust
global realities. We seek to live the Gospel through peace-building and transformation
ministries.
At PBCI, we understand the New Testament term gospel (euaggelion) as good news or good
message—denoting the good tidings of the kingdom of God1
and the proclamation of God’s
saving activity which is demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth.
Being a witness of the Gospel is about telling the truth—the Truth we experienced in Christ.
Our witness ought to be authenticated with our lives. It means loving our neighbors as we love
ourselves. It means loving our enemies, reconciling with them, and respecting them as friends.
It involves living in their midst in justice and in peace. It involves being transformed in all
aspects of our lives in accordance with the character of Jesus—the Prince of Peace. Being a
Gospel witness is submitting our whole life, our whole being, to the Almighty God. It is
acknowledging God’s sovereignty over our most valued priorities. When we acknowledge the
God of the Bible, such acknowledgment "requires the reordering of everything else."2
In 2004, I lived in the Municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Province of Maguindanao, Mindanao
Island, for six months. The neighborhood where I lived was just a few kilometers away from
Camp Darapanan, the Central Headquarters of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)—a non-
state armed force fighting for their right to self-determination.
I stayed in a neighborhood called Nuling, the traditional residence of a respected clan who
are the descendants of Sultan Kudarat—a national hero among Muslims in the Philippines. I
introduced myself just as I am—a Christian who wants to build peaceful relationship among the
Maguindanao Muslims. I told them that I was a pastor and a student of Theology and that I was
1
W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Eds. (New York: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1985), pp. 275-276.
2
Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), p. 747.

preparing to be a peace-building worker among the tri-people of Mindanao—the Lumad
(Indigenous Peoples), the Bangsamoros3
(mostly Muslims), and the Migrants (mostly
Christians). They learned about my family, my religious background, my political background,
and my dual citizenship as a Filipino and as a Canadian. Though I was scared at first, I
determined to be completely transparent with them.
Today, my family had been embraced by a respected datu (a traditional community leader)
and his extended family. My wife is like a sister to a bai (a lady belonging to the datu clan). My
23-year old son who was raised in Canada is so at home with his Bangsamoro Muslim friends in
Sultan Kudarat. During the wedding of a prominent young datu, my son was chosen to be the
young datu’s best man. In that wedding, my wife and I served as the only Christian sponsors
among the business and political leaders in Muslim Mindanao. I love my adopted Muslim family!
Our small peacebuilding community is also working in partnership with Muslim organizations
like the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA). We work together with BDA in the area of
Values Enhancement Program among Muslims and Christians around the Ligawasan marsh.
As a community, we are completely transparent with all the people of Mindanao as witnesses
for Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.
Peace-building starts with Salam-Shalom. The Arabic word salam, and the Hebrew
word shalom basically means "completeness, soundness, welfare, and peace." Completeness
has the idea of being whole—that is, all the parts are connected with each other. Soundness
can be understood also as safety of the body and clarity of mind. Welfare can be viewed as
wellness—that is, holistic health and prosperity. Peace can be read as tranquility, contentment,
and healthy relationships with God and other human beings, and thus, the absence of any
3
The term Bangsamoro (lit. Nation of Moros) refers to the thirteen ethno-linguistic groups—namely, Maranao,
Maguindanao, Tausug, Samal, Yakan, Sangil, Badjao, Kalibogan, Jama Mapun, Iranun, Palawanon, Kalagan, and
Molbog—who embraced Islam. They are mainly found in Western and southern Mindanao Island, the Sulu Archipelago,
and the coastal areas of southern Palawan. The Moros were once considered to be the most developed communities in
the entire Philippines Archipelago. They reached the level of a centrally organized society. They had their own form of
government antedating several hundreds of years the creation of the Philippine Republic. I interchange the terms
Bangsamoros and Moros.

hostility or war. Salam-Shalom can be summarized as the quality of life characterized by
harmonious relationship with God, with the Other, with our Being, and with the Creation.
Salam-Shalom is a vision of life where spirituality, community, identity, and economy-ecology
are harmoniously connected with each other.
I’m using the term peace-building here as "a comprehensive concept that encompasses,
generates, and sustains the full array of processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform
conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships."4
Peace-building, as a strategy, has
many components. Among them are: conflict transformation, military intervention and
conversion, governance and policymaking, restorative and transitional justice, environmental
protection, human rights, civilian and military peacekeeping, peace education, activism and
advocacy, trauma healing, and social-economic development.
Peace-building is a practical form of being a martyr-witness. This idea is from a New
Testament term, martyría (marturiía). This is not about having a messianic complex. This is
not about mere adventurism in a conflict zone. This is not a search for an extreme missionary
experience.
Being martyr-witnesses, first of all, means that we will love all people unconditionally and we
will practice selfless love to the point of offering our lives to the people with whom we are called
to live and to serve. This is exemplified in the humble life of Jesus of Nazareth whom we follow
in response to His sacrificial love. Secondly, it means that, by God's grace, we will not lie. As
witnesses to the truth we have experienced in Jesus Christ, we will initiate transparent and
honest interaction with all the people concerned as we relate with them and as we formulate
and implement our policies. Thirdly, being martyr-witnesses affirm that justice is an attribute of
God. Therefore, our tasks will be implemented in accordance with what is just and equitable
among all people concerned. Fourthly, it means practicing genuine forgiveness. Using the
energies available to us through the power of the Holy Spirit, we will absorb the violence
4
John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (USIP, Wash., DC, 1997, p. 20)

committed against us so that our lives may be used as servants to stop the cycle of violence
within us and around us. Finally, it means incarnating God’s peace in our lives. We will seek
harmony and reconciliation with the Creator, with our Being, with Others, and with the
Creation. We believe in solving problems through non-violence. By God's grace and mercy, we
will not use weapons to hurt or to kill people as a means to accomplish our dreams, mission,
and objectives.
When we rediscover what it means to be a martyr-witness, we are ready to do the work of
peace-building and transformation.
Shalom-Reality Versus the Construct of Globalism
The vision of shalom, as may be regarded by some, is a religious idea that may not be so
realistic compared to the realities of globalization. It is therefore necessary at this point to
understand what the term realistic means, and how this is understood in the context of
globalization.
The term reality is understood here as a social construct.5
Shalom—a vision of the good life
characterized by harmony between God, our Being, the Other, and the Creation—is a construct
of reality based on a biblical vision of what the good life means. Globalism6
—the ideology
operative in the perceived reality of globality and in the process of globalization—is also a
construct of reality based on the neo-classical vision of what the good life means. Hence, this
paper is comparing two constructs of reality based on two diametrically opposed visions of what
the good life means.
5
This is based on Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Double Day, 1966).
6
This paper understands globality as the perception of the reality of a world community, and globalization as the
processes through which sovereign national states are criss-crossed and undermined by transnational actors. Both
globality and globalization, with the negative and positive aspects inherent in them, are irreversible. Globalism—the
ideology operative in the perceived reality of globality and in the process of globalization—is the focus of critique in this
paper.

The construct of globalism is the predominant view of reality. Globalism is best
understood as the vision of the good life in neo-classical theory of political-economy.7
It is a
worldview—a weltanschauung. This worldview is a construct of reality that started in the 18th
century with Adam Smith's concept of market capitalism. According to this political-economic
view of the world, the individual is understood as an agent of choice. Given the many
alternatives presented to the individual, her or his actions would be based on self-interest.
Human individuals are assumed "to seek the highest level of satisfaction of our wants," and this
satisfaction of wants, as long as they are available, determines human happiness.8
In order to
attain the highest satisfaction of wants, the individual must make a rational decision—on what to
buy, on how to spend time, on whom to marry, on what course to study, on what career to take,
and so on. The rational choice of the individual seeks a single end—that is, the "subjective
satisfaction, utility, or happiness through alternative means."9
This rational choice presupposes
scarcity—a state "when the naturally available means are inadequate to satisfy desires fully."10
Scarcity depends both on desire and on the availability of resources. The best way to allocate
scarce resources is through the means of market decentralization—that is, "allowing the market
to reshuffle resources and commodities so as to achieve their most desirable use."11
When basic
satisfaction is attained through these processes, the next stage would be the maximization of
individual satisfaction. If an interconnected system of individuals experience satisfaction, then
maximization is deemed to be happening. This is also regarded as "group welfare."
The individual, in the process of maximizing self-satisfaction, will have to increase his or her
utilitarian experience in a linear fashion. In this sense, the individual is considered to be a
consumer. In the process of the individual's consumption, he or she can affect others either
7
For an in-depth discussion of this political-economic worldview, see James Caporaso and David Levine, Theories of
Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 79-99.
8
Ibid., pp. 79-80.
9
Ibid., p. 81.
10
Ibid.,
11
Ibid., p. 85.

negatively or positively. The effect is positive when "an individual's act of consumption yields an
unintended benefit to someone else"; and negative when "the individual's well-being is
enhanced by an experience that harms others."12
These positive and negative effects of one's
individual act of consumption are described as externalities. Externalities are social
consequences of private want satisfaction.
The neo-classical economic worldview is not a value-free discipline, as most economists
would claim. Its metaphysics and ideology is globalism. As a political scientist, Ulrich Beck
identifies this "metaphysics of the world market"—a monocausal and one-dimensional reduction
of the complex reality of globality and globalization—as the number one error of globalism.13
In
this perspective, many aspects of reality and human life are left outside the lenses of
economics. From his economist's analytic lenses, de Swardt-Kraus said that in this construct of
reality goods, land, labor, even cultural, religious, and aesthetic artifacts are commodified,
which in turn results to political disempowerment and socio-cultural dislocation of many people
around the world.14
John Cobb, a theologian, made this same point in his book Sustaining the
Common Good.15
He identifies the neo-liberal ideology as economism, a vision that perceives
life and reality solely in terms of growth in Gross Domestic Product in a linear way. He said that
when professional economists become the major controlling power in the service of global
economic growth, we then become worshippers of a god called growth,16
with a religion called
economism17
.
12
Ibid., p. 82.
13
Beck, p. 118.
14
This is one of the theses of Cobus de Swardt-Kraus, Globalization for Sale: An Analysis of the Interdynamics of
Globalisation, Valorisation and Marginalisation (London: Kegan Paul International, 2000).
15
See John B. Cobb, Sustaining the Common Good: A Christian Perspective on the Global Economy (Cleveland, Ohio:
The Pilgrim Press, 1994).
16
Ibid., p. 47.
17
Ibid., p. 28.

If globalism, as mentioned earlier, is a weltanschauung—one's apprehension of reality and
how one views her or his relationship with such reality, then weltanschauung can also be
understood as religion; that is, if religion, as John Milbank defines it, is understood as "the basic
organizing category for an entire culture: the images, word-forms, and practices which specify
'what there is' for a particular society."18
Can globalism, then, be understood and evaluated as
a religion? From a theological-ethical perspective, I do believe so. There are implicit "theology"
and "ethic" operative in globalism.
From a biblical perspective, globalism as a religion replaced the worship of God with the
worship of a god called Mammon. Mammon (÷/mm;) is an Aramaic word which means "wealth" or
"property," and is personified as a god of wealth, property, or money (Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13).
Mammon is worshipped in the sense of being served (Heb. db'[;; Gk. douleuvw) as the highest
category in a person's or a culture's value system. Mammon is the most important power
energizing globalism. Stackhouse's insight about the powers and spheres behind human
cultures and organizations is relevant here:
While it is properly impossible for many to believe in non-substantial persons in
the form of angels or demons, spirits or devils—flitting around and making things
happen in life—it is equally impossible to deny that moral and spiritual forces
influence life for better or for worse. The reality of such "spiritual energies" is no
less true for contemporary humanity than it was for peoples living in ancient
"animistic," "polytheist," or "mystical" cultures, although the ways in which we
think about these energies, perhaps even encounter them, have surely changed.19
The identification and naming of Mammon as god of globalism is a valid analysis of "psycho-
spiritual and socio-moral potentialities that claim people's loyalties and respect in various
societies."20
Globalism also assumes a basic anthropology. In the neo-classical worldview, the person is
an individual-in-marketplace. This basic anthropology is well articulated by Sallie McFague:
18
See John Milbank, “The End of Dialogue,” Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of
Religions, Gavin D’Costa, ed. (New York: Orbis Books, 1990), p. 177.
19
Max L. Stackhouse with Peter J. Paris, God and Globalization, Volume 1: Religion and the Powers of the Common Life
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), p. 31.
20
Ibid., p. 32.

The worldview or basic assumption of neo-classical economics is surprisingly
simple and straightforward: the crucial assumption is that human beings are self-
interested individuals who, acting on this basis, will create a syndicate or
machine, even a global one, capable of benefiting all eventually. Hence, as long
as the economy grows, all individuals in a society will sooner or later participate in
prosperity.21
Globalism reduces human beings to mere homo economicus. The Self becomes an isolated
individual who exists to satisfy his or her wants; a self-interested consumer in a mechanistic
world. When an isolated individual's identity is reduced to being a self-interested consumer, the
tendency is to create a universe where the center is the Self. The interest and satisfaction of
the Self becomes the highest goal. When other people and other creature enter this self-
centered universe, they feel used as objects of utility or abused as instruments for individualistic
satisfaction. The Others feel alienated. The Self, in return, is alienated. The Self, then, is
isolated and becomes alone in her or his own universe or self-defined reality. The psycho-
spiritual and socio-moral implications of the alienated Self is frightening, as evidenced in many
sad events in many homes, offices, and schools today.
In globalism, the Other is merely treated and reduced as a competitor. There is a positive
side to this. Competition motivates individuals and societies to be efficient in terms of cost-
benefit analysis and management of resources. Because the individual is assumed to live and
progress in life as a self-interested consumer in an economic arena defined by scarcity, each
individual-in-marketplace has to compete against each other.22
This self-interested competitor
tends to maximize the production and distribution of scarce goods and services. When
competition is regulated through the standards of justice and fairness, it can be ethically viable.
21
McFague, p. 77.
22
In fairness to the business and economic sector, it must be pointed out that there are business ethicists who recognize
the limitations of competition in developing one's career in the midst of market capitalism. For example, Robert K.
Greenleaf, who died in 1990, has been a powerful voice to reshape management and leadership policy. He is respected
as a business ethicist at Harvard Business School and MIT; see Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (New York:
Paulist Press, 1983). The limits of competition and the potential for co-operation is also being debated in the national
and international level of discussions in political-economic ethics; see for example Russell Keats, "The Moral Boundaries
of the Market," The Political Quarterly: Ethics and the Markets, eds. Colin Crouch and David Marquand (Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers, 1993), pp. 6-20.

But there is also some negative aspects of the Other as a competitor. Competition isolates
each individual from other individuals. They can only interact with each other through an
interconnected system of individuals who are trying to satisfy their wants. In globalism, the
Other can only be experienced as part of an impersonal economic concept called externalities—
the social consequences of private want satisfaction. The operative term in these externalities is
rational decision-making. Relationships, at its best, have to be determined by a rational
decision to attain the highest satisfaction of wants. The key evaluative standard for inter-
personal relationships, wittingly or unwittingly, is the question: "What's in it for me?" In neo-
classical economic worldview, relationships are commodified, if not totally devalued. For
example, spending time with a person from a rationalistic approach has to be viewed as an
investment of time with a person from whom a return of investment can be expected. Such
relational investments may return when the Other becomes a client, a political supporter, a
donor, and perhaps a part of career development network. At best, investment for the Other
may return as a source of emotional support, financial help, business credibility reference
network, etc. When the Other is treated like a commodity, we reduce their humanity based on
exchange value or extrinsic value. When we devalue human beings, we insult her or his Creator
who declared that human beings have intrinsic value—that the human person is "very good"
(Gen. 1:31).
Finally, globalism views Creation as a machine. In both neo-classical and Marxian23
economic theories, Creation is regarded as mere pool of resources to be consumed and
exploited because the Earth is seen as a mechanistic resource base, not as a living organism.
There is an on-going debate among Christian theological-ethicists24
on how we should regard
the Creation. Should we regard the creation as the resource base to be managed technically to
23
See Caporaso and Levine, pp. 55-78. The difference between neo-classical and Marxian approach is that, the former
do not believe in centralized economic-ecological planning while the latter insists on centralized planning. Historically, it
seems that the neo-classical approach (market capitalism) have won over the Marxian approach (planned socialism).
24
See Thomas Sieger Derr with James A. Nash and Richard John Neuhaus, Environmental Ethics and Christian
Humanism (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996).

satisfy the needs and wants of human beings? Thomas Sieger Derr believes so.25
This is called
the anthropocentric view of the world. Or, should we regard the creation as a holistic ecosystem
to be cared for lovingly for the sake of both human beings and other life forms? James A. Nash
believes so.26
This is called the biocentric view of the world. I, being raised up in the context of
Asian worldview, see a harmony between the anthropocentric and biocentric world. It is not an
either-or conflict. It is a both-and harmonization. Both anthropocentric and biocentric views of
the world, from the perspective of shalom, are complementaries, not contradictories. The
harmonized perspective of anthropocentrism-biocentrism affirms an organic-relational view of
creation and resists a mechanistic-utilitarian view.
For millions of people in Asia, Africa, Latin America, as well as the first nations of North
America and Australia an organic-relational view of the world makes more sense than a
mechanistic-utilitarian worldview. From the perspective of many people outside the affluent
societies of Western Europe and North America, there is a direct relationship between the cry of
the oppressed people and the cry of the planet earth.27
When the Creation is simply regarded
as a mechanistic resource base, then the benefits of the earth will be more available to those
with more powerful ways and means—legal means, political apparatus, military arms, cultural
influence—to enforce and implement their claims. Human history shows that this view of the
world, complemented by the above-mentioned ways and means, necessarily results to
imperialism28
and injustice29
.
25
Ibid., pp. 17-103.
26
Ibid., pp. 105-124.
27
This is eloquently and passionately expressed in Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, trans. Phillip
Berryman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997).
28
See Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000
(New York: Random House, 1987).
29
For a good case study, see Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, War Against the Poor: Low-Intensity Conflict and Christian Faith
(Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989).

The vision of salam-shalom is a better alternative view of reality. The vision of
globalism as a construct of reality and as a "religion" is diametrically opposed to shalom as a
religious vision of the good life characterized by harmony between God, our Being, the Other,
and the Creation.
Salam-Shalom is harmony with the Creator. This is spiritual transformation. True
peace starts with the Creator. Christians believe this. Muslims believe this. Most Indigenous
Peoples believe this. Christians and Muslims definitely have to delineate and have dialogue with
each other on how peace with God can be experienced. For us Christians, it’s through faith in
Jesus Christ. For our Muslim friends, it’s through following the Five Pillars of Islam.30
During those six months living in Sultan Kudarat, I was given various opportunities to
engage in a heart-to-heart interaction with Bangsamoro Muslims. Every time they ask me what
I was doing in their neighborhood, my usual reply was something like this:
I am here as a follower of Jesus Christ. We are commanded to love our neighbors as
we love ourselves. I do not believe that Christians should use violence for whatever
reason. I condemn the Crusades where the name of Jesus Christ was misused.
Muslims are my neighbors. Would you give me a chance to love you in the name of
Jesus Christ? Can we honestly engage in transparent dialogue without resorting to
violence? Can we be both faithful with our respective faiths while learning to live
together in peace? Can we be both honest as we testify and witness to what we
know is truth?
Those who were more educated in Islam—the imams (prayer leaders), ustadzes (Islamic
teachers), and ulamas (Islamic scholars)—engaged me in theological discussions that enriched
me as a person. They guided me as I read the English translation of the Qur’an during those
months. They asked me about the doctrine of the Trinity, of Christ as the Son of God (though
all of them did not even mention or allowed me to mention this term as they consider it as
blasphemy), of the Final Judgment, of the Second Coming of Jesus. They felt free to critique
those Christian doctrines in an atmosphere of friendship and intellectual enhancement. I felt
30
(a) Iman—faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad; (b) Salah—
establishment of the daily prayers; (c) Zakah—concern for and almsgiving to the needy; (d) Sawm—self-purification
through fasting; and, (e) Hajj—the pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

they listened to me as much I listened to them. Despite our doctrinal differences, we respected
each other’s journey as we seek to be in-harmony with the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac,
and Jacob.
The ordinary people shared their struggles and victories as they seek to follow the Five
Pillars of Islam. Every time I listened to them, they gave me equal time, if not more, to share
my own struggles and victories as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Those six months in Sultan Kudarat were one of the most meaningful and happiest times in
my life. Despite some of my cross-cultural mistakes, my Bangsamoro friends have patiently
embraced me as one of their family members. There were times when they even risked their
lives for me. I was so vulnerable and yet I felt so safe and secure with them.
By walking with my Maguindanaoan friends in their spiritual journey, I was spiritually
transformed as a witness for Jesus Christ among Muslims!
Christians are called to worship God alone, not to worship God & Mammon. In the biblical
narrative, the proper name of God, YHWH (hwhy) means I am who I am or I will be who I will be.
In the Jewish tradition, the proper name of God must not be uttered; instead, they substitute
the term The LORD (ynda) to refer to YHWH (hwhy). This is important because it emphasizes the
reality that the Creator-God is eternally present but cannot be grasped totally by any human
being. God is with us, immanent; but God is also transcendent and cannot be manipulated
based on human wants and needs. To worship God means to acknowledge God to be at the
highest position in our value system; thus, worth-ship. A community who worships YHWH
recognizes that no persons or objects can be acknowledged to be at the highest position in the
community's value system and the community's understanding of reality. For YHWH-
worshippers, God is the Ultimate Reality. No attachments to persons and things, no other gods,
no idolatry. Even our conception of God, including my notion of God as Ultimate Reality, even
our most sophisticated theology, cannot be an object of attachment. The worship of God allows
people to relate with God with freedom and liberation from any attachments.

The worship of Mammon necessarily puts money, wealth, and property as the highest
position in the value system of a person or a community. Mammon-worship is necessarily
expressed through an explicit and intentional attachment to things that, in the process,
Mammonism actually reduces people to things by seeing their value merely as extrinsic—that is,
based on exchange value. For example, in Mammon's value system, human beings are seen as
mere human resources measurable by their dollar amount per time of work. Thus, the
worshippers of Mammon tend to thingify people. When this is the case, people are sacrificed to
the altar of money, wealth, and property. It becomes easy to oppress and exploit people when
they are seen as things.
Harmony with God is acknowledging God as the Ultimate Reality. The other aspects of our
life's reality are subordinated to God. The statement of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 is a call to
reorder the lives of his followers based on the awareness that God is Ultimate Reality. In
globalism, Mammon—wealth and property—is considered as the ultimate reality and the highest
category in its value system. When a commitment to God is made, such commitment
necessarily requires the reordering of wealth and property as subordinate to God-Reality. It
means renouncing Mammon as god. In the same token, when a commitment to Mammon is
made, then Mammon becomes the highest category in one's value system and God is reordered
as subordinate to wealth and power. Commitment to both is not possible. There can only be
one Ultimate Reality. God-Reality does not allow other claims of ultimate reality; hence, other
claimants are false claims. Commitment to false claims of reality is idolatry.
But even those who claim that they are committed to God-Reality and that wealth and power
is subordinated to God-Reality, the temptation to equalize God and Mammon in our hearts is a
day-to-day struggle. When we are lulled into this compromise, the tendency is idolatry. The
value system of the church—its attitude towards wealth and property—must be evaluated in the
light of God-Reality. The church's value system, especially those who are in the affluent
communities and societies, must go through this Reality check.

Salam-Shalom is harmony with our Being. This is psycho-social transformation. This is
about our identity and security as a person. In salam-shalom perspective, the harmonious
Being or Self—the wholeness of soul, life, personality, desire, appetite, emotion, and passion
that characterize us as living beings—leads a person to live an Abundant Life. Abundant Life is a
term used in the Gospel of John (10:10), which means living life in its fullness—spiritually,
physically, socially, economically, and culturally—as exemplified by the life of Jesus. Abundant
Life is not defined by what I have but by who I am, in the context of relationships.
This reminds me of my lunch with a Maguindanaoan man I call bapa (uncle). He was a
retired History teacher in a local high school. His dream is to see the self-determination of the
Bangsamoro people in a geographical context—in a juridical entity.
“Dann, I’m so glad I am a Muslim and not a Christian,” he told me while I was sharing his
family’s lunch. My rice-filled right hand hanged between my plate and my mouth as I waited for
his next sentence. “You see,” he continued, “you Christians from the North have lost your
identity. You call yourselves Filipinos—those who have been defeated by the conquerors and
were given as a gift to their ruler, King Philip of Spain. This is the reason why you Filipinos will
never conquer us, Bangsamoros, even with your American-supplied weapons. We have our
cultural identity and dignity intact under the Almighty Allah, while you have trampled yours with
the name of a dead foreign king.”
“But that’s just…” I tried to rebut to defend my tribal pride.
“A name? A historical past? A part of your present historical reality?” he asked, with a
mixture of compassion and anger showing on his face. “Whenever you say you are a Filipino,
you are telling your historical defeat! You merely look at your historical identity after 1521. The
Malay culture is way earlier and far richer than your limited historical memory. Perhaps you
should consider re-discovering who you are, culturally and spiritually, while you’re here with us.
Come home. Come back home to being a Malay. Return to Islam.”
I listened to my bapa. I rediscovered and embraced my Malay heritage through my
immersion into the Maguindanaoan culture. I also experienced that, as a follower of Jesus, I

can appreciate my cultural heritage in a redemptive way—that is, enjoying the God-glorifying
and humanizing aspects of my newly rediscovered Malay culture, while submitting to the Creator
those dehumanizing aspects of culture that need purification.
In Maguindanao, I have been transformed. In Maguindanao, I rediscovered the Malay part
of me that my Western upbringing has forgotten. In Maguindanao, God redeemed a part of my
cultural identity and opened my eyes to a new understanding of our ultimate future—when the
redeemed cultures and dignity of all ethnic groups will be brought before the holy presence of
God (Rev. 21:26). And in Mindanao, I can start enjoying this ultimate future… right now!
Today, my bapa refers to me as “an adopted Maguindanaoan who follows Isa (Jesus).”
That prompted me to reflect on my identity using biblical texts as lenses and mirrors. I
learned that identity means being a person-in-community, not a consumer-in-marketplace. The
biblical understanding of the Self (Heb. vp,n<) is so rich, far richer than the reductionist
understanding of the neo-classical economic view of the self. On one hand, self can be
understood as soul, living being, life, and person. On the other hand, self can also be
understood as desire, appetite, emotion, and passion. The former refers to the relational-
spiritual aspects of our self that we share with other human beings and with God. The latter
refers to basic instincts of the self that we share with animals. When the self is merely regarded
as consumer-in-marketplace, we limit our "self-ness" to the basic animal instincts of our
humanity. We are then reduced to only one side of our "self-ness." Hence, we are alienated
from our own self and we do not experience the shalom or wholeness of our being. This
alienated self is the easy target of commercial advertisements that lull and manipulate human
beings to become mere consumer-in-marketplace. Such advertisements usually appeal to the
desire, appetite, emotion, and passion.
In shalom perspective, the harmonious Being—the wholeness of soul, life, personality,
desire, appetite, emotion, and passion that characterize us as living beings—leads a person to
live an Abundant Life. Abundant Life is a term used in the Gospel of John (Jn. 10:10), which
means living life in its fullness—spiritually, physically, socially, economically, and culturally—in

the context of the community. Abundant Life is not defined by what I have but by who I am in
the context of relationships. A person experiencing an abundant life regards her or his identity
as a person-in-community and not as mere consumer-in-marketplace.
In contrast, globalism sees the Self as an isolated individual consumer who is addicted to
commodity. The meaning of one's self is determined by how much goods and services one is
able to consume in order to satisfy one's needs and wants. Relationships are mere means to
satisfy one's needs and wants.
Many churches today, especially those who are focused on church-growth-at-all-cost, are
offering programs that would satisfy the needs and wants of church members and adherents
who behave more like religious consumers rather than God worshippers. Many church programs
and activities are more focused on meeting the desire to experience a sort of "spiritual high."
This is not the calling of the church.
The church is the shalom-community that is called to demonstrate that it is possible to live a
life of wholeness. The reduction of the self into a consumer-in-marketplace is not acceptable to
the church. The church is the pilot community called by God to show and tell that the biblical
understanding of the whole self, as a person-in-community, is possible. This possibility is
experienced through the discipleship of the whole self into the cruciform life of Christ. In Christ,
a person can discover what it is to be a whole human being—a person who is nurtured
intellectually, physically, socially, and spiritually (Lk. 2:52).
Salam-Shalom is harmony with Others. This is social-political transformation. In an
unjust and oppressive system, human beings are seen as mere human resources or projects.
The tendency is to thingify people. When this is the case, human beings who are created in the
image of God are sacrificed to the altar of wealth and power. It becomes easy to oppress and
exploit people when they are seen as things. Many times, well-meaning organizations and
institutions—like governments, corporations, schools, military, churches, and even families—
wittingly or unwittingly practice this, including institutions that claim to be Christian.

The more I interact with the Bangsamoros, the more I become aware where Christians ought
to sharpen our listening skills. We should listen to their stories of historical injustices committed
against the Moros by the Filipinos31
who are usually labeled as ‘Christians.’ We should listen to
their stories on how a series of land-grabbing laws32
in the past 100 years impoverished and
displaced thousands of families. We should learn more about militarization33
and how the
presence of thousands of government troops affects most Bangsamoro communities. We should
hear their cry against the dehumanization of the Bangsamoro people.
In Sultan Kudarat, my protector ama (father), who is a retired civil servant and a community
leader, emphasized to me that the conflict in Mindanao is not about religion. “Christianity and
Islam,” he said, “are not the problem in Muslim Mindanao. The Bangsamoro people are not
against Jesus. We actually respect Jesus whom we refer to as Nabi Isa. The Bangsamoros
resist, instead, Western colonial powers that identify themselves as Christians, and brought with
them dehumanizing acts of war and oppression against our people. We see the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines perpetuating such actions.”
In April 2005, a team of Mennonite pastors and peace-builders travelled across Mindanao.
They met with ulamas (Islamic scholars), ustadzes (Islamic teachers), datus, graduate students,
professors, NGO executives, and other leaders in Muslim Mindanao. The intention was to
establish a transparent dialogue between Muslims and Christians and to build bridges of trust
and understanding. Dr. David Shenk, a Mennonite scholar who has been in dialogue with
religious leaders in Iran and other Islamic leaders in the Middle East, was leading the team.
I invited them to visit my neighborhood in Sultan Kudarat. They were received by a
respected datu, his son, and other young Bangsamoro professionals. The Sultan Kudarat hosts
gave us a brief on the Bangsamoro perspective of Philippine History.
31
For a more formal ethnographic study on this issue, see: Thomas M. McKenna, Muslim Rulers and Rebels: Everyday
Politics and Armed Separation in Southern Philippines (Manila: Anvil Publishing, 2002), pp. 269-289.
32
For a legal Moro perspective on these Acts, see: Salah Jubair, Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyrrany (Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia: IQ Marin SDN BHD, 1999), pp. 95-97.
33
See, Mathews George Chunakara, The Militarization of Politics and Society: Southeast Asian Experiences (Hongkong:
DAGA Press, 1994).

Afterwards, we had a dialogue. Polite questions were answered politely.
Then a young Bangsamoro youth leader whispered to me: "Kuya (Elder Brother) Dann, I
really need to ask a question that I've been wanting to ask a Western Christian, but I'm afraid I
might offend them."
"Ask them… just be honest with your question… it's okay… go for it," I whispered back,
trying to push him beyond his hesitation.
Finally, he asked Dr. Shenk: "You know, every time I see white people in Mindanao, I
immediately think of Christian religious imperialism and Western military expansionism. It has
been our historical experience. Tell me, are you here to eventually convert us through your
peace and development activities?"
“We do our peace and development activities sincerely in the name of Jesus Christ,” David
Shenk answered. “We do not come with the Bible on one hand and a sword on the other hand.
We come in humility as Jesus is humble. We come with the Cross, not as a symbol of violence—
as in the Crusades—but as a symbol of suffering and peace. We will be faithful in expressing
unconditional love and service with honesty and transparency. But when one of you would
approach us to know more about this peace in Jesus, we would not say ‘No, go away!’ That
would be religious imperialism.”
Luke Shrockhurst, one of the Mennonite pastors, affirmed Dr. Shenk and added: "As
Americans who carry US passports, we ask for forgiveness for the violence our nation has
brought to Mindanao. We apologize for the injustices our government has committed against
your people... We are the kind of followers of Jesus who do not believe in war... We do not
agree when our nation is regarded as a god, for that is idolatry."
"Thank you for your honest and straight-forward answers,” the young Bangsamoro leader
told us. “I sense that you really respect us. You are welcome anytime here in our
neighborhood."

Now, this young Bangsamoro youth leader and his family help the work of Peacebuilders
Community in his area. He travels with us throughout Mindanao as we advocate for peace-
building and transformation among the tri-people of this beautiful land.
In January 2006, almost a year after that dialogue, my wife and I came back as full time
peace-building missionaries with Mennonite Church Canada. In July 2008, PeaceBuilders
Community arranged a dialogue between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the
Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) right within the MILF’s General Headquarters
in Camp Darapanan, Barangay Simuay, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindao. Bishop Efraim Tendero,
National Director of PCEC prayed for the MILF Peace Panel en banc and asked God’s blessings to
the Bangsamoros, declaring them as neighbors and not as enemies.
We are called to love others as neighbors and not to treat others as competitors. In salam-
shalom perspective, people are called to live a communal lifestyle. This communal view of life is
emphasized by Sallie McFague:34
As members of the household called Earth, we are relational beings, defined
by our needs that make us dependent on others by our joys that make us
desire one another. We are not just self-interested individuals; in fact,
according to the ecological-economic picture of reality, we are basically and
primarily communal beings who become unique individuals through help and
response to others.
In the communal lifestyle, the Other is treated as a neighbor to be loved as one's self. The poor
is embraced justly as an integral part of the community.
In contrast, globalism treats the Other as a competitor. In this perspective, one's
relationship is usually determined by the question, "How can I get ahead?" It is a competitive
lifestyle. One's relational environment becomes a rat race. Progress and growth is pictured as
being in the fast lane. The successful ones are described as those who have arrived. The one's
who are left behind—economically, politically, socially—are considered losers. The competitive
lifestyle is considered amoral because it is seen as a necessary, rationalistic approach to
relationships in the context of market capitalism.
34
McFague, p. 110.

Rationalistic approaches to relationships even crept in many religious circles. People would
have to find out what kinds of people go to a certain church with a conscious or subconscious
evaluative factor: "What's in it for me?" Rationalistic decision-making that is aimed to satisfy
one's religious wants is a fact in many Christian congregations in many of our cities and
municipalities. When relationships are viewed based on exchange value (extrinsic value), the
Other's God-given value as one created as "very good," fallen, and yet loved (intrinsic value), is
reduced to being a competitor, if not merely as a commodity. When this happens, the church
may be contributing, wittingly or unwittingly, to the devaluation of human beings— from that of
a person created in God's image to that of a thing born to be used.
For the Jewish listeners of Jesus Christ, the Samaritan was the person who loved his
neighbor. Neighborly love can come from Others whom we do not usually consider to be
neighbors (Lk. 10: 25-37). For the followers of Jesus Christ in an era of globalization, the
neighbor is the Muslim, the Jew, the Buddhist, the religious Other.35
We can give love to them.
We can receive love from them.
Salam-Shalom is harmony with Creation. This is economic-ecological transformation.
Creation, from salam-shalom perspective, is seen as an organic-relational world, not merely as a
mechanical-utilitarian world. In a mechanical-utilitarian view of the world, the emphasis is
exploitation. If one of the parts of the machine-world is not functioning, the tendency is to
replace it. Hence, in an unjust system, the natural resources can be exploited for the present,
and then later, it can be substituted with synthetic products and artificial solutions.
In an organic-relational world, the emphasis is stewardship and loving care of creation. The
biblical story of Creation tells us that "the Lord God formed the mortal (adam) from the dust of
the ground (adamah) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the mortal became a
living being" (Gen. 2:7). These are the dynamic imageries used to give us a grasp of the
beginning of the human race. We all came from the ground. We were named after the ground.
We are one with Creation. We are one humanity! We are all carbon-based material. We are all
35
Jensen, pp. 187-200.

breathed with the same breath of God. That is the story of our Being Alive! When the Creator-
God commanded us to subdue the Earth (Gen. 1:28), it has the idea of l'shamrah—to care for,
to keep, to watch, and to preserve it (Gen. 2:15). Earth-destruction is listed by the Prophet
John as a sin (Rev. 11:18). We are all called by the Creator-God to be stewards of Planet Earth!
Christians must apply the salam-shalom lifestyle in the stewardship of their resources.
The heart of the conflict in Mindanao is about Ancestral Domain.36
The complex debate
surrounding the Ancestral Domain claims of the Lumads (Indigenous Peoples) and the
Bangsamoros is a theological-ethical challenge as far as the Bible is concerned. For many
Christians in the Philippines, this economic-ecological issue seems to be a stumbling block in
their relationship with Muslims in Mindanao, mainly because it challenges our national loyalty
and integrity. But we have to look at this issue beyond the lenses of nationalism.
Consider the voice of a young intellectual Bangsamoro from the Mindanao State University in
Marawi City:
We were a thriving state under the Sultanate of Maguindanao, especially under
Sultan Kudarat—who was our political leader sometime between 1500 and 1600 CE.
The Spaniards were able to conquer Luzon and Visayas; but they did not succeed in
colonizing the Muslims in Mindanao. Then the Spanish Empire became weak. They
lost to the Americans in Mexico and in the Philippines. To make a graceful exit, they
sold the Philippines to the United States and they included Mindanao. We resisted
American colonialism and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost… In the past 100
years, both governments of the United States and the Philippines sent millions of
Christians to Mindanao. Many of our lands were taken by force or through unjust
means. True, our datus sold many of our lands to you Christians. We see that as
hospitality and generosity, for the absolute owner of the land is the Almighty Allah
and our datus are entrusted owners. You saw the inexpensive sale of our lands to
you as gullibility on our part. But the Almighty Allah knows our hearts. Now, all we
seek is to keep the remaining parts of Mindanao where the majority of the
Bangsamoros live. We want to manage the natural resources entrusted to us by the
Almighty Allah. In these remaining lands, our people will practice and enjoy our
rights to self-determination. Where Christians are the majority, you can keep the
land for yourselves. Where Christians and Muslims live together, we need to
negotiate peacefully based on truth and justice. That’s my understanding of what
we’re fighting for. That’s my personal view of what ancestral domain is all about.
36
For an in-depth understanding of the conflict in Mindanao, see Patricio P. Diaz, Understanding Mindanao Conflict,
MindaNews Publications, 2003; Salamat Hashim, The Bangsamoro People’s Struggle Against Oppression and
Colonialism, Mindanaw, Bangsamoro Darul Jihad, October 2001 / Rajab 1422H.

How do we, followers of Jesus Christ, deal with the issue of the Bangsamoro’s claim of
Ancestral Domain? How do we apply the values of the Kingdom of God—such as justice and
peace—as we think of the people and the land? What other biblical-theological lenses through
which we can see the conflict in Mindanao and other land-based conflicts in our country?
Our answer to these questions depends on how we look at Creation as part of our ministry.
God cares for the whole creation, including the human species. The creation is the world that
"God so loved…" (Jn. 3:16). This world (kovsmo") can mean the sum total of everything here
and now, all of humanity, or world-systems. This is also the creation that will ultimately be
reconciled with Christ (Col. 1:15-20). All living things are important to God. God relates with
the Creation. That is why it is important for the church to see Creation as an organic-relational
world. We were created as part of the whole creation. Our shalom—our experience of
wholeness—necessarily includes the whole of creation.
The issue of Ancestral Domain for the Lumads and the Bangsamoros of Mindanao is a
ministry-issue in the Church. Our presence as servants of the Prince of Peace must affirm the
policies of our governments about creation-stewardship when they are consistent with biblical
justice and peace. When the governments’ policies are against the biblical values of justice and
peace, we must critique them as part of our prophetic ministry.
Creation, from shalom perspective, is seen as an organic-relational world, not merely as a
mechanical-utilitarian world. In a mechanical-utilitarian view of the world, the emphasis is
exploitation. If one of the parts of the machine-world is not functioning, the tendency is to
replace it. Hence, in globalism, the natural resources can be exploited for the present, and then
later, it can be substituted with technological products and solutions.
Conclusion
As I conclude, let me reiterate that we are called to be martyr-witnesses (martyría) of the
Good News (euanggélion) of Jesus Christ. This is how each one of us can be an evangelical
witness in a conflicted land and in the face of unjust global realities.

Some of you might say, “I’m not called to go to a peace-building work between Christians
and Muslims. Perhaps that’s your calling. Not all Christians have the same calling.”
True. Not all Christians are called to be peace-builders between Muslims and Christians; the
Muslim-Christian-factor here is the variable, the specific context. The constant, or the general
principle, in this challenge is being a martyr-witness of the Evangel—the Good News. All of us
are called to be martyr-witnesses of the Good News of the Prince of Peace! No exception.
Being a peace-builder does not only apply to armed-conflicts. There are many conflicts
happening in our own individual lives, in our families, in our churches, in our communities, in
our cities, in our provinces, in our nation, and in our world. The root is the spiritual conflict
between the Creator-God and humanity. This root conflict spills over to our relationships;
hence, we are faced with various relational conflicts between family members, friends, church
members, political parties, ethnic groups, etc. I cannot think of a place where human beings
interact without conflict.
We are all called to be agents of peace and transformation in each of our particular contexts
of conflict. We are called to exemplify harmony with God, with our Being, with Others, and with
God’s Creation.
May our lives as martyr-witnesses of Jesus Christ build peace and bring transformation in
this conflicted world of the 21st
Century.
Rev. L. Daniel Pantoja, M.A., Th.M.
In-between chatting with his adult children over the Internet , watching his grandchildren over
the Skype, and connecting with his global community through Facebook, Dann Pantoja serves
as a peacebuilding worker, trekking through the armed-conflict areas in the Philippines. He
works closely with Joji, his lifetime sweetheart. He’s privileged to have a competent team at
PeaceBuilders Community, Inc., a peace and reconciliation resource organization based in
Davao City, Mindanao Island, Republic of the Philippines.
Email: daniel@peacebuilderscommunity.org
Website: www.peacebuilderscommunity.org

PeaceBuilding and Transformation: PAR Theological Framework

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to PeaceBuilding and Transformation: PAR Theological Framework

Recently uploaded

PeaceBuilding and Transformation: PAR Theological Framework