This is hodge podge of Facebook posts -as answer to a question on comparing Israel’s Exodus in Egypt to what we experience at EDSA Revolt of 1986 as a sign of God’s intervention. Later I will clear the narrative -but for now I will just paste all posts here:
-I think you should be more worried on those who wants to bring back the Martial Law years as the good years -we can become a Singapore.? How old … were you in 1983 ? in 1986?
But it is an application of Scripture. Will we then narrow our application to something personal or churchly-and leave out what happens to the naked public square ? Maybe Edsa1 was not salvific as in Exodus or At Calvary. but it is a story of historical liberation from bondage . And to our generation -He did intervene in that history -from the salvation of Ninoy, Colson’s influence on Ninoy-to the non-violent liberation of Feb 25, 1986.
I don’t think my analogy is new. Search thru the (news) archives near the event.
Exodus created a nation wherein before Israel is just a <clan> of Jacob…This did not happen to us Filipinos. But I think you should also look into the historical analogies made by Columbus, the Pilgrims, the 17 states for the Independence of US from Great Britain and the US Civil War. It does not speak of salvation -but of liberation.
And also Cromwell against the Anglicans -and Luther against the Papist.
The Lord our God intervenes in history -not as always clear to us – in all of it..but He does …now we have 30 years to look back and discern His hand on it.
I think … you are 30+ years old and during 1986 -you are just in elementary and thus you don’t have first hand memory on how brutal and Orwellian that dictatorship is.
Except the God who intervenes in history. Unless we don’t believe that God intervened at Edsa 1 anymore. That is more a triumph of Marcossian origin.
Why now ask the limits in application ? Why ? Is it because I mentioned that those rooting for a Marcos -wannabees like DU30 – is like the Israelites who wants to go back to Egypt and its garlic- affected you ? Maybe it should. Dont worry about Liberation Theology – I am Kuyperian <Presbyterian/Cromwellian>. The comparison is about bondage ,liberation, Intervention and now those who wants to turn back the time – throwing the gains of freedom and wants the hard taskmasters of Martial Rule.
Like I said …bondage , deliverance by Divine intervention, and then the next generation forgetting this deliverance and wanting to go back to Egypt. Why is it off tangent ? Because the <majority of the> people God used are Catholics? Don’t forget that the period of 1980s was when Born Again Christians boomed…and DZAS was almost chosen as Radyo Bandido and that PCEC Head then Atty. Jun Vencer was much for non-violent protest. I know -I was part of a seminar where the position paper of PCEC was discussed. Evangelicals are weary of politicians with left-leanings are being used by Commnists then-and they should be -i.e. why God used other methods.
Don’t hide your preference for DU30 …. . You know my preference.. <I am for Mar Roxas> and this is both coloring why you don’t want me to apply that Scripture to this situation -and why I am applying it. And as for Liberation Theology – I am more on the Presbyterian/ Theonomy view of the revolution of the ‘lesser magistrates’ <Calvin’s view in the Institutes> which was used by Cromwell,, the Huguenots, the Americans in their Independence revolution. and Kuyper alliance with Catholics -and Barth’s against Hitler and his Nazis.
The questioner made a reference to : Martial Law as being constitutional …Martial rule in the Philippines was backed by U.S. in the context of Cold War….we are not even under forced labor- and another made a response -“Martial Law was not constitutional but also absolute. That is why Marcos was a dictator and his reign was also absolute. The then Pres.Marcos suspended the 1935 Constitution, dissolves the Congress and assumed absolute powers and issued Proclamation 1081 imposing Martial Law.” -this response is correct and to add he created another constitution afterwards to consolidate his constitutional parliamentary authoritarianism -where initially Marcos is both President and Prime Minister (eventually it was the technocrat -Cesar Virata became the Prime Minister)
Another made this response : It is not only oppression but of tortures, extra-judicial killings of thousands victims which are documented and incomparable to succeeding presidents after him and worse than Egypt’s force labor…the imposition of Martial Law was unconstitutional because it was done unilaterally and made to look that situations were already chaotic. As Enrile confesses to fake ambush as prelude to martial law…Actually, there were many law luminaries who challenge its constitutionality that time and what Marcos did was to change the 1935 with the new 1973 to legitimize martial law… that is why we have now the 1987 Constitution as that safeguards us from the repeat of martial law regime. That it cannot be done unilaterally anymore but also by Supreme Court and Congress.
From the official Gazette of the Government : After the declaration and imposition of Martial Law, citizens would still go on to challenge the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1081. Those arrested filed petitions for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. But Marcos, who had originally announced that Martial Law would not supersede the 1935 Constitution, engineered the replacement of the constitution with a new one. On March 31, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its final decision in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, which essentially validated the 1973 Constitution. This would be the final legitimizing decision with on the constitutionality of Martial Law: in G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions for habeas corpus by ruling that Martial Law was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and that, furthermore, the court had already deemed the 1973 Constitution in full force and effect, replacing the 1935 Constitution.
The questioner mentioned something – that I am seeing more than their weak and feeble eyes can see …and he implied that my application is not the faithful reading and application of a text -so my response is – As you can see your analysis also betrays your bias on reading our historical context and the text itself.
And in our FB message – …. I can back down now. Forget it .politics and hermeneutics are incendiary ingredients. But we do need a framework to use. But i don’t know anyone who has it now . We are too close to the issues. I don’t discuss my political applications n in the pulpit like when in the time of Erap and Eddie Villanueva .I do make it known though in the blogs and social media.I am not a pastor nor an officer in any local church anymore.
Then I mentioned my rule in applying Scriptures in past concrete historical situation – And I still stand that throughout church history – Christians applied the Exodus deliverance motif to their concrete situation and were rewarded by the intervention of God. Applications does not required that every detail of the original redemptive -historical revelation-event should be there.
It does not mean that every action and motives in the historical situation be legitimate or sacro-sanctum – but it only need to be in consonance to general motif of the original revelation. I don’t believe in agnosticism or conservatism in application to historical situation especially when so many other witnesses or observers points in the historical situation -to be signs of God’s intervention.