SANIB-SINAG 4  May-June 1998
 3.3    
Synergism of the Spirit:
The Loaves and Fishes Miracle
& the "Ninoy Experience"
By Ren Garcia Jr.
_____________________________________________________________

 
(Before the Easter weekend (1998), Saniblakas Promotions faxed out to various institutions, organizations and individuals a mini-poster developing the idea of synergism being behind the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. Two months earlier, a mini-poster was faxed out saying the people's victory against the dictatorhip was a "synergism success story." Mr. Garcia, a business consultant and NGO worker, directly inspired the mini-poster on the miracle. Much earlier, or about 15 years ago, he came out with photocopies of a monograph presenting an alternative interpretation of that Gospel story and also tying it up to the anti-dictatorship struggle right after the assassination of returning former Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. He uses the term "Ninoy Experience" to refer to the 12-hour mammoth funeral procession and the general groundswell of open protest in the wake of that killing. Sanib-Sinag is proud to share with its readers a substantial excerpt of that 1983 monograph.) 

IT WAS NEAR the time of Passover, the great Jewish festival. Raising His eyes and seeing a large crowd coming towards Him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we going to buy bread to feed these people?" This He said to test him; Jesus Himself knew what He meant to do. Philip replied, "Two hundred dinarii would not buy enough bread for all of them to have a little." One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to Him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes; but what is that among to many?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." There was plenty of grass there, so the men sat down, about five thousand of them. Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to the people as they sat there. He did the same with the fishes, and they had as much as they wanted. When everyone had had enough, He said to His disciples, "Collect the pieces left over, so that nothing may be lost." This they did, and filled twelve baskets with the pieces left uneaten of the five barley loaves.

When the people saw the sign Jesus had performed, the word went around, "Surely this must be the prophet that was to come into the world." Jesus, aware that they meant to come and seize Him to proclaim Him king, withdrew again to the hills by Himself.

(From the Gospel of John 5:6-15)

 THE MOST COMMON interpretation of this miracle has been that Jesus physically multiplied the five loaves and two fishes and miraculously generated enough loaves and fishes to feed five thousand people more than adequately, leaving twelve baskets of leftovers.

        There is one interpretation which explains the event not less miraculously, but presenting it as a miracle of a different order. I do not know if this interpretation carries any ecclesiastical imprimatur.

        The interpretation first posits a logical assumption. Many of the people who left their places of work and their residences to follow this man of miracles, this hero who would unite his people and form a strong opposition against the Roman despots and their Jewish cronies, must have individually brought some provisions with them, perhaps with a little more than what one person would consume since it was a trek of uncertain length. Through the long march while listening to this hero talk about brotherly concern (and probably also reconciliation), the people would get hungrier as the hours passed but none would touch his provisions because

        1) one was not in the habit of sharing one's resources and one was inhibited
            with total strangers, and

        2) it would be an embarrassment, in the face of all the talk on brotherly
            concern, to eat one's fill and be unable to share with one's neighbors
            (one's resources were meager, after all, and inadequate for the situation).

    Then the miracle happens. The hero brings out, clearly intending to feed the multitude of five thousand, a ridiculously inadequate stock of five loaves and two fishes. Following his example, those who were keeping their provisions out of sight bring out individually their equally inadequate and unheroic resources. And, behold, there are enough loaves and fishes for everybody, even for the shortsighted who did not bring and the poor who could not afford to, with 12 baskets left over.

The miracle in this interpretation, is entirely different from the mere suspension of physical laws in the more common interpretation. The miracle consists in

THE NINOY EXPERIENCE is a miracle of loaves and fishes.  For a long time now, the vast majority of us have been laboring under the old habit of non-involvement, inhibited by our fears of possible detention or some form of reprisal from any public display of dissent (no matter how righteous or demanded by our particular situation). Or non-involvement simply because any involvement is futile.

        We have been so aware of the meagerness of our personal resources that we can only see our inadequacies to correct our situations, preferring to endure our hunger for a little more free speech, a little more sense in the management of our national resources, and all the ordinary things we now have to go to other countries for. We have been saying to ourselves: I have a wife and two kids; my meager moral and material resources are enough only to carry these responsibilities; I personally cannot do anything else about the situation; I will endure my hunger. Some other people have been fortunate enough to be able to say to themselves: True, I have more than enough material resources for myself and my family and this makes the situation somewhat tolerable; but even if the situation were intolerable, I nevertheless do not have the moral resources to withstand detention or any other form of reprisal.

        Then THE NINOY EXPERIENCE happens. Ninoy comes home, clearly to defy the absolute power of the regime and its threats. Matched against this absolute power, Ninoy's resources are meager. With a bullet in his head, his bullet-proof vest proves ridiculously inadequate.

        With the events after his death, Ninoy's act of dissent becomes as the five loaves and two fishes for the five thousand.

        Following his example, the multitudes (who were keeping their meager resources for dissent quiet and out of sight) brought out individually their own acts of dissent. The result was miraculous in its proportions. Without any public appeal for support, with mass media deliberately downplaying developments, with hardly any mass organizing and despite a thunderstorm, there was a total and instantaneous breakdown of old habits and inhibitions against involvement, a spontanerous suspension of disbelief in the adequacy of one's meager resources, a spontaneous fusion of many wills into one; poor, middle class, rich; professionals, government employees, students; the pregnant, the blind, the deafmute; everybody participating, if not directly in the march, in their homes and offices listening to Radio Veritas, asking everybody else what the progress of the funeral procession had been. The vast silent majority miraculously found its voice and spoke loud and twelve hours long. The five loaves and two fishes became more than enough, with plenty left over.

        Affection for Ninoy could not have done this all, though clearly there was great affection. What made this event miraculous in its proportions was that the paying of last respects became an act of dissent. The black armband, the yellow ribbon, the orderly and endless lining up to view the body, the long and tortuous funeral procession through rain and heat, all said: We defy the absolute power of the regime that condemned this man as a subversive and a murderer; the subversive and the murderer is the regime; this man could not be against the people's interests as the judgements against him declare; it is the regime who is against the people's interests; this is a public act of dissent.

        If Ninoy were alive and had called on housewives, government employees, professionals, residents of exclusive and middle-class subdivisions, the clergy and the students to conduct a march through the heart of Manila from dawn to dusk as a public act of dissent, he would never have been able to muster such a multitude that that the powerful military is practically rendered inoperative. All he might have pulled would be the clergy and the students. And the march would not last 12 hours.

(In the succeeding one page and a half of his monograph, Ren gives a 15-item list of specific mobilization, coordination and logistical requirements to mount an equivalent demonstration as a planned and organized event with zero staffing and zero budget. We have excluded only this part.)

        If you were given this task, you would say: only a miracle can do it.

        You might even say: if I were Commander-in-Chief, had complete command over the Army, Air Force, Navy, PC, Integrated National Police, and declared martial law, I still couldn't do it.

        But the task was accomplished, exactly as prescribed (in the 15-item list).

        It was accomplished entirely from meager resources. Ninoy's solitary act of dissent. The people, individually bringing out each one's own act of dissent from each one's own meager resources. Nobody defining for anybody What, How, How Much. Each one to his own capacity: an eight-year-old boy drawing a black and yellow flag and waving it during the procession, a housewife cutting up an old black skirt for use as armbands because the stores had run out of black ribbons, a restaurant owner giving free sandwiches and softdrinks to marchers as they pass by, somebody with a hose giving water for drinking and for the overheating radiators, motorists giving rides to rain-soaked unknown marchers with sore feet (and never mind the seat covers), others simply walking, simply standing by, simply waiting.

Meager does not necessarily mean inadequate.

        No organization does not necessarily mean disorganized.

        No leadership does not necessarily mean disunited.

        I guess one of the reasons why the first interpretation of the miracle of loaves and fishes finds wider acceptance is because we, by nature and by habit, tend to look to one person, a miracle-worker, a hero, who will be able to do everything for us: from multiplying five loaves and two fishes to uniting the opposition, to solving the balance of payments problem, to managing the economic recovery, to providing jobs, to maintaining control for peace and order, to providing food and shelter enough for everybody. It is, after all, easier this way.

        We look at our meager resources and the gravity of our problems. And we say to ourselves: I cannot do anything. So, let us look for a miracle-worker, a hero.

        The Gospel of John on the five loaves and two fishes closes with a recount of the people coming after Jesus to make Him king to unite the opposition and replace the regime. It finally ends with the people not being able to find Jesus.

        And it took the Jews nearly 2,000 years to become fully a Nation.

        Ninoy is no longer with us. And we do not have 2,000 years to become finally a nation.

  
 
< Back to the opening window