The Church and Race Relations

One of the many challenges that the Christian Church has been faced with in a very intensive way in recent times is that of race relations.  This is not to say that this has not been an issue in the past. Any good student of both secular and Church history knows that this issue is nothing new.  As a matter of fact, the New Testament itself makes reference to issues of discrimination based on ethnicity and race.  The one situation is where the Greek members of the first century Church lodged a complaint that their widows were not being as well taken care of and provided for as were the Jewish members of the Church.  The other situation was where God gave Peter ( a Jew turned Christian) a vision of unclean meats descending from heaven and commanding him to eat them.  After his initial resistance in which he stated that he did not eat anything unclean, God told him not to classify anything as unclean that God had cleansed.  This vision was given to Peter in preparation for his encounter with Cornelius, a Gentile affiliated with the Roman Army.  The Apostle Paul on one occasion had to call Peter to task for playing both sides of the fence with Jews and Gentiles, associating with one group while disassociating from the other, at different times. 

So we ask, then, how can the Church confront a social ill which exists within its very ranks?  How can the Church address the issue of societal racism, when racism exists within the very life of the Church itself?  How can the Church point to the issues of societal racism, when throughout its very own history, the Church has functioned as a racist institution?

The issues that have brought racism to the surface again in recent times have been that of the relationship between the African American and Latino communities on the one hand, and law enforcement on the other.  Caucasian police officers have shot and killed unarmed African Americans, and conversely, in recent times, an African American shot and killed two police officers, neither of which by the way, was Caucasian. 

Dare we as a Christian community fall into the trap of " the pot calling the kettle black?"  How can we confront something which is a very part of our institutional fabric?

While there are no easy answers to these questions, I propose the following steps (consider them baby steps or giant steps, as you wish) for the Christian community to deal with this matter.

1.  Affirm our oneness in Christ.  I do not mean this as a platitude or as a slogan.  What I mean by this is that we have to acknowledge that the reconciling acts of God in Christ were for the whole world, Gentile and Jew, African American and Caucasian, Asian, Latino, Native American, etc., and not just for a select ethnic, national, or racial group.  "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself," says the Apostle Paul.  We have to break down and dismantle any structures of racism which exist in our faith community.  We must also address individual racist attitudes that are rampant within the membership of the Church.  We have to ask ourselves, if, as individuals we have, if nothing else, subconscious and unintentional racist attitudes that we may not even be aware of.  For example,  I will admit that due to television stereotypes of certain ethnic or national groups involved in crime. for sometime I tended to believe that all Italians must have some type of affiliation with the Mafia or that all Irish men were either all drunkards, or had a history of having many drunkards in their families.  Again, these were subconscious attitudes due to the influence of social stereotyping.

2.  Unmask, identify, denounce (prophetically speaking) the pervasive racism which permeates society, especially here in the good ole U.S.A, "land of the free and home of the brave."  We need to call a spade a spade, regardless of whether it takes us out of our individual comfort zones. 

3.  Do everything in our power to dismantle the racist structures which are alive and well in our social institutions, church, the public school system (the school to prison pipeline), law enforcement, housing market, etc.  A prophetic message calls for prophetic action.  We need to learn to "pray with our legs," in other words, add action to our speeches.  This should not be taken as "anti-church, anti-school, anti-law enforcement," etc. as such, but rather calls for a revamping of these social entities so that they can reflect full equality and fully applied justice.

I invite you, the reader to comment on this essay.  Feel free to BYOV (Bring Your Own View) and tell us how you think we as a Christian community can confront and deal with the issue of racism.
Your comments will be very helpful.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

One of the many reasons why we find rejection of the Christian faith is because each Christian community claims something different about the person that they claim to be the founder of their faith and the incarnation of God as well. They each clam to have the true identity and picture of who Jesus was and is today.  These disputes are as old as the Christian religion itself.  When we read the Gospel accounts, we find different views of    Jesus  depending on which audience the Gospel writer is addressing. In John's Gospel account and the letters of John a the end of the New Testament, we find that the early Church in the first century was contending with the various view of Jesus that were prevalent at the time.  In the fourth century, there were many debates and conflicts taking place about the being and nature of Jesus.Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries threatened to tear the Church apart through the arguments and debates which took place relative to the person of Jesus. Some said that Jesus was the incarnate God.  Others said that Jesus was an artificial imitation of God, slightly higher than angels and humans, but inferior to God.  Others, yet, claimed that Jesus had the two natures (divine and human) blended into one nature.

 

In later centuries, the image of Jesus that was presented by the Church was that of one who resembled those in power.  In Euro-America, even to this day, Jesus came to be depicted as a blonde hair, blue-eyed Jesus, which in essence, was a Jesus reflective of the white middle class and the white-power structure in Euro-America.  In some of the hymns (for example, "Fairest Lord Jesus), it was assumed that Jesus looked more European or American than Asian or African.  In the white Protestant churches in the U.S.A. Jesus is painted or depicted as white, and many members of these churches assume that the depictions and paintings are "Gospel truth."  As a matter of fact, it was and is thought today, that the paintings and depictions of Jesus as Caucasian corresponds more to the Gospel narratives that we find written in the New Testament.

 

Because of the advent of Liberation Theology in Latin America, and other countries of the so-called Third World, Jesus is now depicted in those countries in images of people of those nationalities. In other words,  Jesus is depicted as black in Africa, and among people of African descent in different nations, including the U.S.A. In Asia, He would be depicted as looking like Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc.  Furthermore, because of Liberation Theology's emphasis on social class, Jesus would be depicted as a poor person who was a social prophet denouncing oppression.  This image would also be present in the so-called "Jesus Seminar" movement of the late 1980's and 1990's.  This movement would project a Jesus who was disillusioned with His own aspirations and goals relative to the future of humanity and the reign of God.

 

There are those who might attempt resolving this problem by quoting Scripture. This, however, does not solve the problem completely for the reasons already mentioned, i.e. that even in Scripture we find Jesus presented in various images, depending on the audience addressed and the issue involved.

One theologian back in the 1960's stated that it wasn't a question of determining what Jesus was like in the first century, but rather asking who is for us today what Jesus was for the people of His time?

 

So then, we go back to square one.  Will the real Jesus please stand up?  Rather than propose my physical image of what Jesus looked like or what His color was, I would rather state that for me Jesus (independent of any of these other factors) was sent by God into the world to liberate us from the power of individual and systemic sin.   To me, Jesus's mission is far more important that his ethncity, nationality, or race. 

 

Can you share with us who the real Jesus is for you?  Is it the Jesus who is aligned and linked with the power structures of oppression?  Is Jesus linked with those social groups who are oppressed? Or is Jesus "neutral," not really caring one way or the other about those actions and policies that dehumanize people?  Please give us your image of  Jesus.

 

Grace and peace,

 

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Which Lives Matter?

In the aftermath of the shooting of unarmed African Americans by police officers, as well as the shooting of police officers by African Americans and/or Latinos, we are now being constantly bombarded by the sayings of "Black lives matter," and "All lives matter."  It is not my purpose here to put one paradigm against the other, but rather to have us look at the worth of human dignity and lives in a broader context.  The questions for us would be the following:

1.  Whose lives matter the most?

2.  How do we go about determining whose lives matter the most?

3.  Who made us God that we should be so arrogant as to think that we have a right to determine the value of one life vs. another?

I will leave it up to you, the reader, to answer those questions in your own way and to draw your own conclusions regarding these vital matters.

It is this writer's position that no one individual or corporate entity is the final authority on whose life matters the most.  The final determination lies with God the Creator, independent of how you perceive Her/him and independent of what your faith community affiliation/or lack thereof is. 

God is the author and creator of life, and only God can determine and authenticate the value of life. I am personally opposed to the notion that we can place value on the lives of people based on class, gender, or ethnicity and race.  I am further opposed to the notion that the value of life is contingent on the type of employment that one is engaged in, and in this particular case, so-called "law enforcement."  When the life of an unarmed African American is taken by "law enforcement," the tendency is to bring up that person's alleged criminal history, whether proven or not.  But when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, the reaction is to downplay or deny that person's alleged criminal history and abuse of power.  Furthermore, when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, there is the tendency to react as if that person's life is of more intrinsic worth than any one else's.  We are very inconsistent in weighing the scales of the value of life.

In a recent thread of communications that I have been engaged in on Facebook, it has been said that "RESPECT" is the key to addressing these issues and solving these problems.  While I do agree that "RESPECT" is necessary and vital, we must careful not to allow the concept of "RESPECT" to become a mere platitude or slogan which is not supported by concrete action.  "RESPECT" has to be mutual between the community and law enforcement.  "RESPECT" entails the uncomfortable task of engaging in the combat against social injustice.  This task requires us to do whatever is in our power to dismantle the structures of injustice.  Anything short of this is just rhetorical conversation and "hot air."  This engagement will demonstrate that we truly believe that ALL lives matter.  Please feel free to comment and contribute your perspectives on both the subject and this above essay. Dialogue is important for our communities to move forward in peace and reconciliation.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology

Dear friends:

For those of you who have not heard this through Facebook or any other means, I want to share with you the good news that with the help of God, the moral support of my wife Ruth and my children Geoffrey, Jennica, and Jessica, and the stimulation and energy that I have received from knowing and interacting with you, that after two years of reading, research, and writing, I have finally completed my book "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology.  The book focuses on the migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland U.S.A, the issues that affect us here, and the roles (both negative and positive) that religion has played in the life of the Puerto Rican-American community.  The next step is publication.  I am now in the process of seeking out prospective publishing houses.  If any of you know of any one that would be interested in publishing this work, please do not hesitate to let me know.  I am so grateful for having all of you in my life.

Grace and peace,

Juan Ayala-Carmona

The Season of Advent: Signs of Hope

For the Jewish community prior to the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth, there was a sense of both hope and despair.  The prophets of God made every attempt to encourage the people of Israel to remain steadfast in their hope that oppression by their enemies would cease for once and for all, and that they as a nation would ascend to a position of power and importance.  There is no doubt that many of them misinterpreted this hope for a type of Jewish imperialism.

On the other hand, there were those who despaired.  They had been hearing messages of consolation and hope for decades, and what they experienced was a vicious cycle of temporary spiritual revival and moral relapse.  Some of their kings would make every attempt to do the right thing in maintaining a monotheistic faith, while others would drag the nation down the road of polytheism.
Whenever they heard the prophets predict a future of restoration, they would respond with doubt and with cynicism.  They would even make fun of the prophets.

In the Christian community we have the same dynamic.  During the Season of the Advent, in which the Church prepares for the return of its Lord, we hear messages of hope, peace, and reconciliation. But at the same time we live with the reality of ethnic/racial, gender, and class barriers which need to be surmounted.  We also hear on a daily basis new of international conflict.  Subsequently, we can't help but wonder if we are deluding ourselves into thinking that justice and peace will finally prevail.

Today, December 17, 2014 is a very special day in the history of international relations.  It is also a very special day for the Church of Jesus the Christ as it hope against hope during the Season of the Advent.  As we continue to hold out hope for peace in the midst of despair, the President of the United States, Barack Obama makes an announcement that takes many people by pleasant surprise, and no doubt, angers others.  After an agreement relative to a prisoner swap, President Obama announced that the United States and Cuba would move to end their acrimony of over fifty years. He indicated that "we cannot continue to do the same thing for over a decade and expect different results. We have learned that isolation is not the answer and does not work."

I find it interesting that talks about reestablishing diplomatic relationships between the countries, overshadowed talks about ending the embargo that was imposed on the people of Cuba in the decade of the 1960's.  But it appears that reestablishing diplomatic relationships presupposes ending the embargo, which in essence, served no logical purpose other than to strengthen the Cuban regime under Presidents Fidel and Raul Castro.

This latest move can be interpreted in a variety of ways.  Some may wonder if the recent revelations that the CIA not only knew, but also encouraged and participated in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay put the government of the USA to shame and left them with no alternative than to move in a different direction.  Others may say that President Obama is taking the position that "I am the President, I am in charge, and the hell with what you Republicans and other obstinate people think, I am moving forward."  Others may think that the President was "caving in" to certain interests groups in the Latino community in the U.S.A., including Cubans-Americans who realized that they had no vested interest in the U.S.A maintaining a strangulating hold on their families back home.

Undoubtedly, all of the above-mentioned factors played a role in these decisions, albeit a small one. However, there is one element that should not be overlooked in this, and it is the role that the communities of faith have played.  For decades many Christian leaders and churches sponsored exchanges between Cuba and the United States, though these exchanges were limited.  The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam advocated for peaceful coexistence. In the most recent conversations, the Pope played a very important role in initiating them.

While we cannot afford to think that we will totally "kiss and make up," or that everything will be "honky dory," this announcement is a sign of hope.  In the community of faith, we must appreciate any concrete action taken to establish ties of harmony and peace between our country and other nations.  Truly, the Season of Advent, is a Season of hope for the future in terms of international relations and also for social affairs as we see signs that point to the coming universal reign of God. In the midst of despair, steps are being taken to move in the right direction.  Even so, come Lord Jesus.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Please feel free to comment.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Ethics of Sexuality

Though I have written about this issue before, I would like to invite the readers of this brief essay to reconsider it.  I do so for two reasons.  First, in my previous writings, I addressed a limited number of people, primarily through eblast.  Now through this blog site, and the subsequent postings on Facebook, it is possible for a larger number of people to read, and participate, by responding to these postings.  Second, because the Church is constantly faced with the temptation to adjust its moral standards to those of secular society, those of us who are members of Christ's Church find ourselves constantly reevaluating our positions on sexuality and in many cases, asking questions which few, if any, would have thought of asking long ago.

We begin, then, by posing the question, what should be the criteria or source for our sexual ethics?
Should our ethics be rooted in Scripture, i.e. be based on "what the Bible says?"  Should they be based on the historical traditions of the Church?  Should they be based on what is "popular" in today's society?  Should they based on what one pastor in the 1960's called a "pragmatic model?"

As a Minister of the Gospel, and as a theologian, I will be the first to admit that this is a very complex subject.  It is not as simple of just falling back on the slogan of "the Bible says." Nor is it as simple as engaging in a decontextualized and superficial reading of Scripture.  As a Bible teacher of fourty-seven years, I've had to revise my thinking on several issues.  The major reason for this, is because further contextual reading of Scripture, along with study of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek), have forced me to examine "what the Bible says" in a different light. By this, I do not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that I read the Bible in order to accommodate it to what is popular in today's society.  Quite the contrary is true.  My own reading of the Bible involves studying the socio-cultural context from which the Scriptures emerged, asking what they meant at the time they were written, and how they can be applied today.  My reading has also involved examining the variety of theological perspectives which exist in the body of the text itself.

I propose that sexual ethics, just like the ethics of war and peace, death and life, etc. need to be considered in the light of how Scripture, tradition, experience, and the different branches of human knowledge (humanities, natural sciences, social sciences) interact with each other.  To attempt constructing an ethical system, and for that matter, a theological system, which leaves out any of these elements, is to, in essence, set ourselves up for a faulty ethical and theological enterprise. To divorce "what the Bible says" from tradition, experience and the different branches of human knowledge, is to do a grave injustice to the biblical message.  The Bible was produced and written in a particular cultural matrix, and therefore should be examined in the light of such.  It does not serve any logical purpose to limit ourselves to quoting Scriptures.  Anyone, including a child, can do that.

If Scripture, then, is to be used as a source for establishing sexual ethics, we must bear in mind, as I wrote in a recent essay, that the Scripture is not an end in and of itself.  The main role of Scripture is to serve as a witness to the Word of God, which is none other than Jesus the Christ.  Subsequently, since Jesus is the Word of God, and according to the Christian tradition, the finality of God's revelation to humankind, we need to ask ourselves how would Jesus respond to the various issues and perspectives on human sexuality.  If Jesus were living as a human being in the twenty-first century, would His position on matters such as masturbation, pre-marital sex, extra-marital affairs, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and common-law marriage be identical to the positions which many individual Christians and churches take today? Would He be a Torah-thomping Jew going around condemning people who engage in these things?  Would He be a literalist when approaching and reading the Torah? Would He be a Jewish fundamentalist?

Though I cannot say with precision how Jesus would respond to issues of sexuality in our time, I suspect that He would not have the same approach that we have in the churches and other communities of faith in modern times.  Given how the institution of marriage in the Middle East (arranged marriages) functioned, and considering that many of the laws governing sexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) favored the man over the woman, and taking into account that even in the community of Israel, slaves were considered the property of their masters, and women the property of their husbands,  I do not see a twenty-first century Jesus operating in that mode.  When we also consider that sexual relations in those days, by and large, favored physical gratification, especially for the man, and focused very little, if at all, on mutual affirmation between the two partners,  that Jesus would be emphasizing the externals of sexuality as opposed to the internal dynamics of commitment, love, and tenderness, as described in the Song of Solomon.

I end this essay by saying that Jesus is the ultimate source of our sexual ethics. In making decisions as to how we are to act and engage in sexual and partnering relationships, we operate with the question of "What would Jesus do?"  I now invite you to contribute to this discussion by telling us what you think Jesus would do and how He would approach the various issues regarding sexuality if He were living in the twenty-first century.  Share with us how Jesus is the well-spring of your ethical life and moral conduct in both the Church and society.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Advent Season: Interrogation Tactics vs. the Church

Recently, it has come to light that brutal and inhumane tactics were used to coerce confessions on the part of alleged and suspected terrorists.  Issues of waterboarding and other forms of torture were reported to have been used.  Subsequently, we have been placed on "high alert" for fear that these revelations will result in either intense domestic uprisings and intensification of "terrorism" by foreign elements.

It is amazing that some would justify these brutal actions on the grounds that they "saved lives," and averted further "terrorism."  History repeats itself in that we see once and again that justification will be offered for inhumanity and animalistic treatment of other human beings.

What does the Church of Jesus Christ have to say about this?  Quite frankly, the Church is in a difficult position because it has its own history of justifying genocide and torture in the "name of Christ."  The Church as at times justified witch hunts, the genocide of indigenous people, the institution of chattel slavery, and even the colonization of certain lands, so that the inhabitants of those lands can be "gained for Christ."

My question is as a Christian minister and theologian, how is it that in an age of "advanced civilization and knowledge" that we supposedly have today, we can even think of rationalizing and justifying such brutal acts, and then on top of that,  justify these immoral actions theologically speaking?  Are we as a church a bipolar entity?

As a member of the Church of Jesus the Christ, I submit that it is our role to prophetically denounce these tactics. We cannot subscribe to the notion of "the end justifies the means" as a manner of dismissing the immorality of these actions.  It is also our call to denounce any attempt to justify these actions on whatever grounds social and political institutions want to make their arguments.

As we continue the Advent Season in preparation for the coming of our Lord, I would invite you to consider ways in which we as the Body of Christ can exercise our prophetic role in opposing inhumanity and injustice in all its forms.   Please respond to this by giving your opinion on the subject, and what an appropriate Christians response would be from your perspective.

The King is coming.  Peace, Shalom Aleichem, Asalaam-alaikum

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Advent Season: Should Christians participate in the Pledge of Allegiance?

We have entered the time of year referred to in the Christian calendar as the Advent Season.  This season focuses on two important moments in history.  First, it recalls the period of time when the Jewish community was long awaiting the coming of the Messiah.  Having experienced slavery, oppression, and captivity throughout their history, their hope for a deliverer became more intense.
The prophetic writings in the Hebrew Scriptures gave them a sense of optimism that history as they knew and experienced it was coming to a close. 

The other important moment is that of the Christian community preparing for the return of Jesus who had already lived on the earth for a period of over thirty years.  Jesus had promised His disciples that He would return to earth.  He never specified any particular moment for this to occur.  He even went as far as saying that He Himself did not know the day or the hour of His return.  But Christians since the first century have been preparing for His return.

In the spirit of the Advent Season, I draw your attention to an important question.  The question applies to Christians in general, spread throughout the world, and more specifically to Christians living in America, a country which many Christians naively believe was founded on Christian principles, and values.
This question is important, because for us as Christians, we expect the coming of He who is not only God's chosen Messiah, but also the coming ruler of the entire world, and it generates questions of ultimate allegiance and fidelity.

The question is should Christians participate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the USA, or for that matter of any other nation?  The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge.  Ironically enough, Bellamy was an ordained Baptist minister.  I am not sure if he was able to foresee the manner in which American patriotism would be equated with the Christian Gospel.  In fact, I'm not even sure that this was his intention when he wrote the Pledge.

This writer (yours truly) respectfully submits that to pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation is a form of idolatry.  There mere fact that the allegiance is given to an inanimate object such as a rag with different colors (stars and stripes) takes away the focus of what should be our true allegiance. I know that some people will submit or argue that the Pledge of Allegiance is a "sign of respect" for the nation. However, I and I'm sure other Christian believers, are persuaded that the best way to show respect for the country is by abiding by their laws to the extent that the laws do not conflict with our beliefs and practices as a Christian community.  In other words, we abide by the laws as long as they do not require us to do something which is contrary to a higher law, i.e. the law of God.

The other problem with the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance (at least from a USA standpoint) is that it is linked with blind patriotism, which leads those who practice the Pledge to believe that God is on the side of America and against everyone else who does not believe the way we do. It is almost like saying that God is American and identifies with the ethos and the values of the American nation. This amounts to what one scholar referred to as "civil religion." 

What, or who, then, should we Christians in America be pledging their allegiance to?  This writer strongly believes that our allegiance should be exclusively to Jesus the Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.  We are reminded in the Scriptures time after time, that God will not share His glory  with any one.  Since we believe that Jesus is God incarnated, we are called to pledge our allegiance to Him and not to share that allegiance with any one or anything else.  All other commitments that we make on earth with fellow-humans is secondary and subordinate to the allegiance of our Lord
and Savior.

As we continue in the spirit of the Advent Season, let us remember that it is our Lord whom we are waiting for, and not any human system or government that requires our allegiance or fidelity.  In the final book of the Bible we are reminded that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.

Our allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth supersedes all other earthly allegiances.  God has given Him a name which is above every other name, so that at the Name of Jesus the Christ, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord to the glory of God.

To God in Christ be the glory, now and forever. Amen!

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Feel free to comment. Your contributions are welcome.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Nature of Biblical Authority

In this essay, I will cover a topic which I have touched on in the past, but which I wish to make available to a wider audience.  This issue is a very sensitive one for members of the community of faith, especially for Church members who hold to different views and who have strong feelings about this delicate topic.

The reason why I am revisiting this topic, is because we live in a time when people struggle with the issue as to who or what is the ultimate authority that we should subscribe to in order to believe the right things, and also in order to live an ethics or morality based life.  We live in a time when relativism prevails, and in which people hold to the view that "whatever is right and wrong for you, might no necessarily be right and wrong for me."  This relativism, then, translates into the potential for self-absorption and narcissism, and the notion of let everyone "do their own thing."  It is very reminiscent of biblical times, when the writers inform us that each one did what was right in their own eyes.

Some people like structure because it makes them feel psychologically secure.  Others resent structure because they feel suppressed, and that is an intrusion in their private lives.  I would like to invite you to consider and comment on how you see biblical authority either in your own life or in the life of the community as a whole.

As I point out in my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective," (Colgate Rochester Divinity School,  1982), the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition have been considered the primary source of faith and practice for both Jews and Christians. In spite of the various views of Scripture that scholars and theologians hold to, this body of writing has been the foundation which informs the beliefs and practices of those who believe in its message.

The first question, then, that we can pose is, does the Bible claim authority?  In both Old and New Testaments, there is an implicit claim to more than human authority, and in several places, this claim finds direct and open expression.  We are told, for example, that Moses received from God both the moral law and also more detailed commandments.  These facts are pointed out by G. W. Bromiley in an article "The Authority of Scripture" included in the New Bible Commentary.

Bromiley then includes the arguments that are made by some that in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf of the message delivered and not on behalf of the written record when the prophets and Jesus made the claim to be speaking on behalf of God.  Bromiley debunks this argument by pointing out that Jesus quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testament throughout the course of His life and ministry. He also adds that the witness of the Apostles to the authority of the written record is clear.

The Bible does lay serious claim to its divine origin, status, and authority.  It is stated that its message is of God.  It traces its authority through the human writings to God as the primary author. It accepts the supernatural both in prophetic/apostolic utterances and in historical events.  It makes no artificial distinction between the inward content of the written Word and its outward form.  The message of the Bible challenges us directly to either faith or unbelief.  In our approach to the Scriptures, other considerations may obtrude, but the basic challenge cannot be ignored.

The next question to be considered is, from where or from whom does the Bible derive its authority? This is a very important question, because if we are to claim and believe that the Bible is the "final court of appeal" for faith and practice, we must ask on what grounds the Bible makes that claim.

My response would be that the authority of Scripture is derivative and not inherent.  In other words, the Bible is not an authority in and of itself.  If we were to treat it as such, we would fall into the danger of bibliolatry, i.e worship of the Bible.  The Scripture derives its authority from the one who inspired its writing, i.e. God. 

If the authority of Scripture, then, goes over and beyond the Scripture itself, then we find ourselves in the position of theologian Karl Barth who said that "the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather a witness to the Word, who is Jesus."  While many believers would be upset with Barth's position, no one can deny that it is a healthy one.  Barth rightly pointed out that until Scripture functions as a witness to the living Word (Jesus the Christ), it is a book like any other book on a shelf. I would join Barth and other believers who acknowledge the Scripture not as revelation in and of itself, but rather a written witness to God's self-disclosure in history and through Christ.

I invite you, the reader to comment on this.  Tell us, in your own words, how you think that we can maintain on the one hand, the authority of Scripture, and on the other, recognize that this authority is derivate and not inherent.  Tell us how you think we can avoid the dangers and traps of worship of the Bible.  Your input into this matter is very important.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Jesus Must be Tired: Give Him a Break

Once again, the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism rears its ugly head.  For the second time, in an approximately two-week period, a Caucasian police officer is exonerated and not even indicted in killing an unarmed African American man.  First, in Ferguson, Missouri, Officer Darren Wilson is exonerated of killing unarmed Michael Brown.  Now in Staten Island, New York, Officer Daniel Pantaleo is cleared of any charges involving his choking of Eric Garner.

It has been the historic pattern, in situations like these, to bring up an alleged criminal history or alleged recent criminal behavior on the part of the victims in order to lend justification to the brutalization and murder of people.  When a Caucasian police officer in Rochester was killed by an African American individual, then the story is interpreted as black people not having any respect for the law, even going to the extent of killing a law enforcement official. Nothing at all was said about an alleged history of this police officer having such an acrimonious relationship with the African American community in Rochester, which allegedly involved his harassment and brutalization of black people.  He was classified as a fallen hero.  The Mayor of Rochester, Lovely Warren, an African American woman, has now become the victim of vituperation on the part of this officer's family, because she dared to indicate that while the family of this officer was in mourning because of their loss, that the family of Michael Brown was also in mourning because of their loss.
The officer's father and brother have called for her resignation.

Jesus of Nazareth, has just been called to New York City.  Poor guy, He must be tired, after traveling around Los Angeles, Ferguson, Cleveland, and now Staten Island, having to put out fires regarding racially based issues between the African American and Latino communities on the one hand, and law enforcement on the other. 

So now I ask, if Jesus were living in our time, how would He handle all these situations?  Would He join the chorus of law enforcement that criminalizes victims by bringing up their alleged criminal history and maybe even say "They deserved it, they're all a bunch of thugs?"  Would He side with the victims against law enforcement and denounce a historic pattern of brutalization against the oppressed communities?  Would He say that "Yes, these folks do have a criminal history, but that is no excuse to kill unarmed people?"

Based on what I read in Christian Scriptures (New Testament), I surmise the following:

1.  Jesus as a human being would be definitely tired and worn out of being called from one city to another to address issues of criminality and institutional racism.

2.  Jesus would definitely consider (I'm not saying justify) the alleged crimes of African American and Latino people acts of protest against social injustice which manifests itself through socio-cultural-economic-political alienation, disenfranchisement, marginalization, poverty, etc.  Again, let me be clear in stating that I don't think that He would justify criminal behaviors.  I am simply stating that Jesus would evaluate alleged criminal behavior in terms of the social conditions which breed crime.  Knowing from what I know of Jesus through reading the Christian Scriptures, Jesus would address these social conditions and call for an overhaul of the system and its replacement with a system that does not have these conditions, and therefore minimizes criminal behavior.

3.  While Jesus would certainly offer comfort and support to the family of a slain police officer, He would in a very intense way, identify with and establish ties of solidarity with the family of the innocent victims of police brutality.  Jesus would definitely condemn police brutality in no uncertain way.

In my twenty-two years of work as a prison chaplain, I had many opportunities to face the encounter between criminal behavior and animalistic retaliation.  I never justified or overlooked the actions of the residents that led to their incarceration. Nevertheless, as I believe Jesus would have done, I on many occasions had to bring out the reality of social conditions, which resulted in the greater numbers of incarcerated persons coming from the African American and Latino communities.

In closing, I ask, is it possible for us to get our act together so that Jesus does not have to be traveling from town to town dealing with these issues over and over again?  As a Christian pastor, I've experienced being overwhelmed and tired with the demands of pastoring in an environment of oppression.  I can just very well imagine that Pastor Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, must be exhausted. Can we give Him a break?

Please feel free to comment.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Debunking the Myth of Inerrancy

One of the major controversies that has generated division within the Church of Christ has been that of the issue of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  For quite a long time, a good number of Christians, both lay and ordained, have subscribed to the belief and notion that the Bible as "the Word of God," is both inerrant and infallible.  This notion is based on the belief that since the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is no possibility of error either in what it says or what it teaches.  To admit to the slightest possibility of error, would result in either denying the divine inspiration of Scripture, or affirming the possibility that God could be mistaken.

Let us examine these two concepts. They are not exactly one and the same, though in mind of some believers, they are equated. 

1.  Inerrancy- The notion here is that the Bible is absolutely true in everything that it states, even in those areas that appear illogical to the human mind.  This would include the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish, and the sun stopping at Joshua's command.  Biblical literalists who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, take the position of "The Bible says so, end of story."  There is no room in their mind for possible alternative explanations of those passages.  To even suggest another explanation of these, among other passages, is to amount to "unbelief" and to denial of the divine inspiration of Scripture.  In their thinking, nothing other than a literalist reading of the Bible can satisfy their notion of divine inspiration.  They will dismiss all other explanations as "liberal," "modernist," and even "creeping and subtle Satanic deception."  Their thinking is like that of a Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover."  To them, divine inspiration excludes even the slightest degree of human error creeping into the text.

In recent years, some evangelical scholars have modified their position of inerrancy.  They have not abandoned the doctrine in its totality, but they have come to affirm that the Scriptures are inerrant only in the original autographs, but not in the manuscripts or the translations based on the manuscripts.  Because of the variations within the manuscripts, they allow for the possibility of human error within them.  They concede these possibilities when they compare manuscripts and translations, and see that they vary as to length, and also as to either containing or omitting what other manuscripts and translations have.  But they continue to affirm their belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs.

The major problem with this position is two-fold.  To begin with, the original autographs no longer exist, because they have deteriorated due to age and condition of the materials on which they were written.  None of us has ever seen or will see the original autographs.  Therefore, the affirmation that the concept of divine inspiration relates only to the original autographs, is a statement of blind faith. How can one affirm inerrancy for a document that they have never seen or will see?

The second aspect of this problem is that the manuscripts and the translations based on the manuscripts vary with each other relative to. Some are longer or shorter than others.  Some use the term "Lord" for God in the Old Testament, while others use the term "Yahweh" which is the name for God in the Hebrew language.   One translation has a shorter ending than other translations for the sixteenth chapter of Mark's Gospel account.  So which translation, then, most accurately reflects what the original autograph said?

2. Infallibility- The notion here is that the Bible is without error in what it intends to teach, regardless of whether it is historically and factually inerrant.  The emphasis here is not so much on historical accuracy or historical fact, but rather on the intention of God in giving us the Scripture. While this position, at some points, may allow room for the possibility of human error, its thrust is to affirm that in spite of human frailty and weakness, God cannot be mistaken in the intention and purpose of giving us the Bible.  This position, more so than that of inerrancy, speaks more to the concept of the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Please share with us how you would resolve this issue.  How in your mind, can we dismantle the doctrine of inerrancy, and yet sustain the doctrine of infallibility?  Can we do away with inerrancy and still believe that the Bible is our final court of appeal for establishing belief and practice?
Your contribution and input is very important and valuable.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Is There Room for Marianism in Protestant Theology?

On December 25, the Christian world will be commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.  This is the first piece of what is known as the "Christ event," the other two pieces being His death and His resurrection.  In a very strict sense, we cannot separate these one from another.

The incarnation of  Jesus ( God becoming human) has raised a number of issues, and even controversies in the Christian Church.  The controversies have focused on the issues of Jesus's relationship to God, the nature of Jesus, and the role of Mary, Jesus's mother. 

I would like to invite the readers, regardless of what branch of Christianity you are affiliated with, or what particular brand of theology you subscribe to, to think about the role of  Marianism, which is the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mother.  For the purposes of this essay, I will make a distinction between Mariolatry, which is the worship of Mary, on the one hand, and Marianism, which is venerating and holding in  high esteem, the mother of  Jesus.

There are two particular issues which I would like us to focus on this essay. They are as follows:

1.  Our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers refer to Mary as the "Mother of God," or in more specific terms, the "God-bearer."  This concept of God-bearer is known in the Greek language as the "Theotokos."  Protestant Christianity has always had some problems with this concept because they cannot conceive of God having a mother, who for all effects and purposes would herself be God, because She gave birth to someone that did not always exist.  Furthermore, Protestants remember that in the Scriptures, the prophets denounced the pagan worship of the "Queen of Heaven," and since in Roman Catholic theology, Mary is considered the Queen of Heaven, Protestants believe that this is a continuation of pagan worship incorporated into, and syncretized with the Christian faith.

So the question before us is whether it is or isn't correct to refer to Mary as the "Mother of God?"
The Catholics and Orthodox Christians would say an absolute "yes" to it being correct. The Protestant Christians, on the other hand, would give a resounding "no" to that for the reason already mentioned above, and also, because nowhere in Scripture (according to them), is Mary referred to as the "Mother of God."  The  closest that Protestants will come to that concept is to affirm that Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not of His divine nature, because that is something that always existed, even prior to the creation of humankind.

But wait a minute.  Can we really resort to the gimmick of referring to Mary as the mother of the human part of Jesus and not the divine part?  This writer thinks that it would be incorrect to resort to this gimmick.  Why do I say that?  I say that for the simple reason that according to Scripture, God was incarnated in human form and we cannot separate the human from the divine.  The Gospel according to John, the letters of John at the end of the New Testament, and Paul's letter to Timothy all speak about God taking on a human body.  The writer of the letter to Hebrews mentioned that in this body Jesus was tempted in every point "as we are."  The writer of John's letters declared that anyone that denied that Jesus had come in the flesh was to be considered accursed and denounced.

The Christian traditions of the first four centuries depict an incarnated God, and never allowed for the separation of the two natures in Jesus.  The Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Chalecdon in 451 both affirmed the doctrine of the God-man and declared heretical any one who promoted a teaching that was hereto contrary. 

I, as a Protestant minister and theologian, respectfully submit, then, that it is proper on the basis of both Scripture and tradition to refer to Mary as the "Theotokos" (God-bearer).  I furthermore, respectfully submit that it is a violation of both Scripture and tradition to deny this on the ground that she gave birth only to Jesus's human part.  Mary gave birth to the God-man, who alone is to be worshipped and given honor and glory. Amen!

2.  Can we venerate Mary?  Again, our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers will give a resounding "yes," while our Protestant  sisters and brothers will say "absolutely not!"  The major problem here is two-fold:

a.  Many Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers get so emotionally caught up in the veneration of Mary that they fall into border-line idolatry.
b.  Many Protestants do not know how to distinguish between venerating and worshiping.  They fail to acknowledge their own inconsistencies. For example, they refer to their pastors and other ministers as "Reverend," forgetting that in a strict sense, reverence belongs only to God.

The problem that we face here is that Catholic and Orthodox Christians come close to deifying Mary, i.e. making her a God.  Protestants, on the other hand, come close to debasing her, overlooking her as the mother of our Lord, when in Scripture, she herself is quoted as saying "All generations shall call me blessed."

In closing, I invite you to help us resolve this conundrum.  How would you as a follower of Jesus resolve and address this complex issue?  Help us please.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson

Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson: Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict polic...

Jesus Returns to Ferguson

Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for killing an unarmed African American man, Michael Brown.  Demonstrations and protests have been carried out in different cities of the U.S.A.  There have been reports of burned businesses, and overturned police cars. Emotions, as can be expected, are running high.

Once again we are faced with a situation where a Caucasian police officer is cleared in the shooting and killing of a black person.  It is reminiscent of the Rodney King situation in Los Angeles some years ago.  The police officers who beat the living hell out of King, were cleared and exonerated of any wrong doing, because they "were doing their job."  That is exactly what officer Darren Wilson claims, i.e. "I was doing my job."  In the case of King, it took a Presidential act in order to get the officers who brutalized him back to court to get not only indicted, but also convicted, and sentenced.

The questions for us might be the following:

1.  Will the decision of the grand jury not to indicted Officer Wilson stand or will another Presidential act generate him coming back to court?

2.  Will the African American and Latino community continue to demonstrate and protest until this is done or will they "cool down" after a while?

3.  Will people continue to believe Officer Wilson's narrative about self-defense and Brown's refusal to comply with the orders given to him?

There are no simple answers to these questions.  Like with similar situations, the matter is very complex.  It is said that Michael Brown was no angel, and that just prior to getting killed, he was involved in an act of criminal behavior.  Other narratives have Officer Wilson not being angelic either, and that he had a history of contemptuous relations with the African American community.

But now that Jesus is back in Ferguson, what can we expect him to do?  Will he side with law enforcement or will he side with the community?  Will he refuse to make that dichotomy between law enforcement and community?  Will he console the family of Michael Brown while applauding the decision of the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson?

While only time will tell as to what Jesus will do relative to these issues, I am convinced of this:

1.  Jesus will condemn the fact the so-called "law enforcement" was not established for the safety and well-being of the African American and other socially oppressed communities.  The well-being and safety of socially oppressed groups is a secondary consideration, subordinate to the protection of the interests of the white power structure in the U.S.A., if a consideration at all. One would have to be either outright naïve or outright dishonest to deny this.

2.  Jesus will continue to exercise pastoral care to the family of Michael Brown as well to other families who have lost loved ones tragically.

3.  Jesus will continue to address issues of the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism. 

4.  Jesus will continue to mobilize the community around issues of oppression such as racism, classism, and sexism.

5.  Jesus will continue to promote the fight for justice, not the American way, but in a global manner.

Please feel free to comment on the points in this essay. Your contribution will be enlightening and helpful. 

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?

Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?: Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day."  I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical o...

Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?

Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day."  I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical origins of this celebration.  Like with many other cultural, religious, and social holidays, many, if not most of us, tend to do things in a very mechanical and robotic manner, i.e. not even thinking about why we do things.  We take things for granted.  In many cases, we have the attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  In this case, we feel or think that if things have been done a certain way for ages, why bother changing them?  We act and think as if age-long traditions establish the truth of what we do.

In a historical perspective, Thanksgiving Day, dating back to the seventeenth century, was an act of thanking God for the harvest.  In later centuries, and in our times. Thanksgiving has become a secular tradition in which we gather with family and friends to eat and socialize. I would be the last person to say that this tradition should be discontinued.  However, when we put it against the backdrop of history, can we really in all good conscience give thanks for the "blessings" that we have received, knowing full-well that these "blessings" are nothing more than that which we as a nation have usurped from the original inhabitants of this land?  As an Afro-Puerto Rican, I can affirm that my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with Plymouth Rock.  When I think of how my ancestors were brought here from Africa in animalistic conditions, and how my indigenous ancestors from the Caribbean were treated so inhumanely, can I have the audacity to refer to what was received through their hard work and labor as "blessings?"    Where is God in all of this?

Did God bless the Pilgrims and Puritans by having them take the land away from its original inhabitants?  Did God bless our national ancestors by having them enslave others and colonizing their lands?  These are questions that are disturbing in that most of us don't want to deal with or be reminded of the past.  We feel we had absolutely nothing to do with what happened back then.  I respectfully submit that while we are not doing anything to reverse the course of that historical moment, that we are just as guilty as our national ancestors of maintaining certain groups within and sectors of society in subjugation, and marginalization.  We have continued the "sins of our fathers."  When President Obama makes his decision regarding undocumented migrants tomorrow, and we remember the origins of Thanksgiving, dare we celebrate it with a bold face?  May God have mercy on us as we celebrate in the midst of misery, poverty, and suffering.

Feel free to comment on this essay.  Your comments will enable us to have more serious reflections.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Christians for Socialism

I would like to invite you the reader to reflect on the matter of which existing economic system is the most appropriate one for Christians to advocate for.  Should it be capitalism, which is a basically a system that allows some to have and others to have little if any?  Should it be socialism, which is a system in which the government owns the tree and the workers own the fruit? Or should it be communism, where the government owns both the tree and the fruit, and in which there is no existence of social classes?

In order to attempt answering that question, let me begin by saying that the  major political concern of those who claim to be Christians or followers of Jesus should be the politics of the reign of God enacted through Jesus the Christ.  In other words, the politics of Christians should be the politics of Jesus,  a system of total justice based on love for God and love for one's neighbor. While we have not seen the accomplishment of this condition in its fullest sense, Christians should continue striving for it through their lives and examples.  As followers of Jesus, we are called to live as if the reign or kingdom were already here in its fullest sense.

Can Christians support the market economy (capitalism) in an ethical manner?  Some Christians are of the opinion that we can support it by striving to put a human compassionate face on capitalism, and subsequently have a capitalism which is not based on greed or human competition, but rather a capitalism that is based on cooperation and the desire to give people their fair share of the resources necessary for survival.  Many of these Christians tend to equate capitalism with "democracy," thinking that they are one and the same.  They fail to see that democracy does not presuppose or even require a market economy.  For example, in 1970, the people of Chile democratically elected a socialist President.  Unfortunately, this democratically elected President was assassinated by a group of Chileans who were in turn receiving economic and military support from the government of the
U.S.A., because it was feared that to allow this government and economy to exist would present a threat to the economic interests of the U.SA.  It is highly suspected, and pretty well-documented that the U.S.A. not only supported the removal of this President and replacement with a brutal dictator, but that the U.S.A. actually engineered this overthrow of the Chilean government in the name of "economic freedom." 

Other Christians, including myself, sustain that to support the capitalist economy is to run counter to the Gospel.  The Gospel is a message of liberation and an emphasis on equality.  The capitalist system is by its very nature one which allows some people to profit from the hard labor of others, and to exploit the working class.  Some people may say that "if you work hard enough, you can make it."
Well, we need to define what "making it" means.  If you have people who are working hard and barely making a living wage and at the same time enriching those for whom they work, where is the "making it?'  If the resources that are necessary for survival are limited, and you have a few who hoard the majority of the resources right from the beginning, how can we speak about the majority of the workers "making it?"  I ask, then, how can Christians in all good conscience support an economy which allows for 96% of the resources to be owned and controlled by 4% of an elite who benefit and profit from the hard labor of the working class?

Can Christians support a communist economy?  My response to that would be yes and no.  If by "communist" we mean a system in which there are no social classes, then yes, Christians can and should in principle support that type of system.  If, on the other hand, by "communist" we mean a system whereby the government becomes an agent of exploitation, i.e. a system of governmental capitalism (state capitalism), then we are faced with the same situation that we are faced with in capitalism.  If communism amounts to state capitalism, then we just have a situation where the oppressed become the oppressors.  The other thing is that "communism" does not really exist in the strictest sense of the word.  If "communism" means the elimination of social classes, we have not achieved as of yet that level of economic development, even if certain governments refer to themselves as "communist."  In every single country of the world, there are those who rule and those who are ruled.  In every country, there are those who have more and those who have way less. In every single country, there are social classes some of whom have economic advantages over other social classes.  To support this type of "communism" would also run contrary to the Gospel.

This leaves us then with the question of a socialist economy.  For the purposes of this essay, I will define "socialism" as a system where the government owns the means of production and the workers own the fruit or end product.  In this economy, workers and citizens would be guaranteed quality health care, quality education, quality housing, and quality employment.  There would be equality of employment opportunity for everyone that wanted to work.  Ideally, there would be no unemployment, nor would we have a situation where people have to present an insurance card in order to receive proper health care.

Can and should Christians support socialism?  My answer in principle would be in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I would qualify that by saying that we need to ask ourselves what model of socialism we are advocating for and supporting.  I am not necessarily advocating for a Marxist model of socialism, as that model has its own short-comings.  As Christians we need to support a model which has the minimum of flaws, and which by its very nature, approximates the values of the reign of God through Jesus the Christ.  While no existing human government has a fully developed model of perfect socialism, we are called as Christians to be constant and consistent in our efforts to achieve the construction of a such a system.  And we must be prepared to acknowledge that whenever there has been failure, it has been not because of socialism per se being deficient, but rather because of the attempts of those who prefer the market economy to undermine the development of socialism.  The blockade/embargo imposed on the people of Cuba by our government, and continued to this day, is a perfect example of the attempts of capitalists systems undermining the development of socialism.  I am not suggesting that without the embargo that Cuba would have a perfectly developed socialism, but I would venture to say that they certainly would come closer than many countries that have attempted socialism.  The mere fact that the government of Cuba has been able to maintain intact the basic provisions of socialism in the light of the embargo, and also in the light of the abandonment of their main supporter, i.e. the Soviet Union, is a witness to this.  While there are economic problems in Cuba, and while the Cuban government has made some small-scale concessions to the forces of the global market economy, it continues to make every effort to maintain strong the fruits of the revolution of 1959. 

In summary, we should then as followers of Jesus strive to achieve the construction of a just society which will be based on the love of God and love for one's neighbor.  While sin continues to prevail preventing this from happening in the fullest sense of the word, we should remember the words of the Apostle Paul that "wherever sin abounds, grace exceeds." May the grace of the Jesus the true Liberator of all humankind inspire us to work for the construction of a system which will model and be reflective of the coming kingdom of God.  Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.

Feel free to comment and give your input on this essay.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Would Jesus Vote Republican?

So the most recent elections brought the GOP to dominate both Houses of Congress.  Now we have a Democratic President torn between enacting policies that reflect his own personal convictions, and perhaps those of his party, on the one hand, and on the other, working together with those of the Republican Party who are his ideological enemies.

One thing that I find amazing is how certain conservative and evangelical Christians have chosen to express their delight that the Republicans have once again come to power.  Some have even alluded to the "kingdom of God as having arrived," because we finally have a party in power that reflects the values of God's reign.  To hear them shout for glee, any one would believe that the Messianic era has finally erupted into human history.  I've even seen some writings that indicate that the Lordship of Jesus the Christ has been manifested in and through these recent elections.

Well, let's examine some things here.  To begin with, let us imagine Jesus living in twenty-first century America instead of first-century Palestine.  We can ask the following questions:

1.  Would Jesus vote for and promote the platform of the "conservative" Republicans or would He be more in favor of the "liberal" Democrats?  Would Jesus be in favor of the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-same sex marriage, gay bashing and  war-mongering politics, or would He favor the Democratic  platform of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare),  "liberal moral permissiveness," raising taxes for social programs, and the raising of the minimum wage?

My response to that would be that Jesus would not favor either party or its agenda.  Neither would He be involved in partisan politics.  Jesus would be so involved in attending to basic human needs that He would have no interest in or time for dealing with petty political bickering and mud-slinging.

2. If  Jesus were not registered in either the Democratic or Republican party, then which party would He be registered in to vote?  I do not see Jesus registering in any political party, because none of the existing parties represent to the fullest extent the interests His politics, i.e. the politics of the reign of God, which supersede by far, all the agendas and ideologies of all human government.  If He were to register, I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that He would register as an "Independent," so that He would not be bound by the dictates of any organization.  Jesus was His own person in the first century, and I have no trouble believing that He would be the same living in our time.

3.  Why then are Christians so insistent on aligning Jesus with their political ideology?  It is the human tendency to think that whatever ideology we subscribe to is the "correct" one and that everyone else is wrong.  We demonize those who do not view things that we see them. We tend to think that those who do not agree with us are intellectually, morally, and spiritually inferior.

If Jesus were living in the twenty-first century in America, He would be calling all of us "on the carpet," and demonstrating as He did with the religious leaders of His time (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes), that all ideologies and political agendas fall short, and leave a lot to be desired.

Please comment on the above essay.  Give us your opinion of how you think Jesus would act politically in twenty-first century America.  Do you see Him engaging in partisan politics, or do you see Him in proclaiming a type of politics that transcends all present human systems?

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Christian Church: A Pig in the Oppressed Community

Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital stated that religion is the opiate of the masses.  There should be no doubt that Marx was speaking within a context of the religious institutions being aligned with corrupt economic and political systems.  I have no recollection of Marx denying in an outright manner the existence of God, or even saying that religion in and of itself is something evil.   He alluded to "privileged" religion, i.e. organized religion enjoying the favor of the state as long as it catered to the whims and dictates of the socio-political system.

We should consider the Church in terms of what Jesus intended it to be, i.e. a movement (not just another institution of society) that would identify with the social outcasts in both its life and mission.  The Church in the mind of Jesus is not what it turned out to be in the latter stages of history.

After the first century, the Church, in spite of the many persecutions that it endured, began to grow in numbers and political influence.  After the fourth century, the Roman Empire began to decline, and the Church in a certain sense replaced it after becoming not only a legalized faith, but also a popular one.  The Church during that time, because of its acceptance by the Empire, became politically popular.  The Church not only became the official faith of the Roman Empire, but in a sense became the new Empire.  In a historical sense, the Church went from being the oppressed community to becoming the oppressing agent in society, weeding and stamping out by force, if necessary, those who did not subscribe to its tenets or pander to its dictates.

During the ensuing centuries, the Church, through its missionary enterprise, became an agent of genocide, slavery, and colonization.  As an institution of society, it gave its rubber stamp to those governmental entities that carried out these brutal acts of dehumanization.

There have been many attempts to bring the Church back to its roots, i.e." to bring it back to what it was in the first century in terms of the early Church's identification with social outcasts.  In our times, through the advent of feminism and Liberation Theology, there have been voices in the Church who have denounced its oppressive structures and policies.

You might find it strange to hear me, a Christian minister, referring to the Church as "a pig." To the extent that it has at various moments in its history, stood against oppressed and suffering people, it has been just that, i.e. a pig.  However, all praise and thanks be to God that there have been people within the Church who have been used by God to raise a prophetic voice and to restore the Church to a condition of being pure.  That process has a long way to go before being completed, but the Church is under construction, and God is not done with us yet.

Through its many prophets and leaders who are in tune with the voice of God, the Lord is saying to the us "go take a bath you dirty pig."  God through the Holy Spirit continues to purify the Church and lead it to where it was originally intended to be, i.e. in a place of living out and proclaiming the good news that in Jesus the Christ, God has acted to bring about the liberating and redemptive activity throughout the historical process.  Please share with us how you see Jesus cleansing His Church of sin and impurity.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Small-talk Dialogue: Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal

Small-talk Dialogue: Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal: This essay reflects in part, this writer's spiritual journey in terms of both faith and the practice of the profession of the ministry. ...

Small-talk Dialogue: The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation...

Small-talk Dialogue: The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation...: There are terms that are used in the Scriptures and within the context of the Christian community. One of those terms is "gospel,"...

Christian Social Activism

One of the many issues that Christians have always been faced with, is that of social activism.  By social activism I mean the engagement of people with economic, political, and social issues.  The concept of social activism is associated to a certain degree with opposition to and protests against policies and structures which the activists consider to be wrong.  Social activism is nothing new to Christians.  Neither is the question as to whether this activism should take on the character of verbal protests, or should it include, if need be, physical action and armed struggle. There have been many Christian social activists such as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Jeremiah Wright, and others. 

With the exception of Jeremiah Wright, the others mentioned above have, for the most part, expressed their activism in a verbal, but non-physically aggressive manner.  Dr. Wright has not openly advocated physical aggression, but has been more verbally aggressive than the others, to the point of saying "God damn America."  Dr. King advocated for a more "compassionate" capitalist system (if indeed such an animal exists), while Dr. Wright confronted racism right to the core.

The questions as to whether social activism has a place in the life of the Church, and as to what form it should take continue to haunt us.  We cannot evade answering or confronting those questions in that we are continuously faced with all kinds of social evils.

For the sake of brevity, I would like to invite you share with us where you stand on the question of what you believe to be the proper way for Christians, both individually and collectively, to deal with social issues.  Some of you might recommend that we pray for a solution to social problems.  Others would recommend that we have limited participation, never going to the extent of forgetting that our prime mission is to "preach the Gospel."  Others of you may not advocate initiation of physical aggression and/or bloodshed, but would have no moral or theological adversity to self-defense. Can you tell us what is the basis for whatever position you hold to?

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal

This essay reflects in part, this writer's spiritual journey in terms of both faith and the practice of the profession of the ministry.  At the same time, it is intended to have you the reader do the following:

1.  Reflect upon and evaluate your own spiritual journey, regardless of what it looks like.
2.  Share with us whatever you feel comfortable with relative to this essay.

I am a New York born and raised Puerto Rican.  In my childhood, like most other Puerto Rican children of my time, I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.  I must say that my baptism took place, for the most part, not because of any desire of my parents to raise me in the faith, per se, but rather because it was the cultural thing to do.  For many people, religion is nothing more than folk religion, where they practice it as part of their culture. I was really never encouraged by my parents to attend Mass or to be involved in the life of the church.

In my pre-teen years, my sister and I attended Sunday School in a United Methodist church in Staten Island, New York.  I simultaneously attended religious instruction in a Lutheran church on Wednesday afternoons, during a time when students were allowed to be dismissed from school early in order to attend the congregation of their choice for religious instruction.

At the age of 12, I started attending a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church in Staten Island.  It was in this church where I made my profession of faith and commitment to Jesus and promised to follow Him all the days of my life.  In this church, I became active in the youth group, and preached my first "sermon" at the age of 14.  It was in this environment where I first became exposed to the "holiness standards" of the Pentecostal movement.  These standards consisted of the imposition of dress codes, and an emphasis on abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, as well as refraining from participating in "worldly" things such as dancing, mixed bathing and attending the theaters.  Numerous Bible verses were used to support this legalistic aspect of holiness. It was emphasized that the Bible prohibited believers from "sitting in the seat of the ungodly," and that by so doing, we would run the risk of "losing our salvation." I enjoyed participating in the style of worship that was carried out in the church,  and even played my guitar in these services.

During my high school years, I joined a Christian club by the name of Hi-BA which stood for High School Born Again.  In this club, I mixed with Christians of different denominations, i.e Baptist, Methodist, etc.  In the Pentecostal movement at that time, non-Pentecostal Christians were considered
"cold" because they "did not have the Holy Spirit."  A Baptist would be considered a half brother or sister.  A Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian could possibly be seen as "cousins."  Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox Christians were considered "out of the fold," because their churches were considered "falsifications of Christianity."  Through interaction with my friends in Hi-BA and other churches and organizations, I learned two things in particular.

1.  The Body of Christ does not consist exclusively of Pentecostals.  These names that we use to designate ourselves, are human constructs that have absolutely nothing to do with how God sees us.

2.  Pentecostals do not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.  This was a hard pill for me to swallow because I was under the impression that the Pentecostal movement was the one that most accurately resembled the early Church which was started on the day of Pentecost.  I learned the hard way that people experience the Holy Spirit in different ways, and cannot be boxed into doctrinal modes.

In 1967, I was initiated into the formal aspect of ministry by teaching at the Latin American Bible Institute in New York City, a Pentecostal Bible school from which I had graduated a year earlier after 3 years of study.  I taught at that school for 3 years. In 1969, I was credentialed as an ordained minister by an independent Pentecostal church at the age of 22.  In 1977, those credentials were transferred into the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal organization in the world.  In the meantime, I was a student at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Jersey.  Upon my graduation from New Brunswick Seminary in 1978, my credentials were transferred into the Reformed Church in America, the oldest Protestant church in the United States.  I have been a Reformed Church minister ever since, having served in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, and teaching at various colleges and seminaries.

The purpose of this brief autobiographical sketch has not been to bore the reader with my life's journey per se, but rather to talk about my spiritual journey and the process of evaluation that I have undergone during that journey, and how that process might be of help to you the reader, and others that have undergone various types of evolution within their own journey.

Having been away from the Pentecostal movement for 46 years now, I reflect upon the foundation that was given to me by the leaders and how that foundation helped form and shape who I am today as a minister and theologian in the Reformed tradition.  In retrospect, though I no longer subscribe to the strict Pentecostal theology or biblical hermeneutics that I grew up with, I always remain grateful for their emphasis on personal holiness and piety, though I think that their emphasis was in the wrong place as far as these are concerned.  I am also grateful for their strong emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer, and in the life of the Church.  In the final years of my involvement in the Pentecostal movement, I had already started to move away from the legalistic forms of holiness which they emphasized, which though in their opinion was biblically based, was in reality rooted in skewed hermeneutics.  When I was received into the Reformed Church, I was already in a position to compare and evaluate the Pentecostal emphasis on "individual salvation," with the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology.

When I came to Rochester in 1978 to plant a new Reformed church in the Hispanic community, I encountered the hostility of several Pentecostal pastors who were at times in conflict with each other, but upon my arrival they formed a united front to guard themselves from this "wolf in sheep's clothing."  They knew of my Pentecostal background and formation, and accused me of "selling out," or as they put it in their language, changing my affiliation for "loave and fishes."

How do I, as an ex-Pentecostal relate to my Pentecostal sisters and brothers?  I still have the highest love and respect for them.  On occasion, I have visited and preached at the church in Staten Island that I grew up in.  I have visited and fellowshipped with other Pentecostal churches in Rochester, New York City, and Raleigh, North Carolina.  I have maintained strong friendships with people in Pentecostal churches, including my first pastor, and other friends.

I miss, to a certain extent, the "good ole days" of worship, fasting, and all night long prayer meetings on Friday evenings going into Saturday morning.  I also miss, to a certain extent, the spontaneous forms of worship, with the freedom to praise God without the restrictions of program bulletins and set schedules.  But I also enjoy the formality and structure of the Reformed and other mainline Protestant churches.  I revel in structured worship, knowing that people can know why they worship in a particular manner, and subsequently worship in a more informed manner.  I also appreciate the responsible freedom in the Reformed churches relative to Christian living, having moved away from the well-intended, but misplaced restrictions of the Pentecostal churches

Forty-six years later, I am still struggling with the question of whether I am a Pentecostal with a Reformed mind, or a Reformed Christian with a Pentecostal heart.  In either case, I trust that God will continue to guide my paths.

I now invite you, the reader to share snippets of your journey with us.  Is it similar to mine?  Is it radically different?  At the end of the day, does it really make any difference?  I would love for you to "put yourself out there" and dialogue with us on this issue of spiritual journey and theological evolution.  I think that it would be edifying and uplifting for many of us.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation?

There are terms that are used in the Scriptures and within the context of the Christian community. One of those terms is "gospel," which comes from the Greek language meaning "good news."
In this essay, I would like to give the concept of "gospel" a new spin, while retaining the element of good news.

When we hear the word "gospel," we tend to think of either one of the four accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) or a sermon preached by a Christian minister.  In either case, the Gospel is associated with the life and person of  Jesus of Nazareth.
In most cases, the focus is on what God has done on behalf of humanity through Jesus, i.e. liberating humanity from the consequences of individual and collective sin, and preparing them for eternal life in "heaven."  More often than not, the emphasis is on the hereafter. I would also add, that after much practice, the word "gospel" becomes a slogan that is used in worship services.  I say "slogan," because it is used habitually without giving much thought to the meaning of the word. Furthermore, we act and live as if the Gospel were intended exclusively for those within the community of faith.

Here I am proposing that we take the word "gospel" out of the context of the community of faith (the Church), and apply it to the historical reality of humankind with its bad and good experiences. If the Gospel has nothing to do with reality as we know it, then it is a fairy tale or myth to be discarded and totally rejected.  Any claim to proclaim a message entitled "gospel," which does not touch on cultural, economic, political, and social reality, is an exercise in futility and semantics.  It is mental gymnastics and a play on words.

I will begin by saying that the concept of "gospel" does not begin in the New Testament.  It begins with God calling Moses and saying to him, "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to help and deliver them."  God commissioned Moses to proclaim to the Hebrews a "gospel" of liberation.   In other words, Moses was called to give the Hebrews that good news that the time for the end of their bondage and oppression had come.  The "good news" had an element of denunciation, i.e. God was not happy with the condition of people living in physical servitude and was acting to bring about freedom from that condition.

The concept of "gospel" continued throughout the prophetic books.  Through the prophets, God made it clear to the people that their neglect of the needy, the orphans, the poor, and the widows was not acceptable.   The good news was that God was speaking to and about their condition, and that God was acting in history to dismantle these conditions and structures of oppression and dehumanization.

In the New Testament, the concept of "gospel," was that in Jesus the Christ, God was finalizing the process of human liberation from all degrading conditions.  All dehumanizing conditions were judged in the light of the Gospel, and subsequently condemned.

Any claim that the Gospel of Jesus was exclusively a "spiritual" message that had or has nothing to do with existing political or social conditions is not the Gospel of Jesus.  Any message that claims to be "gospel," while remaining within the confines of the Church, is not the message of Jesus.

The Gospel is a cosmic and historical act on the part of God in the world, denouncing all policies and structures that destroy the image of God in humans, and that suppress the aspirations and goals of God for the human race.  Any attempt to retain the Gospel as a religious term goes contrary to the purposes of God in history.  The Gospel is the good news that God is acting in history, even in those spheres where things look bleak and ugly.

The Gospel denounces classism, racism, sexism, and all those "isms" that set out to destroy God's creation.  The Gospel includes, but is not limited to environmental conservation.  The Gospel speaks against people being defamed and mistreated because of their sexual orientation.  The Gospel protests all institutional and political systems that prevent people from achieving their maximum potential.

I invite you the reader, to share with us, your concept of "gospel," and how that concept differs or is similar to that presented in this essay.  Through your contribution, we will be in a much better position to proclaim and live out a more realistic and responsible Gospel message.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Does God Really Give a Damn?

In this essay,  I would like to invite you to consider the question of the role of God or lack thereof in our lives.  One of the questions that I pose to couples who ask me to perform their wedding ceremony by way of premarital counseling is "What role, if any, do religion and spirituality play in your life? Needless to say, I've received a variety of answers to that question ranging from "none" to "religion is a priority in our lives."

In this writing, I would like to, if at all possible, go over and beyond the question of what the church or any community of faith has to say about any given issue.  I know that for many people, what the faith community (be it church, masjid, synagogue, etc.) has to say is the equivalent of what God has to say.  In other words, for many people, the community of faith is the voice of God.  God, they say, speaks through the community of faith and its scriptures and traditions.  For these persons, we cannot speak about God unless we include the community of faith in the conversation.

For other people, God is someone with whom they have an individual relationship with.  It is almost like saying that these persons have a private "pipeline" through which they communicate with God. They bypass what the consider to be the "razzle dazzle" of organized religion and its policies and structures, and go "right to the top."  For them, the community of faith is not even a necessary component of their spiritual journey since the relationship with God is an "individual thing."  They would be bound to think in terms of "Me and God, we've got a thing going on."  Therefore, their attitude is "the hell with what the religious institution says, I'm going to do my own thing, and I'm sure that God is on board with me."

I will not take the time at this point to engage in the debate of "individual vs. community" relative to the issue of the role of God in our lives.  Nevertheless, I would like to pose the following questions for our consideration and dialogue.

1.  Has God given us instructions and guidelines by which to live, or does God leave it up to us to carve out our own lifestyles?

2.  If, indeed, God has given us guidelines, where do we find them?  Are they to be found in the Bible, the Holy Qu'aran, the Buddhist Scriptures, the Gospel according to Pinocchio,, or in some other written document?  Or are these guidelines and instructions to be found somewhere else other than in written documents?  Are our individual feelings, outlooks, and perspectives the equivalent of these guidelines?

3.  Does God really give a damn if I am living in a common-law relationship without the formality of marriage, or has God set down a set of rules governing the relationship between partners?

4.  Does God really care if I play the lotto, or does God have something to say about that?

5.  Is God really concerned with such things as gambling at the casino, and dancing with someone other than my wife?

6.  Is God going to have a tantrum, or as some would say "a cow," because I smoke an occasional cigar or pipe?  Is God going to get "all bent and out of shape," because on certain occasions I've either used or thought of using weed for purposes of entertainment?

These are just a few of many more questions that we might ask in terms of whether or not God is involved in our lives to the extent of telling us or even suggesting how we should live.  If we say that God speaks through the community of faith and its scriptures and traditions, by saying "the hell with what the church says," are we not in essence saying "the hell with what God says?"  If on the other hand, we take the approach of an individual pipeline to heaven, can we then equate how we feel and view things with how God views things?  Are we not then, in this case, setting ourselves up as God, by making our individual and personal viewpoints the ultimate truth?

Please talk with us on these matters, as they are in one way or the other, important to all of our lives.  Tell us if you would rather have God mind God's own business while you live your life according to your whims and dictates, or would you be more comfortable with the notion that God has given you a set of guidelines to go by so that you can have a more fruitful and productive life?

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

On Mother God

Our Mother, who art in Heaven, hollowed be thy name.
I believe in God, the Mother Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
In the Name of the Mother, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Our heavenly Mother, we come before your holy presence.

Do any of these sayings sound familiar to you?  Of course they do.  The only thing that sounds strange is the insertion of the word "Mother" in place of the word "Father."

Why would anyone in their right mind want to refer to God as "Mother" instead of "Father?"
After all, the Bible refers to God in masculine and not in feminine terms.   In addition to that,
it has been argued, Jesus Himself referred to God as His "Father," not as His "Mother." Furthermore,
the community of faith (Jewish and Christian) has historically referred to God in masculine terms.

Let me point out the weaknesses of the above three defenses for retaining a masculine God.

1.  The Bible refers to God as "Father," and as "He."   The reason for this should be obvious, i.e.,
the Bible was written primarily by men and is a product of a male-dominated society.  Some may wish to argue that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible "Word of God," and should not be tampered with.  While I will not argue with that position, I also acknowledge that the "Word of God" comes to us filtered through human experience and human language.  We cannot bypass the historical and cultural mediation of the Bible just because we consider it to be "the Word of God." If we attempt to do that, we are being careless, dishonest, irresponsible, and sloppy in our use of the Bible.

2.  Jesus referred to God as His "Father."  The major weakness of this argument is that Jesus as a human being, lived in a male-dominated society and therefore, adhered to the cultural and social norms of His time.  While He did clash with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, the clashes were not regarding the gender nature of God, but rather about how they interpreted the Law.

3.  The community of faith (both Jewish and Christian) has traditionally referred to God in masculine terms.  The major problem with this argument is that what is being said here, directly, or indirectly, is that we should keep tradition for tradition's sake and not tamper with it.  It is the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  In other words, what is being said is that if it has been a certain way all along, we shouldn't bother to change things.  Well, "all along" there has been classism, racism, and sexism.  Should we not try to do away with these forms of discrimination and dismantle these structures of oppression just because "it's been that way all along?"

There are Scripture portions which present feminine imagery of God.  We are told in the opening portion of Genesis (the Creation Story) that the Spirit of God "hovered" over the face of the deep.
It is the image of a mother hovering over her child.
The writer of the book of Proverbs personifies "wisdom" in feminine terms, and then later on in the New Testament, we are told that Jesus constitutes the "wisdom of God."
The Gospel accounts of Jesus's' baptism speaks about the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of "a dove," an image of female gentleness and softness.

What then, do we do with the masculine images of God?  Do we retain them for the sake of retaining them?  Do we allow feminine images of God to co-exist side by side with the masculine images? Do we replace the masculine images and put feminine images in their place?

This writer has witnessed efforts to write translations of the Bible that are more inclusive in their language about God and other issues.  He has also gladly seen some of the traditional hymns of the Church revised to include more inclusive language.

Please share with us where you stand on this matter.  Tell us why you favor one position or the other.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona