The African Holocaust: A Christian Response- Please Reply

During April 27-May 4, there will be a commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust.  People will be remembering the genocide of approximately six million Jews who were exterminated by the Nazi
regime in Germany during World War II.  This occurrence is truly one of the most darkest moments in human history, as we remember how many of our Jewish sisters and brothers were deceived by the regime as they marched towards what would be mass genocide.


As atrocious, brutal, inhumane, and terrible as this was, I raise the question as to why no one commemorates the African Holocaust which is a centuries old occurrence.  Some may argue that the past is the past, but any honest and serious student of history knows that the psychological effects of chattel slavery, accompanied by the impact of continuous institutional, structural, and systemic racism upon the people of African descent around the world has and continues to be devastating. Africa's children ( the global Diaspora) continue to be alienated, brutalized, and marginalized in regards to the deplorable conditions of education, housing, health care, and economic development. Add to this, the large number of Africa's children in the penal institutions in the "land of the free and home of the brave," one wonders what is going on.  I remember when I was working as a chaplain in a prison in upstate New York, when I was talking to one of the correction officers who was discussing the prisoners who had been transported by airplane from New York's La Guardia airport to Watertown, New York to serve short-term jail sentences.  This officer made the comment "That's where they choose to live (meaning New York City)."  His comment reflected naïve assumptions about why Africa's children live in New York City and/or other urban centers of the U.S.A. He was assuming that Africa's children have the same freedom of movement that Europe's children have, and that they have the same opportunity for achievement and "success" as Europe's children have.  He also obviously had the assumptions that Africa's children have more propensity to crime than children of European descent.  Needless to say, I had to correct him on his assumptions.


Why is it that the African Holocaust is not given the same attention and priority as the Jewish Holocaust?  My answer to that would be that it is obvious that Africa's children are still not considered full human beings.  There are many that still believe in the innate inferiority of people
of African descent.  They are considered to be savage and semi-animalistic.  This is why people in "law enforcement" believe that they have the freedom to take it upon themselves to focus primarily on those geographical areas where people of African descent reside, and to treat prisoners of African descent with much more abuse and contempt than what they treat the prisoners of European ancestry with.  And because people of African descent are considered inferior in every way to people of European descent, there is the belief that whatever happens to them was self-inflicted and that it should not be put on a par with whatever happens to people of European descent, including so-called Jewish people.


There are those who will no doubt, argue that to say that the African Holocaust is more intense than that of the Jewish Holocaust is a form of "anti-Semitism."  That notion of course, is not only ridiculous, but also preposterous.  Jewish people are not the only ones of Semitic descent.  Our Arab sisters and brothers are also Semitic.


What then should be a Christian response to the African Holocaust?  I would begin by saying that one must acknowledge the reality that the African Holocaust is much more intense than the Jewish Holocaust in that it is still a present reality.  It is not a thing of the past.  I would also add that in the same way that Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others fought to undo the Jewish Holocaust, that those who call themselves followers of Jesus should invest every bit of energy and time possible in undoing the African Holocaust.  Pastor Bonhoeffer was involved in the attempt to have Hitler killed.  When asked how he reconciled his Christian beliefs with his revolutionary and subversive activities, he responded by saying that indeed it was a sin to kill, but that it was even a greater sin to let a madman who was killing millions of innocent people to continue to live.  Bonhoeffer believed that we do not live in a world where we choose between good and evil, but rather in a world where we choose between the lesser of two evils.


How can Christians be involved in dismantling the African Holocaust?  Those who are members of the oppressing community will instruct Africa's children not to resort to armed struggle or any form of physical violence, because these methods, supposedly are incompatible with the Gospel.  They would instruct us to "pray, wait patiently, and write letters to our Congress persons," in order to achieve our liberation from injustice and oppression.  Yet, they would talk out of the other side of their mouths and glorify the armed struggle that the American revolutionaries resorted to in their fight against England in the name of "democracy and freedom."  They would also glorify the armed struggle of Pastor Bonhoeffer to eliminate this brutal dictator named Hitler. While yours truly would not advocate for or promote armed struggle as a first line of recourse, I would submit that it is up to the oppressed community to determine what the appropriate method of self-emancipation should be. In closing, from a theological standpoint, I would say like theologian James Cone, that God is the God of the oppressed, and that God sides not with the mighty, powerful, and rich of this world, but rather according to the biblical witness, with the alienated, brutalized, dehumanized, marginalized, and oppressed.  In Luke's Gospel account, the Magnificat (the song of Mary), we are informed that God has changed the order of things, and that it is no longer "business as usual."  It is a new order of things. God has "flipped the script (ouch!)"


Please share with us your view as to how we as members of the community of faith should deal with the African Holocaust.  I'm sure that you can tell us something that we never thought about before. Whatever you share with us will be "food for thought." I look forward to your response.


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


Pastor Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Join the blog and receive email updates when new blog posts are added

1.       Enter your email address in the “Follow By Email” field on the right side of the blog.  Click Submit.

 2.       A new window should open asking you to confirm.  You will need to enter the random text in the field at the bottom, the click “Complete Subscription Request”

 3.       You should then get a success message:

 4.       You will now need to go check your email and click on the link in the confirmation email you receive.  The email should arrive fairly quickly, but could take as much as a couple of hours to arrive.  Click the link to confirm.

Congratulations!  You are now subscribed and will receive an email when a new blog post is created.

The Extent of Openness-How "Liberal" can we Be?- Please Reply

                                                                       April 21, 2014






One of the things that occur in religion, is the tendency for people to automatically and blindly dismiss the perspectives and views of those whose beliefs are different. This dismissal takes place
without examining the history and origins of those different belief systems.  Furthermore, in many instances, dismissal takes place on the basis of hearsay about that belief system, and not on direct familiarity with it.  In addition to the aforementioned, many people discard other belief systems on the basis of the assumed truth of their own belief system.  For example, a practicing Christian may dismiss Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim claims simply on that fact that "the Bible says."  In other words,
that Christian invalidates the claim of the other faith groups on the basis of the claims of her own/his own faith group. For that person, the Bible is the ultimate standard of absolute truth, and every other claim to truth has to be measured by what "the Bible says."


There is in Christianity, just like there may be in other faith groups, a perspective which is known as the "liberal perspective."  Unfortunately, many Christians have interpreted the term "liberal" to mean "anything goes.," in other words, that one belief is as good as another.  The term "liberal" has come to be associated with the concept of embracing the denial of the supernatural elements in Scripture such as the Virgin birth, the miracles, and the Resurrection.  Other Christians associate the term "liberal" with a denial of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and others yet, associate this term with accepting the belief in evolution vs. creationism.  En fin, the term "liberal" came to take on a negative connotation.   For many Christians, the term "liberal" is a "no, no," in terms of being incorporated into Christian theology. For Christians who think of "liberal" in negative terms,"liberalism" is something that should be avoided and even denounced as something which goes against the tenets of the Christian faith.


In the strictest sense of the word, "liberal" was a term intended to mean "broad-mindedness," and furthermore, "openness" to a variety of perspectives as opposed to being "dogmatic" and "opinionated."  It was designed to discourage closed and narrow-mindedness.  It was also intended to get people to think "outside the box."


It is precisely this concept of "openness" that I would invite you to consider here.  The question is, how "open" should we be?  If I can use the analogy of a window, I would ask, should we keep the window completely closed and run the risk of suffocation? Should we put a screen on the window so that we can receive some air and at the same time prevent the flies and the mosquitoes from coming in?  Or should we open the window up, getting more air, but yet risking flies and mosquitoes coming in?  Does being "liberal" mean that we surrender our basic convictions, or can we hold on to those convictions while at the same time being open to other beliefs and convictions without demonizing those who subscribe to those whose beliefs and convictions are different from ours?


Please share your views on this matter with us.  It would really help us to dialogue and to understand each other.  I look forward to hearing from you.


Brother, colleague, and friend,,


Juan Ayala-Carmona

Collaborating with non-Christians for Social Justice- Please Reply

There are three issues that have presented a real challenge for the Christian Church since the beginning of the twentieth century.  These issues continue to exist and will not go away. How we as a Church deal with them will depend not only on our convictions, sincere as they may be, but also on the root of our convictions.  In other words, we will have to ask ourselves "On what do we base our convictions about those things which we believe and hold true and dear?  The three issues are:


1.  Divergent Christian communities (denominations)- The Church, since its inception, has to contend with the fact that there are diverse points of view as to doctrine, conduct, and ministry.  Not all churches have the exact theological viewpoints on all things, nor do they all have the same standards for Christian living, nor do they all have the same philosophy of ministry.  Uniformity of perspectives would be ideal, but it is not real.


2.  World Religions-There are faith communities in the world whose beliefs systems do not necessarily resonate with that of the Christian Church.  Some of these faith communities are pre-Christian, i.e. they were in existence long before the Christian Church began, and others developed after the Christian Church was established.


3. Interfaith Collaboration- The question has been, to what extent can Christians and non-Christians not only dialogue with each other, but also work with each other in society?  The more pointed question would be "to what extent can we as Christians collaborate with non-Christians in order to promote social justice?


There are many Christians who are so convinced of the truth of their belief system, that they automatically close all doors to even conversing with non-Christians.  They tend to believe that any type of conversation, dialogue, or collaboration will result in an erosion of the standards of the Gospel.  They are afraid that we will end up with a "watered-down" Christianity.


An example of what I am saying is a dialogue that I've had on Facebook with a Christian lady who believes that we cannot cooperate with the Nation of Islam for social justice because of their belief that God was incarnated in the person of Wallace Farrad Muhammad vs. the Christian doctrine that God was incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  Interestingly enough, she pointed to Martin
Luther King and the Civil Rights movement as a model of Christians working against injustice. When I pointed out that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faith groups collaborated with Dr. King in the Civil Rights movement, she indicated that this was okay because none of these groups preach racial hatred like the Nation of Islam does.  When I indicated that I had never heard of any leader in this community preaching racial hatred, she reverted back to their doctrine of God's incarnation in Wallace Farrad Muhammad.


Can and should Christians work with non-Christians on social justice projects?  This writer would humbly submit that we should.  If social justice is the main element of the Gospel, and there are people who resonate with the spirit of the Gospel, even if they do not claim the name of Christ, the differences of religious ideology should not become a barrier to working together for the cause of justice.  Neither should working together for the cause of justice become the occasion for Christians to proselytize non-Christians, i.e. recruit them away from their belief systems in order for them to become Christians.  I believe that our example of commitment to justice and liberation, as well as our walking hand in hand with non-Christians is more than a sufficient witness to the message of the Gospel. 


Please share you thoughts with us on this issue.  Tell us if you think that Christians and non-Christians can collaborate and why or why not.


Grace and peace,


Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona






                     

                                                                           




                                                                    April 19, 2014


                                                                    The Resurrection: Fact, Myth, or Statement of Faith?


                                                                     (Please feel free to reply and engage in dialogue)




"The third day he rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty."
These are some words collected from a statement of faith known as the Apostle's Creed, which
was not written by the first century Church leaders, but which supposedly reflected the teachings
and the position of  Jesus's Apostles relative to the doctrines that the Church should be guided
by.  The composers of this statement of faith believed that this is what the Apostles would have said and taught.  It is very interesting that the leaders of the Church of the second, third, and fourth centuries (the Church Fathers, bishops, etc.) believed that they were preserving the traditions as handed down by the Apostles, or in other words, "the faith once delivered to the saints." There was very little, if any consideration given to the fact that the teachings of the Apostles were given in
a cultural and social context different from that of the fourth century. In addition, there was scant attention given to the fact that Church had undergone a theological evolution.  The Church of the first century was primarily Jewish in its composition and its theology was rooted, for the most part, in the Hebrew Scriptures, otherwise known as the Old Testament.  The Church of the second, third, and fourth centuries was mostly Gentile in its makeup, and was still carving out its theology and
defining its self-understanding in a culture of different belief systems.


Since the twentieth century, the Church has had to contend with a variety of theological perspectives to identify its beliefs, life and mission.  The three major perspectives have been known as conservative, liberal, and neo-orthodox.  The conservatives have wanted to preserve things as they believe always were from the beginning, focusing on such things as the infallibility of the Pope (Catholic), the infallibility of the Tradition (Orthodox), the infallibility of the Bible (Protestant), the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the miracles, the doctrine of Creation and Redemption, the Trinity, and the Second Coming of Jesus (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant).  The liberals have tended to emphasize the alliance between religion and science, the belief in human perfection through education, the historical-critical approach to the Bible, and a comparative approach to world religions. The neo-orthodox have wanted to combine the best of both views, upholding on the one hand, the seriousness of the biblical witness, and on the other hand, the scientific approach to reality.


A twentieth century theologian of the neo-orthodox school, Rudolf Bultmann, believed that in order for the Gospel to be relevant, that the main document of the Church (the Bible) had to be "demythologized," i.e. stripped of its legendary and mythical elements and worldviews, and readapted to the modern day scientific outlook, so that modern day people could understand and appreciate its message.  One of those "myths" that Bultmann believed had to be stripped and reinterpreted was the "myth" of the Resurrection of Jesus. Bultmann believed that we should drop the belief in a literal resurrection, and replace it with a belief in what he called an "existential" resurrection, i.e. one in which the individual defines herself/himself in new terms relative to their potential for authentic growth and development.


A question which I believe is relevant for those of us living in the post-Bultmann era (Bultmann died in 1976), in the age of medical advancement and the Internet, is the following: "Is the Resurrection of Jesus an historical fact, a myth, or a statement of faith?"  This writer would respond "All of the above."  The reader might ask "how can that be?'  My response would be the following:


1.  It is a historical fact because Jesus was a historical figure.  Jesus lived within the confines of human history, and functioned as any other human being.  As such, Jesus carried out his earthly ministry, engaging on all levels with people of different backgrounds and different walks of life. While someone may want to dispute the validity of the Church's claim of his resurrection, no one has been able to give a credible explanation for the empty tomb three days after he died.


2.  Depending on how the word "myth" is used, the doctrine of the Resurrection is a myth.  When Bultmann and others used the word "myth" they have used it to mean something which was not grounded in historical reality, and that in essence was the figment and concoction of the early Church's imagination and wishful thinking.  This writer has a different definition of "myth." Myth has also meant a sacred story about something which may or may not be literally true, but that in either case points beyond itself.  In my bias, the doctrine of the Resurrection is a sacred story which is literally true and points beyond itself, in that it serves as a witness to the power of God in history, not only to physically resurrect God's Son Jesus, but also those who believe in him.


3.  The doctrine of the Resurrection is a statement of faith.  Based on the historical fact and on the
biblical witness, the Church articulates and expresses its belief in this act of God and its implications for humanity of all ages.  With the Church of the past (the Church triumphant), the Church of the present (the Church militant) continues to proclaim "Christ is risen, he is risen indeed." In faith and hope we believe and trust that the Church of the future ( the Church perfected, being perfected) will continue to affirm "Christ is risen, he is risen indeed."  As we continue to live in the faith of our risen Lord, let us also remember the words stated in our Eucharistic celebrations "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ is coming again."  And may we add to the prayer, the prayers of the early Church, i.e. "even so, come Lord Jesus." 


In the Name of the Creator, of the Liberator, and of the life-giving Spirit. Amen.


Pastor Juan A. Ayala-Carmona


Readers:  Though my articles are usually not intended to generate responses, please feel free to respond to the contents of this one and to engage us in conversation.




 

testing testing one two three

This is a testing of new post blogging.