Fundamentalism: Both Dangerous and Irrelevant- Please Respond

As we study the history of religions, we find that in each major religious community, there are varieties of expression and interpretation of the particular beliefs of the group.  This variety prevents each faith group from functioning as a cohesive unity.  For example, in Judaism, we have Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.  People in each particular category consider themselves Jews, thought they differ from their sisters and brothers from the other groups as to what constitutes the correct interpretation of what it means to be Jewish.  We find the same thing in Islam. There are Shite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Nation of Islam Muslims, etc.  They each claim to be Muslim, but with a different understanding of what it means to be Muslim.


The Christian faith is no exception.  There are varieties of expressions in the faith.  There are Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians.  And then there are Christians who do not identify with either of these major groups and prefer to consider themselves as "independent" or "non-denominational" Christians.  Like in every other faith community, there are reasons for the differences and divisions that we find in the Christian Church.


One of the factors that has resulted in division within the Christian community has been that of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism can be defined as the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox Christian doctrines, i.e. the doctrines that were supposedly taught by Jesus and passed on to His Apostles, and to those who came after them. Some would refer to this set of doctrines as "the faith that was once delivered to the saints."


Those Christians who adhere to these doctrines believe that one must adhere to them in order to be considered a true follower of Jesus and to have a relationship with God.  They believe that there are five "fundamental" teachings to which one must subscribe in order to be "saved."  These doctrines were declared as "fundamental" at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1910 and have become the official doctrinal position of other Christian denominations.  These particular "fundamental" doctrines are as follows:


1.  The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.  Those Christians who believe in this doctrine believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore, inerrant and infallible in everything that is said and taught in them.


2.  Virgin birth of Jesus. Christians who believe in this doctrine are of the conviction that the virgin Mary did not conceive Jesus as a result of sexual intimacy with her husband Joseph, but rather as a result of the Holy Spirit impregnating her.


3.  Christ's death as atonement for sin.  Fundamentalists believe that Jesus's death was a satisfactory penalty paid on our behalf to God since none of our deaths would have been satisfactory enough to compensate for our disobedience to God.


4.  Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus.  Fundamentalists believe that we are required to take the miracle accounts in the Gospel accounts literally and not metaphorically.


5.  Bodily resurrection of Jesus.  Fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus's resurrection was physical and not spiritual or symbolic.


Some fundamentalist Christians may add a sixth "fundamental" doctrine that requires Christians to believe in a literal return (Second Coming) of Jesus to earth.


In this article, I do not intend to either promote or discourage adherence to these five or six points of doctrine.  That, in the final analysis, is a personal choice, which hopefully will be based on a serious examination of the historical and theological foundations of these doctrines, as well as serious engagement with the traditions of the Church.  My intention is rather, to point out the dangers and irrelevancy of the requirement that one must adhere to them in order to be considered Christian.
The demand, expectation, and requirement that one must adhere to them are dangerous because:


1.  Nowhere do we find Jesus saying in the Gospel accounts, that for anyone to be considered His follower or to enter the reign of God, that one must subscribe to these doctrines.


2.  Nowhere do we find the Apostles promoting the idea that one must subscribe to these teachings in order to be included in God's beloved community.


3.  To require adherence to this particular set of teachings as the criteria for who is or is not a Christian, is a reflection of spiritual arrogance and presumptuousness, putting oneself in the place of God to determine "who's in and who's out."


4.  To make adherence to these doctrines a requirement for church membership and salvation, is to tamper with the sovereignty of God, who alone determines what the requirements for divine-human relationships are.


The dangers of these requirements are compounded by the irrelevancy of the demands.  I say that they are irrelevant because humanity is faced with a number of pressing issues.  The issues that we face include international conflict, environmental pollution, unemployment, lack of quality medical care, inadequate and inferior housing, mediocre education, issues of discrimination based on class, gender, race, and sexual orientation, as well as issues of institutionalized, structural, and systemic oppression and dehumanization.  I am not arguing for or against the importance of the doctrines themselves.  What I am saying is that to make the social issues that I have mentioned above secondary and subordinate to the requirement that one must adhere to these doctrines is both preposterous and theologically unsound.  To even begin to believe that God is more concerned with adherence to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth than He/She is with human suffering goes against the contents of the biblical witness.  When God spoke through the prophets to the people of Israel, the demand was not for doctrinal orthodoxy or purity, but rather for justice and alleviation of misery.


I end this article by inviting you the reader to respond and share your perspectives on these issues.
Tell us where you stand and why.   Your input is helpful and valuable.  I look forward to hearing from you.  Grace and peace.


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


Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Reconciliation with God: A Crossless Salvation?

One of the things that we find in the major religions of the world, is an attempt to be reconciled with or united with God, or as some would call it, a "higher power."  Religion is, in a sense, a humanly constructed ladder to reach God.  Each religious community has its own set of expectations and requirements for its constituency to live by and subsequently have a relationship with God


The Christian faith has an emphasis on God reaching humanity through Jesus the Christ.
Christians believe that unlike other religions that reach upwards to God, Christianity is a
faith that stresses God reaching downwards to reaching humanity.  The Christian faith, then,
is a belief that the relationship between God and humanity depends on God's self-initiative
and self-disclosure rather than on human effort or initiative.


Christianity emphasizes that we reconciled with God on the basis of Jesus (God's Son) shedding His blood and dying on the cross.  There are some movements today that claim to be Christian, but deny that the cross is the basis for reconciliation between God and humanity.  They believe that God's love, and not the cross is the basis for such reconciliation.  Those who believe that Jesus's death on the cross is the basis for reconciliation will claim that this act of Jesus dying on the cross is the chief exemplification of God's love.  Those who do not believe in the cross as the basis for reconciliation believe that God does not need the shedding of blood for divine-human reconciliation.


This writer (yours truly) believes that it is not the shedding of blood per se, that reconciles us to God.
God is not a vampire who takes delight in the sight of blood.  God is not a blood-thirsty entity who requires blood-shed for a relationship with Her/Him.


Having said that, however, I think that we need to understand what the blood meant in a biblical sense.  The blood of the sacrificed animals in the Old Testament, and the blood of Jesus in the New Testament represented the life in the blood.  God did not require the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament because He/She wanted to have an orgy.  Neither did God require the blood of Jesus in order to have a "blood festival."  The shedding of Jesus's blood was Jesus giving His life as a substitute for the humans who were supposed to die as a result of sin.  It is in this life sacrificed on our behalf that we find peace and reconciliation with God.


If we deny the centrality of Jesus dying on the cross as a basis for reconciliation with God, then in essence we are saying that it wasn't necessary for Him to die, and that in fact, He wasted His time.
If we believe that God's love is the basis for our reconciliation with Her/Him, then we have to ask ourselves how is God's saving and liberating love demonstrated to broken humanity?


I admit that I am biased in my view that Jesus giving His life "as a ransom for many" is the basis of our relationship with God.  However, this view is no more biased than any other view.  All opinions, perspectives, and points of view are biased.  Until someone can give me a more viable alternative to Jesus giving His life on our behalf, I will continue to assert and sing "On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand."


To God be the glory now and forever,


Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona


Please share your views and perspectives with us on this issue. 

Boko Haram: A Response from the Faith Community

In the last month, we have been bombarded with constant news about more than 200 young girls being kidnapped in Nigeria by Boko Haram.  As of today, we have heard reports of the Nigerian military "knowing" where the girls are, but reluctant to make a move because of possible wider repercussions.  We become indignant and nauseated with this news, especially because this kidnapping supposedly took place in the name of religion.  And as it happened with the events of 9/11/2001, we are almost tempted to demonize the Islamic faith because the kidnappers are allegedly affiliated with a radical group that professes Islam.


As a Christian minister, educator, and activist, I pose the following questions for your consideration:


1.  Is our view of the group Boko Haram and their alleged criminal activity based exclusively on what we hear in the Western press, or do we have another objective basis on which to evaluate this group?


2.  Do we take what we hear and read through the Western press as absolutely true?


3.  If we look at reality through the prism of a non-Western group that supposedly says
that Western education "is a sin," can we better understand and appreciate why they do
what they do without necessarily agreeing with them?


4.  How should the community of faith, respond to this situation in Nigeria?


5.  How do you as a Christian think that Jesus would respond?


Please share with us your perspectives on this very pressing issue.


Grace and peace,


Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Worship: Emotions or Intelligence?

 One of the many things that distinguish one church from others is the style of worship.  One church has a formal structure of worship, usually accompanied by bulletins that inform what the next thing in the order of worship will be.  Another church has a spontaneous order of worship, in which there is very little, if any structure, and in which the congregation relies on "the moving of the Spirit."  In this type of worship there is a lot of hooping and hollering, shouting, dancing, hand-clapping, physical movements, etc.  These types of churches attribute these human responses to the "moving of the Holy Spirit" in their midst.  They tend to consider the formal worship of other churches as a way of "suppressing/quenching the Spirit," and replacing "the Spirit's move," with a cold and dead form of worship, which usually consists of prepared liturgies, prayers, sermons, etc.  Other churches, are deep in liturgy, as they believe that the  liturgy should reflect the contents of their beliefs.


This writer has experienced a variety of worship experiences.  In my pre-teen years, I attended a Sunday school and worship service in a United Methodist church.  It was in this church that learned a hymn which later on in my spiritual journey became a favorite of mine, i.e. "I Love to tell the Story." It was there that I also learned the hymn "Christ the Lord is Risen Today."  In the meantime, because the clause of separation of Church and State had not yet been enacted, the public school system in New York City would release students early on Wednesday afternoons to attend religious instruction at the faith community of their choice.  I attended a Lutheran church for faith instruction, and the teacher would usually end the class by leading us in singing "God Answers Prayers in the Morning."


In my adolescent and teen years, I attended a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church, where I made my confession of faith in Jesus at the age of thirteen and was baptized at the age of fourteen. I attended this type of church for many years, being immersed in this type of worship, which emphasized not only the worship, but also the very presence of the Holy Spirit in the services. I was ordained a Pentecostal minister, something which I retained for nine years until I graduated from seminary and transferred my ordination to the Reformed Church in America, with which I am still affiliated.  In my seminary years, in my experience as a Reformed Church minister, I became acquainted with the Presbyterian and Reformed order of worship. The Presbyterian and Reformed Churches stress an "informed and intelligent" worship.  By this they mean, that people should know why they are worshipping in a particular manner, and what worship is all about, i.e. a focus on God and not on ourselves.


I've attended and preached at worship services of various traditions (Baptists, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Salvation Army, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.).  I've also attended Catholic Masses, divine liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox traditions, etc.  I can truly say from both my personal experience and from the contents of the way that the Word has been proclaimed in these communities, I have experienced the presence of God among the people.  It has been a very interesting experience in sensing God's presence in these communities, even when I am not in complete agreement with their theological perspectives.  But then again, I am not in complete agreement with all of the theological perspectives of my Protestant sisters and brothers. Next Sunday,
God willing, we will be attending a Unity church in Florida with some friends.  I have never been to a Unity church, but I look forward to hearing the Word of God, and also the integration of the emotions and the intellect.


In answer to the question as to whether worship should be an emotional experience, or something that engages the intellect, my response would be both.  In the same way that Jesus taught us that we should love the Lord our God, with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength, I believe that we should worship God with both heart (emotions) and mind (intellect). We cannot emphasize one at the expense of the other.  Both the emotions and the intellect play a very important role in the faith experience.


There are dangers when we emphasize one to the exclusion of the other.  These dangers are
as follows:


1.  Emotions- There is a danger of converting the worship service into a "feel good experience." When believers follow this trend, they fall into the trap of identifying their relationship with God on the basis of how they "feel" at a given moment.  During the worship service, they experience a euphoria or a "high" which only lasts as long as the music is playing or as long as the service lasts. Then at the conclusion of the service, when they return to their daily routine, nothing has changed in their lives.  They just attended a service where they "felt" good and equate that "feeling good" with the presence of God.  But when they return to their routine lives, they speak as if God is not present with them or as if God has taken a weekly sabbatical until they return to worship the next time around. Then they go back for a weekly dosage of the "feel good" experience.  I remember a colleague who described a service which had taken place at the church he pastored.  He said that the service was "so good that the Holy Spirit was there for about fifteen minutes."  If time had allowed (we were at work that day), I would have asked him "Where did the Holy Spirit go after the fifteen minutes were over?"


2.  Intellect- There is a danger of allowing our intellect to lead us to a point where we become cold, heartless, and rigid.  If, and when this happens in a worship service, what occurs is that we fall into the trap of doing things as a perfunctory activity.  In other words, we do them, because we have been taught that this is "the proper thing to do."  We do things out of routine.  I remember that when I was a prison chaplain, a couple who were serving as volunteers, shared with me a story about a preacher who had preached at their church.  This preacher, they said, was not only dynamic, but also controlled his content in such a way that the majority of people understood what he was talking about.  This couple spoke to the preacher after the service was over, congratulating him on how good the sermon was.  He responded and said to them "Are you kidding? I don't believe in half of what I said during the sermon."  The couple shared with me that they felt "like choking him." Do we repeat the Apostle's Creed and/or other statements of faith because that is what we truly believe, or are doing it out of mere intellectual assent?  In this case, the role of the intellect in the construction of a Christian theology can only result in mental gymnastics and not heart-felt convictions.


Please respond to this article by sharing with us where you stand on the role of both emotion and intellect in the worship service.  Should it be hollering, hooping, and shouting?  Should it be standing still and singing hymns and knowing why we are singing?  Is there a way to blend the emotions with the intellect in the course of the worship service?  Please share your perspectives with us.


Grace and peace,


Pastor Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

A Religious Smorgasbord- Picking and Choosing

It was in 1968 that my best friend and his wife invited me to eat with them at a restaurant in New York by the name of the Stockholm.  When we came into the restaurant, he explained to me that it
was a smorgasbord.  I had never heard that term before.  When I asked him to explain to me what that word meant, he indicated that it was a type of restaurant with different compartments, each of which contained different types of food from which the customer could choose for one price.  As you can very well image, since I had never been to a Scandinavian restaurant before then, I delighted myself in "compartment hopping," and enjoying the varieties of delicacies that were there. Some years later, I took my wife there to dine for our first wedding anniversary.


In the field of religion,  just like in other fields of human knowledge, we come up against a variety of beliefs and ideas.  Some of these beliefs are based on the sacred writings of the particular faith group, others are based on oral traditions which have been handed down, and others yet, on either unexamined presuppositions or simply blind emotions which in turn stem from market-place rumors and hearsay.


Within the Christian faith, there are a variety of beliefs.  One church says one thing, and another church says something which is completely contrary to that of the first church.  They each claim to base themselves on "what the Bibles says," or on some tradition handed down by the founders of that particular community.


In each community, we find that there are people who subscribe totally to the beliefs of that church. We also find some who subscribe in part to the teachings of that group, and reject other parts of that group's belief system.


I would invite you to examine the "smorgasbord" approach that some of us take to what we believe and what we reject.  The fact is that we "pick and choose," what we subscribe to and what we don't subscribe to.


In your opinion, what is the criteria for choosing and rejecting some teachings of your church?
Are we as individuals really free to "pick and choose?"  If we are, then are we saying that there are no "absolutes," in Christian doctrine?  Is it safer for us to have a church saying "This is the faith that was once delivered to the saints, end of story, no questions asked, no razzle dazzle?"  Finally, tell us if in your opinion, the "smorgasbord" approach to theology is a sound one?  Your thoughts are much appreciated. I'd love to hear from you.


Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Religion and Education: Allies or Enemies? A Faith-based Response- Please Reply

One of the many controversies throughout the centuries has been that of the conflict between religion and education.  Some believe that education and knowledge is antithetical to the faith.  Others believe that education strengthens the faith.  There are many in the faith community who take a rather defensive posture towards education, believing that the accumulation of knowledge will result in the deterioration and erosion of the basic tenets of the faith.  They quote those Scriptural passages that appear to suggest that "much study is affliction of the faith," or that much learning makes one "mad," or "crazy."  Others believe that education enables us to articulate the faith in more clear and effective ways.  They tend to think of having a clearly, well thought-out faith." 


I have personally known people within the faith community who appear to be allergic to new information and knowledge.  Some of these persons tend to think that they are "safer" by remaining uninformed, rather than by being exposed to the vast array of knowledge in the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences.  They fear that knew knowledge will threaten and call into question what they have been believing all their lives.  They will say things like "God wants our hearts, not our minds."  Without realizing it, what they are saying is that God wants us to float on "cloud nine," and to put our intellect away in a draw.


In his many years of experience in the profession of the ministry, this writer has also known many people that sincerely believe that training is not necessary to enter this profession.  Their notion is that the only thing that one needs is to be "called" by God and "anointed by the Holy Spirit," and everything will be okay.  I remember one of my past pastors who had heard that I had received a scholarship to go to seminary full-time.  His attitude was, "we need to be careful, because the devil also gives blessings."  His attitude was that I should remain ignorant and uninformed, rather than to avail myself of the blessing that God had given me to further my training for the profession of the ministry.  Many of these faith leaders feel threatened by their parishioners becoming educated and informed because they fear that they will "take over" their positions.


On the other hand, there are other faith communities that strongly believe that their leaders should be well-trained and well-equipped in order to carry out in a faithful and efficient manner the task that God has called them to.  They believe that if people who enter other professions are well-trained, that those "called by God," should not settle for less.


From my own experience, I have been the beneficiary of  both types of leadership.  My first pastor had a second or third-grade education, but he knew the Bible "from cover to cover," and as a radio Baptist preacher once said, "he even knew the cover."  For the initial years of my spiritual journey, I came under the leadership of those whose formal education was very limited, and who nonetheless, had a sincere faith and with all their limitations laid down a very good foundation for many of us. In the last three decades, I have been blessed and privileged to come under the leadership of many men and women of God who are not only called, but also well-trained.  They have enabled me to see the faith in its broader dimensions and implications.


Can you share with us as to where you stand relative to the role between religion and education?Should we advocate for and promote more education in our faith communities or should we assume that "never the twain shall meet?"  Our faith and knowledge allies or enemies?  Share your perspective with us.


Juan Ayala-Carmona