In the creation narrative of the book of Genesis, we find reference to God creating the birds of the air,
sea creatures (including fish), land animals, and finally human beings. In the Gospel accounts, we find mention of Jesus performing the miracle of multiplying bread and fish so that there was enough for everybody to eat. We also find Jesus saying to His prospective disciples "Follow me and I will make you fishers of people."
While the Bible does not abound in "fishy" stories, there is one particular one that I would like to use for this article. It is the story of the prophet Jonah. The narrative is a very interesting one. I have used it in sermons that I have delivered in churches and in worship services in the prison in my work as a chaplain.
We are told in the book of Jonah, that God called Jonah so that he could preach to the people of Nineveh, and tell them to repent and straighten out their ways so that they could obtain forgiveness and mercy from God. Because of his possible racist attitudes, (Jonah was a Hebrew), Jonah did not want to go through the trouble of proclaiming a message that would probably result in the people mending their ways and finding favor with God. He (like many Hebrews/Jews of his time,) wanted
the blessings, favor, grace, and mercy of God to be available only to his people. Subsequently, in
order to avoid the task which God was assigning to him, he paid a ticket for a ship heading in another direction. The poor foolish lad did not know that "we can run, but we can't hide" from God.
From the description given in the book, it appeared that it was more of a navy ship than a cruise ship. But perhaps Jonah thought that he would be on a cruise heading for the Caribbean where he could eat, dance, and party all night long, and at the same time forget about those poor slobs in Nineveh, who deserved nothing other than misery and annihilation. But God had other plans for him according to the story, and sent a storm that buffeted the ship. We are told that when the sailors found Jonah below the deck, they urged him to call upon his god. Their god had not listened to them and the storm continued. After much discussion, he finally identified himself as a Hebrew who "worshipped Yahweh" (the God of the Hebrews)." He had already told them that he was running away from God, and that in effect, he was the guilty party for bringing this calamity upon his fellow travelers. After the storm intensified, they took his previous advice and threw him overboard into the sea, and the sea storm came to an end.
The interesting part of the story is that while he was in the sea, he was swallowed, though not devoured, by a fish, and spent three days and three nights (possible foreshadow of Jesus's death?)
In the time that he was in the belly of the fish, he prayed to God and was subsequently released, and then relented, and decided, with disappointment, albeit, to respond to God's call.
The part that I would like us to consider is the story itself and its relevancy to faith. Subsequently, I ask the following questions:
1. Was this a story that we are to take literally as an actual historical event or is this a legend or myth that points beyond itself to a higher truth?
2. Is it possible that the literary genre of the book of Jonah is one of allegory and symbolism?
3. Does it really matter whether the story was literally true or not? Will our faith in and relationship with God be affected by whether we take the story as literally true or whether we understand it as a legend and myth?
4. Does taking a Bible message seriously mean that we have to become biblical literalists?
Please share with us your perspective on these issues. I am sure that whatever your response is,
you will be giving us food for thought.
Brother, colleague, and friend,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Monday, June 30, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Theology: Does God encounter humanity, or does humanity discover God?
One of the things that the Christian Church and other faith groups have done is to construct a theology which articulates their understanding of divine revelation and divine-human relationships in the words of finite human language. This limited language reflects the feeble human effort to comprehend how God relates to humans and vice-versa.
As I have mentioned in previous articles, the Christian faith is distinguished from other faiths (except Jewish and Muslim) in that it emphasizes God's initiative in divine-human relationships. In other words, the stress is on God and not humans taking the initiative to bring about those relationships.
In Christian theology, God's initiative is demonstrated in the Christ event (birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).
Some Christians would go as far as questioning the need for theology. They say that an experience with God is the crucial thing, and that theology is just a game to distract from that experience. Others would say that the experience is best expressed through the articulation of theology.
This writer (yours truly) believes that the dichotomy that some wish to establish between experience and theology is a false one. It is not either/or but rather both/and. God takes the initiative in revealing Godself to humans and encountering them in the person of Jesus. I would also add that in Jesus, God allures humankind to Godself. Theology, on the other hand, seeks to explain how that encounter takes place, and how the relationship is subsequently established.
To the question of whether God encounters humanity or does humanity discover God, my only humble response can be that humanity cannot discover God. Why do I say this? I say this because God is not "lost." Neither is God an entity waiting to be "found" as if God were hidden. To say that humanity discovers God is akin to saying the Columbus "discovered" America. I think that it is safe to say that it is a well-known fact by now that no such thing happened. America was there way before Columbus came upon it and invaded it. In the same vein, God was always there, throughout history, and in many ways making Godself known to humans.
I would like to invite you, the reader, to contribute to this discussion by telling us where you stand on the divine-human encounter. Does God encounter humanity or does humanity discover God?
Whatever your position is, share it with us and let us know why you hold to such a position.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
As I have mentioned in previous articles, the Christian faith is distinguished from other faiths (except Jewish and Muslim) in that it emphasizes God's initiative in divine-human relationships. In other words, the stress is on God and not humans taking the initiative to bring about those relationships.
In Christian theology, God's initiative is demonstrated in the Christ event (birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).
Some Christians would go as far as questioning the need for theology. They say that an experience with God is the crucial thing, and that theology is just a game to distract from that experience. Others would say that the experience is best expressed through the articulation of theology.
This writer (yours truly) believes that the dichotomy that some wish to establish between experience and theology is a false one. It is not either/or but rather both/and. God takes the initiative in revealing Godself to humans and encountering them in the person of Jesus. I would also add that in Jesus, God allures humankind to Godself. Theology, on the other hand, seeks to explain how that encounter takes place, and how the relationship is subsequently established.
To the question of whether God encounters humanity or does humanity discover God, my only humble response can be that humanity cannot discover God. Why do I say this? I say this because God is not "lost." Neither is God an entity waiting to be "found" as if God were hidden. To say that humanity discovers God is akin to saying the Columbus "discovered" America. I think that it is safe to say that it is a well-known fact by now that no such thing happened. America was there way before Columbus came upon it and invaded it. In the same vein, God was always there, throughout history, and in many ways making Godself known to humans.
I would like to invite you, the reader, to contribute to this discussion by telling us where you stand on the divine-human encounter. Does God encounter humanity or does humanity discover God?
Whatever your position is, share it with us and let us know why you hold to such a position.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, June 14, 2014
The Wrath of God: Punitive or Restorative?
In a previous article ("The Hell with Hell"), I wrote about the need to discard and dismantle the doctrine of wicked people going to a place called "Hell", where they will undergo eternal conscious suffering and torment for their wicked ways. In that same spirit, I now invite you (all of us, myself included) to examine the notion of God's anger.
In many religious traditions, we find prevalent the notion that God or the gods become angry because of humanity's inclination to become wayward and to specialize in deviant behavior. Subsequently, faith communities come up with the need for sacrifice or some other means to compensate for that behavior so that we not become victim's of God's wrath. In other words, the notion of "kissing and making up" with God stands at the center of the beliefs of many faith communities.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), Christian Scriptures (New Testament) and Islamic Scriptures (Holy Qu'ran) all have an emphasis on God becoming "pissed off," so to speak,
and consequently relegating people to suffer the consequences of their disobedience and deviancy either by destruction or eternal torment. Both of these types of punishment speak about God punishing people when they insist on being adamant and unrepentant, and additionally, not taking advantage of God's offer to be forgiven and redeemed. This is especially true in the Christian faith, which emphasizes that if we refuse to accept God's offer of forgiveness through Jesus, that we will end up in "hell" to suffer the not only the consequences of our sinful acts and lifestyles, but also the consequence of rejecting God's offer of redemption through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
It is precisely this notion of God becoming angry that I would like for us to examine and discuss. The Bible (both testaments) and the Qu'ran, as well as the sacred texts of other religious communities, utilize anthropomorphic language, i.e. language that attributes human-like characteristics and qualities to God. In other words, in the community of faith, we speak about God as if we were speaking about ourselves. Instead of humans being made "in the image and likeness of God," we find God "in the image and likeness of humans." The tendency to talk about God as if God were human is rooted in the limitation of human language to describe the infinite and indescribebable When we speak about God's anger in the context of faith, we have the impression that God is like us, i.e. subject to having a hissy or temper tantrum.
The scriptural description of God's anger speaks more to God's displeasure. In other words, the Scriptures point to a God who does not disregard, ignore, or overlook acts of human defiance, but rather acts to generate consequences for our "cockiness."
The question for us is, is God's punishment for our sin intended to be punitive or restorative? This writer (yours truly) is more inclined towards the latter, i.e. God's actions are designed to "bring us back into the fold." My biased position is based on the following:
1. The thrust of the Old Testament's mention of God's punishment of Israel is towards restoration. A perfect example of this is the Babylonian captivity. We find the prophets speaking of God bringing the people back after a seventy year education. The promise is made for them to be able to go back and "plant vineyards" and rebuild the temple.
2. The thrust of the "eternal fire" in the Gospel message speaks to purification. How do we know this? We know this because the overriding principle of God's relationship with humans is God's love for us. That love is not obliterated by our obstinacy and resistance to God's love.
3. The emphasis that is given in Process Theology on God alluring not only humans, but the totality of the creation to Godself. God works the prophets, through Jesus and through specific acts of "spanking" (tough love) to draw us back to Godself. God works through whatever means are necessary in order to make it possible for us to have the capacity for full satisfaction.
4. My experience as a correctional chaplain. The underlying philosophy (at least in New York State) was correction, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society. While the punitive aspect was not totally missing, it was secondary and subordinate to rehabilitation. That is the reason why the opportunity to participate in educational, recreational, religious, and therapeutic programs were afforded to the residents, i.e. to aid in their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
I now invite you, the reader to share with us where you stand on the issue of God's displeasure.
Is God's anger in your opinion something which results in eternal destruction or is it an intended act of restoration? Whatever your position is, tell us why you hold to such a position. Tell us how in your opinion we can maintain in a balanced tension the double principles that "God is love, but is also consuming fire."
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
4.
In many religious traditions, we find prevalent the notion that God or the gods become angry because of humanity's inclination to become wayward and to specialize in deviant behavior. Subsequently, faith communities come up with the need for sacrifice or some other means to compensate for that behavior so that we not become victim's of God's wrath. In other words, the notion of "kissing and making up" with God stands at the center of the beliefs of many faith communities.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), Christian Scriptures (New Testament) and Islamic Scriptures (Holy Qu'ran) all have an emphasis on God becoming "pissed off," so to speak,
and consequently relegating people to suffer the consequences of their disobedience and deviancy either by destruction or eternal torment. Both of these types of punishment speak about God punishing people when they insist on being adamant and unrepentant, and additionally, not taking advantage of God's offer to be forgiven and redeemed. This is especially true in the Christian faith, which emphasizes that if we refuse to accept God's offer of forgiveness through Jesus, that we will end up in "hell" to suffer the not only the consequences of our sinful acts and lifestyles, but also the consequence of rejecting God's offer of redemption through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
It is precisely this notion of God becoming angry that I would like for us to examine and discuss. The Bible (both testaments) and the Qu'ran, as well as the sacred texts of other religious communities, utilize anthropomorphic language, i.e. language that attributes human-like characteristics and qualities to God. In other words, in the community of faith, we speak about God as if we were speaking about ourselves. Instead of humans being made "in the image and likeness of God," we find God "in the image and likeness of humans." The tendency to talk about God as if God were human is rooted in the limitation of human language to describe the infinite and indescribebable When we speak about God's anger in the context of faith, we have the impression that God is like us, i.e. subject to having a hissy or temper tantrum.
The scriptural description of God's anger speaks more to God's displeasure. In other words, the Scriptures point to a God who does not disregard, ignore, or overlook acts of human defiance, but rather acts to generate consequences for our "cockiness."
The question for us is, is God's punishment for our sin intended to be punitive or restorative? This writer (yours truly) is more inclined towards the latter, i.e. God's actions are designed to "bring us back into the fold." My biased position is based on the following:
1. The thrust of the Old Testament's mention of God's punishment of Israel is towards restoration. A perfect example of this is the Babylonian captivity. We find the prophets speaking of God bringing the people back after a seventy year education. The promise is made for them to be able to go back and "plant vineyards" and rebuild the temple.
2. The thrust of the "eternal fire" in the Gospel message speaks to purification. How do we know this? We know this because the overriding principle of God's relationship with humans is God's love for us. That love is not obliterated by our obstinacy and resistance to God's love.
3. The emphasis that is given in Process Theology on God alluring not only humans, but the totality of the creation to Godself. God works the prophets, through Jesus and through specific acts of "spanking" (tough love) to draw us back to Godself. God works through whatever means are necessary in order to make it possible for us to have the capacity for full satisfaction.
4. My experience as a correctional chaplain. The underlying philosophy (at least in New York State) was correction, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society. While the punitive aspect was not totally missing, it was secondary and subordinate to rehabilitation. That is the reason why the opportunity to participate in educational, recreational, religious, and therapeutic programs were afforded to the residents, i.e. to aid in their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
I now invite you, the reader to share with us where you stand on the issue of God's displeasure.
Is God's anger in your opinion something which results in eternal destruction or is it an intended act of restoration? Whatever your position is, tell us why you hold to such a position. Tell us how in your opinion we can maintain in a balanced tension the double principles that "God is love, but is also consuming fire."
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
4.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue
Sisters, Brothers, and Friends:
Regarding this Blog Site, I wish to say the following:
1. You are free to respond to any of the articles previously written, no matter how old they are. If you have seen anything in any of them the spark your curiosity, feel free to respond and have us engage in discussion. For the time being, I will try to limit myself to writing one article per week, so as to give you, the reader, time and space to digest the most recent ones. Feel free to "jump in" at any point and contribute your "two cents." Do not be afraid to disagree with me or any one else participating in these exchanges. This is a dialogue, and each contributor is free to express her/his own opinions and points of view. And since none of us is infallible, we all have much to learn from
each other. I look forward to hearing and learning from you.
2. I do not have a monopoly on the topics of this Blog Site. Feel free to initiate topics of your own for discussion. That might come in the form of raising questions that you may have about any given issue, or "taking a stand" on an issue that you feel strongly about. Again, we all have a lot to learn
from each other by listening to each other. Again, I look forward to hearing and learning from you.
Brother, colleague, and friend,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Regarding this Blog Site, I wish to say the following:
1. You are free to respond to any of the articles previously written, no matter how old they are. If you have seen anything in any of them the spark your curiosity, feel free to respond and have us engage in discussion. For the time being, I will try to limit myself to writing one article per week, so as to give you, the reader, time and space to digest the most recent ones. Feel free to "jump in" at any point and contribute your "two cents." Do not be afraid to disagree with me or any one else participating in these exchanges. This is a dialogue, and each contributor is free to express her/his own opinions and points of view. And since none of us is infallible, we all have much to learn from
each other. I look forward to hearing and learning from you.
2. I do not have a monopoly on the topics of this Blog Site. Feel free to initiate topics of your own for discussion. That might come in the form of raising questions that you may have about any given issue, or "taking a stand" on an issue that you feel strongly about. Again, we all have a lot to learn
from each other by listening to each other. Again, I look forward to hearing and learning from you.
Brother, colleague, and friend,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Monday, June 9, 2014
The Christ Principle: Is Jesus really the only way?
Religious communities tend to fall into either one of two categories:
Exclusivism- Some faith groups believe that they have a monopoly on God's truth. Subsequently, they are of the notion that if someone is not affiliated with their particular group, or does not subscribe to the beliefs and tenets of that group, that they cannot have a relationship with God. For them, a relationship with God is contingent on being a "member of the club," and affirming the ideology of the club.
Inclusion: There are other faith groups that believe that their belief system is the best expression of God's truth, but that a relationship with God is not contingent on being affiliated with them. They will even go as far as believing and saying that kernels (both great and small) of God's truth are found in all religious communities and belief systems. Some in this group might even subscribe to the notion that that there are "different paths leading to the mountain top." They will also engage, on occasion, with other faith groups in ecumenical and interfaith activities and dialogue.
The Christian Church tends to oscillate between those two poles. There are some Christian groups that are exclusive because they believe that all other groups (including other groups calling themselves "Christian") are false, and that their belief system is either satanically inspired, or generated by a sincere, but misguided interpretation of Scripture. Then there are other Christian groups that believe that their doctrine and theology is the best, though not perfect expression of God's truth. They will have fellowship (limited, albeit) with other Christian groups. They will not be quick to join the bandwagon of demonizing these other groups or consigning them to eternal condemnation.
The one area in which the Christian faith seems to reflect a spirit of exclusivism is that of the claim that Jesus is the only way to God. In the Gospel accounts, especially that of John, we find Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes unto the Father except through me." The writer of the book of Acts has Peter and the Apostles proclaiming that "there is no other name, given unto humans whereby we must be saved." And then we have the Apostle Paul saying that "there is only one mediator between God and humans, i.e. the man Christ Jesus." It appears that the thrust of the totality of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) has an emphasis on Jesus being the only way to God. So the question then is, is Jesus really the only way for us to have a relationship with God? The answer to that question will depend on:
1. How we read Scripture. Many Christians read the Scriptures very superficially and disregard both context and the language which Scripture employs. They resort to what a good friend of mine calls the "quick to verse" approach, without taking into consideration the cultural and social context of the particular passage and text of Scripture that they are quoting. They also fail to ask if the language of Scripture in that particular passage is literal, allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic. They assume that it is literal and that it must be taken at face value, with no questions asked.
2. How we view Jesus. Christian theology has historically affirmed that Jesus is the pre-incarnate God, who took upon Himself a human body in order to achieve God's salvific actions of liberation and redemption for all of humankind. It is precisely at this point that we encounter some complexity.
If Jesus is, as is believed in the Christian community, "God in the flesh," then what was Jesus before being humanly embodied? John tells us in his Gospel account that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then he goes on to mention that "the Word became flesh (human) and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father." John intimates very clearly that this entity referred to as "the Word" prior to His incarnation, and as "Jesus" after the incarnation, existed alongside of God, and was in fact, part of Godself prior to taking on a human body.
This then leads us to ask if this pre-incarnate being was manifested to and revealed to other cultures, nationalities, and races prior to taking on human form in Bethlehem of Judaea? Did other ethnic, national, and racial groups experience a "Christophany (manifestation of Christ)" prior to Jesus coming to earth as a human being? Is it possible that they had an encounter or experience "with the Word" prior to Jesus coming to earth? Is it possible that other groups experienced a Christophany after Jesus came to earth and prior to hearing the Gospel proclaimed to them? Is it possible that other groups have experienced the Christ even after the Christian faith came into vogue?
This writer believes in and affirms the "Christ principle," i.e. that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life." Having said that, however, I affirm this principle in a cosmic sense, i.e. that Jesus is not the exclusive or sole property of the Church. I believe in the Cosmic Christ, who is known through nature, and through various expressions, including some expressions which are not necessarily Christian. As a Christian in the Reformed tradition, which strongly emphasizes the sovereignty of God, I strongly believe that God manifests and reveals Godself through whichever manners and means He/She chooses to.
I have never read anything in the New Testament that says Jesus requires people of other faith groups outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition to discard their prior beliefs in order to be considered His followers. Neither do we find Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) badgering people about their beliefs nor requiring them to shed their prior religious baggage in order to be included in God's beloved community.
Will I as a follower of Jesus or as a Minister of the Gospel, ever tell a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Muslim that for them to follow Jesus, they must stop being what they are? Since I have read or heard anything about Jesus doing that, and since I believe that people experience the Cosmic Christ in ways different than ours as a result of God's sovereignty, I would never do that.
I invite you, the reader, to share with us your position on affirming the Christ-principle without requiring that one must cease to be Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. I look forward to your response and engaging with us on this subject.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Exclusivism- Some faith groups believe that they have a monopoly on God's truth. Subsequently, they are of the notion that if someone is not affiliated with their particular group, or does not subscribe to the beliefs and tenets of that group, that they cannot have a relationship with God. For them, a relationship with God is contingent on being a "member of the club," and affirming the ideology of the club.
Inclusion: There are other faith groups that believe that their belief system is the best expression of God's truth, but that a relationship with God is not contingent on being affiliated with them. They will even go as far as believing and saying that kernels (both great and small) of God's truth are found in all religious communities and belief systems. Some in this group might even subscribe to the notion that that there are "different paths leading to the mountain top." They will also engage, on occasion, with other faith groups in ecumenical and interfaith activities and dialogue.
The Christian Church tends to oscillate between those two poles. There are some Christian groups that are exclusive because they believe that all other groups (including other groups calling themselves "Christian") are false, and that their belief system is either satanically inspired, or generated by a sincere, but misguided interpretation of Scripture. Then there are other Christian groups that believe that their doctrine and theology is the best, though not perfect expression of God's truth. They will have fellowship (limited, albeit) with other Christian groups. They will not be quick to join the bandwagon of demonizing these other groups or consigning them to eternal condemnation.
The one area in which the Christian faith seems to reflect a spirit of exclusivism is that of the claim that Jesus is the only way to God. In the Gospel accounts, especially that of John, we find Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes unto the Father except through me." The writer of the book of Acts has Peter and the Apostles proclaiming that "there is no other name, given unto humans whereby we must be saved." And then we have the Apostle Paul saying that "there is only one mediator between God and humans, i.e. the man Christ Jesus." It appears that the thrust of the totality of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) has an emphasis on Jesus being the only way to God. So the question then is, is Jesus really the only way for us to have a relationship with God? The answer to that question will depend on:
1. How we read Scripture. Many Christians read the Scriptures very superficially and disregard both context and the language which Scripture employs. They resort to what a good friend of mine calls the "quick to verse" approach, without taking into consideration the cultural and social context of the particular passage and text of Scripture that they are quoting. They also fail to ask if the language of Scripture in that particular passage is literal, allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic. They assume that it is literal and that it must be taken at face value, with no questions asked.
2. How we view Jesus. Christian theology has historically affirmed that Jesus is the pre-incarnate God, who took upon Himself a human body in order to achieve God's salvific actions of liberation and redemption for all of humankind. It is precisely at this point that we encounter some complexity.
If Jesus is, as is believed in the Christian community, "God in the flesh," then what was Jesus before being humanly embodied? John tells us in his Gospel account that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then he goes on to mention that "the Word became flesh (human) and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father." John intimates very clearly that this entity referred to as "the Word" prior to His incarnation, and as "Jesus" after the incarnation, existed alongside of God, and was in fact, part of Godself prior to taking on a human body.
This then leads us to ask if this pre-incarnate being was manifested to and revealed to other cultures, nationalities, and races prior to taking on human form in Bethlehem of Judaea? Did other ethnic, national, and racial groups experience a "Christophany (manifestation of Christ)" prior to Jesus coming to earth as a human being? Is it possible that they had an encounter or experience "with the Word" prior to Jesus coming to earth? Is it possible that other groups experienced a Christophany after Jesus came to earth and prior to hearing the Gospel proclaimed to them? Is it possible that other groups have experienced the Christ even after the Christian faith came into vogue?
This writer believes in and affirms the "Christ principle," i.e. that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life." Having said that, however, I affirm this principle in a cosmic sense, i.e. that Jesus is not the exclusive or sole property of the Church. I believe in the Cosmic Christ, who is known through nature, and through various expressions, including some expressions which are not necessarily Christian. As a Christian in the Reformed tradition, which strongly emphasizes the sovereignty of God, I strongly believe that God manifests and reveals Godself through whichever manners and means He/She chooses to.
I have never read anything in the New Testament that says Jesus requires people of other faith groups outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition to discard their prior beliefs in order to be considered His followers. Neither do we find Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) badgering people about their beliefs nor requiring them to shed their prior religious baggage in order to be included in God's beloved community.
Will I as a follower of Jesus or as a Minister of the Gospel, ever tell a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Muslim that for them to follow Jesus, they must stop being what they are? Since I have read or heard anything about Jesus doing that, and since I believe that people experience the Cosmic Christ in ways different than ours as a result of God's sovereignty, I would never do that.
I invite you, the reader, to share with us your position on affirming the Christ-principle without requiring that one must cease to be Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. I look forward to your response and engaging with us on this subject.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, June 5, 2014
The Syndrome of Defensiveness
We live in a world of competing ideologies and belief systems. We all have different ideas as to what is right and what is wrong. Some of us have the notion of "Everybody thinks they're right, but I know they're wrong." We are convinced that what we believe is the absolute truth, regardless of what anyone else says or opines. We are so enclosed and entrenched in our beliefs that we find it hard to be open to other perspectives.
There are beliefs about politics, religion, social systems, etc. These beliefs have been inculcated and ingrained in us through our upbringing, the community of faith, and the educational system. We tend to take that which has been implanted in our minds for granted without bothering to question.
What I would like to address here is the attitude of defensiveness. Whenever we hear or are presented with something which contradicts that which we have heard all our lives, we become defensive. We build a mental wall around ourselves in order to fend off these mosquitoes (ouch!) which are invading our ideological system.
This attitude is noted in the area of religion. If we are raised in a particular community of faith, we automatically assume without question that the tenets that were taught us are "gospel truth." Because these tenets, which were supposedly thrown from Heaven to Earth by God, we dare not question them, or even bother to examine if they are true. After all, who would want to even think of daring to question God?
Another reason why we do not bother to question our beliefs is that it is a tedious task. It takes a lot of energy, time, and work to examine the history, origins, and presuppositions of our belief system.
We are also afraid that when challenged, our long-held beliefs might be proven wrong, and we are reluctant to admit that there is even the slightest possibility that our long-held beliefs may not be valid at all. It is like demythologizing Santa Claus and removing the rug from under our feet. We fall into the mindset of the ostrich with its head buried in the sand, with the attitude of "Please don't confuse me with the facts." We then become even more defensive by fortifying our attitude of denial and attempting to "cover the sky with our hands."
The use of Scripture to support our belief system does not solve the problem either. The reason for that is that even we subscribe to the notion of "sola scriptura" (The Bible alone) as our basis for faith and practice, we then encounter the variety of interpretations and understandings of Bible readers. Each Protestant church claims to base its teachings and theology on the Bible, but yet each one has a different doctrinal and theological system of beliefs. So we ask then, what is wrong with this picture?
I invite you, the reader, to discuss and share with us your opinion as to why we are so defensive. You can share some of your own personal experience with and history of being defensive. I don't think that any of us is immune to this syndrome, so feel free to "let your hair down." You will not be attacked, mocked, or ridiculed for openly sharing where you stand. Perhaps your contribution will help us to find a solution to this defensive attitude, and put us on the road to dismantling the barriers of religious defensiveness that leads us to fight "tooth and nail" for what we believe.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
There are beliefs about politics, religion, social systems, etc. These beliefs have been inculcated and ingrained in us through our upbringing, the community of faith, and the educational system. We tend to take that which has been implanted in our minds for granted without bothering to question.
What I would like to address here is the attitude of defensiveness. Whenever we hear or are presented with something which contradicts that which we have heard all our lives, we become defensive. We build a mental wall around ourselves in order to fend off these mosquitoes (ouch!) which are invading our ideological system.
This attitude is noted in the area of religion. If we are raised in a particular community of faith, we automatically assume without question that the tenets that were taught us are "gospel truth." Because these tenets, which were supposedly thrown from Heaven to Earth by God, we dare not question them, or even bother to examine if they are true. After all, who would want to even think of daring to question God?
Another reason why we do not bother to question our beliefs is that it is a tedious task. It takes a lot of energy, time, and work to examine the history, origins, and presuppositions of our belief system.
We are also afraid that when challenged, our long-held beliefs might be proven wrong, and we are reluctant to admit that there is even the slightest possibility that our long-held beliefs may not be valid at all. It is like demythologizing Santa Claus and removing the rug from under our feet. We fall into the mindset of the ostrich with its head buried in the sand, with the attitude of "Please don't confuse me with the facts." We then become even more defensive by fortifying our attitude of denial and attempting to "cover the sky with our hands."
The use of Scripture to support our belief system does not solve the problem either. The reason for that is that even we subscribe to the notion of "sola scriptura" (The Bible alone) as our basis for faith and practice, we then encounter the variety of interpretations and understandings of Bible readers. Each Protestant church claims to base its teachings and theology on the Bible, but yet each one has a different doctrinal and theological system of beliefs. So we ask then, what is wrong with this picture?
I invite you, the reader, to discuss and share with us your opinion as to why we are so defensive. You can share some of your own personal experience with and history of being defensive. I don't think that any of us is immune to this syndrome, so feel free to "let your hair down." You will not be attacked, mocked, or ridiculed for openly sharing where you stand. Perhaps your contribution will help us to find a solution to this defensive attitude, and put us on the road to dismantling the barriers of religious defensiveness that leads us to fight "tooth and nail" for what we believe.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, June 1, 2014
The Hell with Hell-Please Respond
One of the major tenets of historic Christianity is that of rewards and punishment. Put in simple terms, most Christian churches and individuals believe that righteous people are rewarded for their righteousness by going forever to a place called "Heaven," and that unrighteous people are punished for their sinful life styles by going forever to a place called "Hell." I do not wish to discuss in this article the biblical affirmations and the misconceptions of Christians about the eternal destiny of the righteous and good people. That is a topic of discussion for another occasion.
In this article I would invite the reader to seriously examine the assumptions and presuppositions that have been ingrained into us about the destiny of evil people. We have been taught that at the end of time, sinners will be relegated to a place called "hell" where they will "roast and toast" forever and ever. In other words the word "hell" has been used to describe the last stop for the wicked. "Hell" is thought of as a place or condition where wicked people will suffer eternal conscious torment.
In historic Christianity (especially fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity), we are taught that if one does not accept Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives, that God will send them to hell to suffer the consequences of their sin. Many Christians "move heaven and earth," to insure that people avoid this terrible catastrophe. They will badger, harass, and intimidate people non-Christians into accepting Christ, joining the Church, and then adopt a lifestyle contrary to their previous one. In many cases, this previous lifestyle is one which even many non-Christians do not adhere to. For example, people are expected to refrain from alcohol, tobacco usage, sexual immorality, etc. once they become Christians. They are constantly bombarded with biblical texts such as "if any person be in Christ, they are new creations." Ironically enough, there are many non-Christians, non-religious people, and even atheists who do not indulge in these vices nor practice sexual immorality. Consequently, the expectation of a new life-style is a rather superfluous one.
This type of Gospel message is proclaimed by literally scaring the "hell out" of people in order to Christianize them. Many Christians even intimate that if you are not a member of their church or type of church that you are definitely hell-bound.
The truth of the matter is that the word "hell" is never used in the Bible with the destiny of the wicked. Unless one is a biblical literalist, it is impossible to reconcile the biblical doctrine of the love of God with the proclamation of a God who would relegate some to eternal conscious suffering because they didn't practice the "right" religion, and were not members of the "good ole boys club."
There are several terms in the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament) which are translated into English as "hell." They are the following:
1. Sheol (in Hebrew) and Hades (in Greek) Sheol and Hades are a biblical reference to the grave or tomb. In a very technical sense, when we die (whether we are believers or not), we all go to "hell", i.e. the tomb.
2. Gehenna (in Greek) Gehenna referred to a garbage dump or incinerator outside the confines of ancient Jerusalem where the bodies of criminals and other social rejects were buried.
3. Tartaros (in Greek). Tartaros was a Greek word used to describe the condition or state of death.
Depending on which one of these three words is translated into the word "hell" in a particular biblical text, the word should be used in conjunction with its originally intended purpose and not to concoct something which was never envisioned by the biblical writers. We need to be careful to avoid the trap of misusing the Bible by simply misquoting a text or simply quoting it without taking into account its meaning in the original language of Scripture. We also need to avoid the trap of quoting a biblical text without taking into consideration its cultural context and also the role that metaphorical and symbolic language play in Scripture. Otherwise, we become biblical literalists, and miss the point which was originally intended, subsequently distorting the message.
Having said all of the above, I humbly submit that it is time to:
1. Rethink how we read the Bible. We must avoid the impulsive, literalist, mechanical, robotic, and quick to verse approaches to Scripture reading. We must also avoid at all costs, a decontextualized reading of Scripture.
2. Having reconfigured the way we read Scripture, we must :
a. Reevaluate our biblical theology regarding particular teachings.
b. Discard for once and for all, the gory and monstrous doctrine of eternal consciousness suffering in a place called "hell."
c. Having discarded this doctrine, take the logical step of saying "the hell with hell."
Please share you opinions and views with us on this subject. You can respond to this article, telling us why you agree or disagree with what has been said. In responding, please make sure that you have "done your homework" in examining the biblical languages, the historical background of the Scriptures, church history, and the historic traditions of the church. I look forward to your engagement with us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In this article I would invite the reader to seriously examine the assumptions and presuppositions that have been ingrained into us about the destiny of evil people. We have been taught that at the end of time, sinners will be relegated to a place called "hell" where they will "roast and toast" forever and ever. In other words the word "hell" has been used to describe the last stop for the wicked. "Hell" is thought of as a place or condition where wicked people will suffer eternal conscious torment.
In historic Christianity (especially fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity), we are taught that if one does not accept Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives, that God will send them to hell to suffer the consequences of their sin. Many Christians "move heaven and earth," to insure that people avoid this terrible catastrophe. They will badger, harass, and intimidate people non-Christians into accepting Christ, joining the Church, and then adopt a lifestyle contrary to their previous one. In many cases, this previous lifestyle is one which even many non-Christians do not adhere to. For example, people are expected to refrain from alcohol, tobacco usage, sexual immorality, etc. once they become Christians. They are constantly bombarded with biblical texts such as "if any person be in Christ, they are new creations." Ironically enough, there are many non-Christians, non-religious people, and even atheists who do not indulge in these vices nor practice sexual immorality. Consequently, the expectation of a new life-style is a rather superfluous one.
This type of Gospel message is proclaimed by literally scaring the "hell out" of people in order to Christianize them. Many Christians even intimate that if you are not a member of their church or type of church that you are definitely hell-bound.
The truth of the matter is that the word "hell" is never used in the Bible with the destiny of the wicked. Unless one is a biblical literalist, it is impossible to reconcile the biblical doctrine of the love of God with the proclamation of a God who would relegate some to eternal conscious suffering because they didn't practice the "right" religion, and were not members of the "good ole boys club."
There are several terms in the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament) which are translated into English as "hell." They are the following:
1. Sheol (in Hebrew) and Hades (in Greek) Sheol and Hades are a biblical reference to the grave or tomb. In a very technical sense, when we die (whether we are believers or not), we all go to "hell", i.e. the tomb.
2. Gehenna (in Greek) Gehenna referred to a garbage dump or incinerator outside the confines of ancient Jerusalem where the bodies of criminals and other social rejects were buried.
3. Tartaros (in Greek). Tartaros was a Greek word used to describe the condition or state of death.
Depending on which one of these three words is translated into the word "hell" in a particular biblical text, the word should be used in conjunction with its originally intended purpose and not to concoct something which was never envisioned by the biblical writers. We need to be careful to avoid the trap of misusing the Bible by simply misquoting a text or simply quoting it without taking into account its meaning in the original language of Scripture. We also need to avoid the trap of quoting a biblical text without taking into consideration its cultural context and also the role that metaphorical and symbolic language play in Scripture. Otherwise, we become biblical literalists, and miss the point which was originally intended, subsequently distorting the message.
Having said all of the above, I humbly submit that it is time to:
1. Rethink how we read the Bible. We must avoid the impulsive, literalist, mechanical, robotic, and quick to verse approaches to Scripture reading. We must also avoid at all costs, a decontextualized reading of Scripture.
2. Having reconfigured the way we read Scripture, we must :
a. Reevaluate our biblical theology regarding particular teachings.
b. Discard for once and for all, the gory and monstrous doctrine of eternal consciousness suffering in a place called "hell."
c. Having discarded this doctrine, take the logical step of saying "the hell with hell."
Please share you opinions and views with us on this subject. You can respond to this article, telling us why you agree or disagree with what has been said. In responding, please make sure that you have "done your homework" in examining the biblical languages, the historical background of the Scriptures, church history, and the historic traditions of the church. I look forward to your engagement with us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)