Every day we are faced with choices about what we should or shouldn't do. We choose to work or not to work. We choose to go to school or not to go to school. We choose to play or not to play.
We choose to make friends or to refrain from making friends.
Have you ever thought consciously and intentionally about what is the basis for the choices that you make in life? Do you make choices automatically and instinctively without thinking? Do you make choices on the basis of what feels good and right to you? Do you make choices on the basis of what you think others may be expecting of you?
In the area of issues which may be life threatening, or at the very least, life affecting, we devise an ethical or moral standard by which we decide to act or refrain from acting. We make those decisions on moral standards because we believe that those standards determine whether our actions are right or wrong. We tend to believe that if we live by those standards we will be rewarded, and if we violate those standards we will be punished.
Among the issues that we have to make decisions about are issues of sexual relationships, abortion, war and peace, euthanasia, environmental problems, etc. There are ethical standards which we utilize and quote in order to make a decision as to whether or not we should be involved in these matters.
Where do we derive our ethics from? That is a question to which there are no simple answers. We find ourselves in a quagmire because regardless of which answer we give, there will always be a variety of perspectives on those very same answers. Christians may offer the following answers:
1. The Bible as a source of ethics- This position is most known among Protestant and so-called "non-denominational" Christians. The major problem with this position is that while these Christians claim Scripture as the primary source of ethics and morality, they do not tend to take into consideration the hermeneutical issues, i.e. matters of biblical interpretation. The mere fact that they use the same book and yet arrive at different conclusions is a testimony to the fact it is not that simple to say that our ethics and moral standards are based on the Bible.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that the Bible itself is culturally conditioned, and that many of the ethical mandates emerge from a culture which is alien to ours. There are mores and standards that are not necessarily universally applicable in all times and in all places. For example, there are commandments in Scripture that require the death penalty for adultery, and for children who are insolent and disrespectful to their parents.
2. Tradition as a source of ethics- This position is most known among Catholic and Orthodox Christians. The major problem here is that tradition varies from church to church. For examples, Catholics venerate statues, and Orthodox Christians venerate icons. Protestants display an extensive variety of practices in their style of worship services.
3. Experience as a source of ethics- This position is known primarily among those Christians who believe that experience supersedes both Scripture and tradition. They believe that experience is the ultimate authority in the private and public life of Christians. Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians are famous for this type of thinking. But again, we find that experiences vary from person to person and from church to church.
4. Feelings as a source of ethics- This position basically states that whatever "feels right" is in fact, right. In other words, emotions and feelings are the ultimate determinant of ethical standards. Those who hold to this view, believe that their individual opinions, perspectives, and points of view, constitute the basis on which we should live our lives and make our decisions.
I ask you, the reader, where do you stand on ethics? Should we or should we not have an ethical standard by which we live? If we should have an ethical standard, where should those ethical norms derive from? Is there room in your opinion for a valid variety of ethical standards? Please share with us your thinking on these matters.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, August 25, 2014
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Confronting the Complex Giant Goliath
God's covenant community in the olden times, had to confront and live with a series of adversarial circumstances that many times threatened its very survival. I believe that the majority of the readers of this blog are familiar with the story of the giant Goliath, a Philistine who defied the God and the people of Israel. The story is told that he uttered blasphemies against the God of Israel (Yahweh) and that through his loud utterances, the Israelites felt intimidated and paralyzed. However, a young man (probably a chump by the standards of his time) counter-challenged this intimidating figure. He said to him, "you come to me with your physical strength, and with your arsenal of weapons, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts." They both moved towards each other, and before you know it, David slew Goliath with a slingshot.
There are many (I suspect the majority) in the Church who take this story literally. Others will take it as a legend or myth that points to the power of God in history. Regardless of how one takes or reads this story, the fact remains that the covenant community of today (the Church) is also confronted with adversarial circumstances and persons. This complex giant not only can be (at least in some places) be a threat to the survival of the Church, but can also generate confusion within its ranks relative to its reason for being. Subsequently, the Church will not always be able to speak with one voice regarding how to confront the adversity in the world of today.
Since neutrality is not an option, as a community we have to decide how we will respond to the different crises in the world today. I say that neutrality is not an option, because neutrality does not exist in the strictest sense of the word. We are either on the side of right or on the side of wrong. Of course, the biggest challenge for us is trying to determine who is right and who is wrong.
How then, in your opinion, do we confront and respond to the complex situations of today regarding Ferguson, Russia vs. Ukraine, Israel vs. Hamas, the U.S. vs. ISIS in Iraq and Syria, etc. etc.? Can we as a Church speak with one voice on these issues, or are we doomed to be divided amongst ourselves as we fight the giant Goliath? Please tell us what you think might be a solution for Christians to come together to address all the political and social maladies that exist in the world today.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
There are many (I suspect the majority) in the Church who take this story literally. Others will take it as a legend or myth that points to the power of God in history. Regardless of how one takes or reads this story, the fact remains that the covenant community of today (the Church) is also confronted with adversarial circumstances and persons. This complex giant not only can be (at least in some places) be a threat to the survival of the Church, but can also generate confusion within its ranks relative to its reason for being. Subsequently, the Church will not always be able to speak with one voice regarding how to confront the adversity in the world of today.
Since neutrality is not an option, as a community we have to decide how we will respond to the different crises in the world today. I say that neutrality is not an option, because neutrality does not exist in the strictest sense of the word. We are either on the side of right or on the side of wrong. Of course, the biggest challenge for us is trying to determine who is right and who is wrong.
How then, in your opinion, do we confront and respond to the complex situations of today regarding Ferguson, Russia vs. Ukraine, Israel vs. Hamas, the U.S. vs. ISIS in Iraq and Syria, etc. etc.? Can we as a Church speak with one voice on these issues, or are we doomed to be divided amongst ourselves as we fight the giant Goliath? Please tell us what you think might be a solution for Christians to come together to address all the political and social maladies that exist in the world today.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, August 15, 2014
Jesus Visits Ferguson
Once again, we are faced with the situation of an unarmed African American person being shot and killed by armed "law enforcement" personnel. Recently, there was a choking of an African American man by police in Staten Island, New York. Now are faced with another situation in Ferguson, Missouri. An unarmed person is killed, and then there are reports of his being a suspect or involved in an armed robbery.
Now let me make it very clear that I do not condone or approve of armed robbery, murder, or any other crimes against persons being committed by an African American, a Hispanic, or a person of any color or race. On the other hand, when there appears to be an emerging pattern of people of "color" being profiled, arrested, or shot, then I think it is time to ask questions.
The questions for us as a community of faith would be:
1. If Jesus were living in 2014 in the USA instead of in Palestine, how we He react to racial profiling?
2. How would Jesus react to African Americans, Hispanics, and other non-Caucasian people being shot and killed at random and when they are unarmed?
3. What would Jesus say about the fact that the vast majority of people who are incarcerated in this country are non-Caucasian?
4. How should we, as people who claim to be followers of Jesus respond to these realities?
Please share with us your perspectives on these issues.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Now let me make it very clear that I do not condone or approve of armed robbery, murder, or any other crimes against persons being committed by an African American, a Hispanic, or a person of any color or race. On the other hand, when there appears to be an emerging pattern of people of "color" being profiled, arrested, or shot, then I think it is time to ask questions.
The questions for us as a community of faith would be:
1. If Jesus were living in 2014 in the USA instead of in Palestine, how we He react to racial profiling?
2. How would Jesus react to African Americans, Hispanics, and other non-Caucasian people being shot and killed at random and when they are unarmed?
3. What would Jesus say about the fact that the vast majority of people who are incarcerated in this country are non-Caucasian?
4. How should we, as people who claim to be followers of Jesus respond to these realities?
Please share with us your perspectives on these issues.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, August 11, 2014
Comparative Religions Criticism-Please Reply
This will be the last article on the issue of biblical criticism. After this, I will be writing articles on studying the Bible from different perspectives (social class, ethnicity/race, and gender).
In this last article, I would like to invite you to study the Bible in terms of its religious settings.
By this I mean, that if we are serious students of the Bible, we will compare what biblical religion has or does not have in common with other religions. This is called "Comparative Religions Criticism," i.e. the differences and similarities of non-biblical religions are taken into consideration.
We can compare the contents of biblical religion with the religious beliefs and practices of the Hebrew/Jewish community. There are several things which we can point out to, for example, in the Old Testament that have a strong similarity to pre-Old Testament literature. For example, we have;
1. The Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood (the Enuma Elish and the Epics of Gilgamesh). Both of these accounts were written at least 500 years before the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood. The accounts are similar in a lot of respects. It raises the question of whether the writer of Genesis borrowed from these documents to compose his/her account of these events.
2. The sacrificial system- Long before the Hebrew people came into being as a nation, there were other nations that practiced animal and human sacrifice as a means of appeasing the gods. Once again we ask if the Hebrews borrowed this and incorporated it into their own religious practice, or was there something unique about the Hebrew/Jewish sacrificial system?
3. The priesthood- Pre-Hebrew religious communities had priests who served as "mediators' between the gods and the people. The priesthood within the Hebrew community served the same function. Did the Hebrews borrow this from their neighbors?
In the New Testament, we find literature which reflects strong similarities with pre-Christian religions, especially among the Greeks and the Romans. The Greeks and the Romans included in their religious practices epics and legends about :
1. Virgin births
2. Gods who died and resurrected
3. The gods who would eventually overcome evil and establish a just society.
We can ask if New Testament religion is original and unique, or does it represent building on pre-existing religious practices in the environment in which Christianity originated?
For those of us who subscribe to the biblical message, the questions can be the following?
1. Is biblical religion rooted exclusively in God's initiative to be revealed to humankind without the mediation of previously established historical religious ideas?
2. Does God's revelation, whether written or oral, include the possibility of pre-Jewish and pre-Christian beliefs and practices?
3. Is it necessary for us to believe that for the Bible to be considered "the Word of God," that it does not and cannot include the possibility of borrowing from religious systems that previously existed?
Please share with us your view on these three questions for our discussion. It should make for a very interesting conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In this last article, I would like to invite you to study the Bible in terms of its religious settings.
By this I mean, that if we are serious students of the Bible, we will compare what biblical religion has or does not have in common with other religions. This is called "Comparative Religions Criticism," i.e. the differences and similarities of non-biblical religions are taken into consideration.
We can compare the contents of biblical religion with the religious beliefs and practices of the Hebrew/Jewish community. There are several things which we can point out to, for example, in the Old Testament that have a strong similarity to pre-Old Testament literature. For example, we have;
1. The Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood (the Enuma Elish and the Epics of Gilgamesh). Both of these accounts were written at least 500 years before the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood. The accounts are similar in a lot of respects. It raises the question of whether the writer of Genesis borrowed from these documents to compose his/her account of these events.
2. The sacrificial system- Long before the Hebrew people came into being as a nation, there were other nations that practiced animal and human sacrifice as a means of appeasing the gods. Once again we ask if the Hebrews borrowed this and incorporated it into their own religious practice, or was there something unique about the Hebrew/Jewish sacrificial system?
3. The priesthood- Pre-Hebrew religious communities had priests who served as "mediators' between the gods and the people. The priesthood within the Hebrew community served the same function. Did the Hebrews borrow this from their neighbors?
In the New Testament, we find literature which reflects strong similarities with pre-Christian religions, especially among the Greeks and the Romans. The Greeks and the Romans included in their religious practices epics and legends about :
1. Virgin births
2. Gods who died and resurrected
3. The gods who would eventually overcome evil and establish a just society.
We can ask if New Testament religion is original and unique, or does it represent building on pre-existing religious practices in the environment in which Christianity originated?
For those of us who subscribe to the biblical message, the questions can be the following?
1. Is biblical religion rooted exclusively in God's initiative to be revealed to humankind without the mediation of previously established historical religious ideas?
2. Does God's revelation, whether written or oral, include the possibility of pre-Jewish and pre-Christian beliefs and practices?
3. Is it necessary for us to believe that for the Bible to be considered "the Word of God," that it does not and cannot include the possibility of borrowing from religious systems that previously existed?
Please share with us your view on these three questions for our discussion. It should make for a very interesting conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Historical Criticism-Please Reply
One biblical scholar, George Eldon Ladd, reminds us that the religious faith and practice of Israel did not arise in a vacuum, but in the cultural setting of ancient Semitic religions. He also reminds us that in the same way, the early Church arose against the background of first-century Judaism and the Hellenistic world. Subsequently, an adequate understanding of the biblical message demands some familiarity with these religious environments.
The Bible, like any other written document must be interpreted in its own historical setting. To divorce or extricate "what the Bible says" from its historical setting will result in a misunderstanding and distortion of its original message. Subsequently, doctrines and ideas which were never intended or promoted by the biblical writers will be the end result. We will end up with well-intended but sincerely misguided notions about the biblical message, and eventually a misapplication of that message in the life of the community which can lead to unsound theology and a warped sense of what it means to live a Christian life.
How does placing the Bible in a historical context help us in our understanding of the Bible? It helps us to understand what certain terms such as "Son of Man, and Son of God" meant in that culture and how it applies in today's various cultures. In the same general manner, it helps us by raising the question of what did the message of the Bible mean "back then," and how does it relate to us today?
It does not mean that God changes, or that the Bible changes. What it does mean is that whatever is contained in Scripture requires us to explore the possible meaning for our age, and not assume that what was said back then is always universally applicable in this day and age. This approach might help us to ask questions such as who for us today is what Jesus was in His time? Or it might lead us
to explore if Paul's mandate to the slaves to be submissive to their masters was a way of Paul giving his approval to the institution of slavery.
Please share in a word or two with us how you examine the Scriptures against their historical background. How does history help to shed light on what you are reading in the Bible? Your responses will be received as highly valuable contributions. We look forward to them.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
The Bible, like any other written document must be interpreted in its own historical setting. To divorce or extricate "what the Bible says" from its historical setting will result in a misunderstanding and distortion of its original message. Subsequently, doctrines and ideas which were never intended or promoted by the biblical writers will be the end result. We will end up with well-intended but sincerely misguided notions about the biblical message, and eventually a misapplication of that message in the life of the community which can lead to unsound theology and a warped sense of what it means to live a Christian life.
How does placing the Bible in a historical context help us in our understanding of the Bible? It helps us to understand what certain terms such as "Son of Man, and Son of God" meant in that culture and how it applies in today's various cultures. In the same general manner, it helps us by raising the question of what did the message of the Bible mean "back then," and how does it relate to us today?
It does not mean that God changes, or that the Bible changes. What it does mean is that whatever is contained in Scripture requires us to explore the possible meaning for our age, and not assume that what was said back then is always universally applicable in this day and age. This approach might help us to ask questions such as who for us today is what Jesus was in His time? Or it might lead us
to explore if Paul's mandate to the slaves to be submissive to their masters was a way of Paul giving his approval to the institution of slavery.
Please share in a word or two with us how you examine the Scriptures against their historical background. How does history help to shed light on what you are reading in the Bible? Your responses will be received as highly valuable contributions. We look forward to them.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)