Throughout its twenty-one centuries of existence, the Christian Church has had to contend with various points of view regarding the issue of wealth and poverty. The issue is whether those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be rich or poor? I raise the question in this posting as to whether or not it is legitimate for Christians to be wealthy. Rather than give a yes or no answer, I will present certain operating principles, and then leave it up to you, the reader to draw your own conclusions regarding this issue.
1. Nowhere do either the Scriptures or the Christian tradition glorify poverty or exalt it as an indication of who is or who isn't a true follower of Jesus. The only exception to this rule that I am familiar with is that that of the "vow of poverty" that is required in the Catholic Church for those who enter the priesthood, or some other religious vocation such as monk or nun. Even then, I am not convinced that the word "poverty" in this case means being totally destitute of the basic means of survival such as food, clothing, and shelter, because even these persons have these, albeit in different degrees, depending, of course, on which country they live in. Furthermore, the main leader of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Pope, who is considered the Vicar (substitute) of Jesus on earth, cannot be said to be living in "poverty."
2. Nowhere do either the Scriptures or the Christian tradition, to my knowledge, support the notion that if we follow Jesus and are faithful to Him, that we will prosper financially. Yes, Jesus does promise that our basic needs will be met, but nowhere is it indicated that this will be done in excess of that which we need. When He said that "the birds of the air have their nests, and the foxes have their holes, but the Son of Man does not have a place to call home (my emphasis)," I believe that He was making it clear that prosperity, as defined by some church leaders, is not guaranteed.
3. The terms "poverty" and "wealth" need to be defined. In a general sense, "poverty" means complete destitution of the means of survival. However, in a country such as the USA, "poverty" means having a lot less than others do in terms of material comfort. "Wealthy" could easily be defined as having an exorbitant amount of money and material possessions, but in this country, a person who has a bit more than the average person could be considered "wealthy" by comparison.
4. Those who are "poor" (however "poverty" is defined) are not necessarily in that condition because they are lazy or irresponsible. In many, if not most cases, poverty is rooted in and caused by an excessive amount of monetary and other possessions held by a few, and in many, if not in most cases, through either exploitation of labor or dishonest methods of acquiring those possessions, Some may say that the wealthy "worked for it," but how can one explain, then, that there are many people who work just as hard, if not more than those who are wealthy, but yet failed to achieve wealth?
5. One may ask if from a Christian viewpoint, one can be wealthy in the midst of poverty?
If the economic and material resources for human survival are limited, we need to ask if a true
follower of Jesus would advocate for a system where the few can achieve a certain economic status at the expense of the many. Again, we cannot fall into the "blame the victim" syndrome.
6. If a person claims to be a follower of Jesus, and is "lucky" enough to have more than what is needed for basic survival, should that person amass more wealth for herself/himself or should that person use her/his wealth to not only alleviate but totally eradicate poverty in the world? In that case, how would the "profit motive" compare to the "sharing motive" in that person's spiritual journey?
Please share your insight with us on these issues. Tell us what you think regarding would-be followers of Jesus and their stewardship of God's resources, remembering that the Psalm writer reminds us that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." Please give us your insight.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Hispanic Americans
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Hispanic Americans: In this article, I would like to talk about reading the Bible from the perspective of the group which has just about become the largest ethn...
Reading the Bible as Hispanic Americans
In this article, I would like to talk about reading the Bible from the perspective of the group which has just about become the largest ethnic minority group in the U.S.A. That group is known as the Latino or Hispanic American community.
We Hispanics have a peculiar way of reading the Scriptures, which is in many ways different from that of the Euro-American community. We do not claim that ours is the "universally correct" way of reading and interpreting the Bible, because as I've mentioned in previous articles, there is no "neutral" or "universally correct" way of approaching the Scriptures. Neither will we claim that our biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) is "universally valid." We will, however, state it as our hermeneutic, derived from our history and life situations and that it gives us an insight which is relevant and viable for our spiritual journey and practice of the Christian faith.
Fernando Segovia, who has served as Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University reminds us that all readings of the Bible are "contextual," i.e. readings from a particular social location, and that no reading can claim or pretend to be acultural or ahistorical. Segovia correctly points out that at the very least, ethnic background, and sociopolitical status have an affect on the reading and interpretation of the Bible. In that respect, then, a Hispanic reading of the Bible goes over and beyond the implicit theoretical orientation of historical criticism, the dominant approach to biblical interpretation in the 1970's. This approach addresses the issues of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, writing styles, sources of information, and possible revision or editing of the books of the Bible. While a Hispanic reading of the Bible does not discount this approach, its peculiarity lies in the way we read the Bible, i.e. in the light of our history as an oppressed and marginalized community in the U.S.A.
There are certain things which I will point to as our frame of reference for reading and understanding the Scriptures. They are the following:
1. The colonization and usurpation of the lands of our indigenous ancestors in the Americas (Central and South America in particular) in the sixteenth century.
2. The genocide of our indigenous ancestors in the Americas and the Caribbean.
3. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade which resulted in people from the African continent being brought to the Western Hemisphere to replace the indigenous people who died and were decimated as a result of hard labor imposed by the Spaniards and the attendant illnesses that accompanied that hard labor.
4. The neo-colonization of Hispanic America by the U.S.A. at the end of the nineteenth century. This neo-colonization in particular affected the Caribbean islands of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, and has continued in direct and indirect ways to the present moment.
5. The issues of immigration and deportation of the so-called "illegal" aliens of Mexican and Central American descent. A more appropriate word for this group would be "undocumented." as no one is "illegal" in the sight of God, and furthermore, the migrants who come here from that part of the Americas, are actually migrating to another part of the land which was historically theirs prior to colonization and neo-colonization by Spain and the U.S.A.
6. The second-class citizenship and treatment that Hispanic Americans are subjected to in the U.S.A relative to employment, education, housing, and political representation. While there have been vast improvements in these areas, Hispanics are still at the lower rung of the economic ladder in the U.S.A.
7. Hispanics constitute at least one third of the population which is confined to the penal institutions in the U.S.A. This is not due by any stretch of the imagination to our being naturally more criminally inclined than the Caucasian community, but rather because "law enforcement" focuses more on crime and illegal activity in the Hispanic community than it does in the dominant community. By the very nature of being Hispanic. our people come under suspicion and ethnic profiling by "law enforcement."
All in all, the Hispanic reading of the Bible is more in the light of the historical patterns of socio-economic alienation and marginalization, institutional and systemic racism, and other forms of social dehumanization and oppression. The dominant culture (Caucasian) would prefer that we use the Bible to shed light on our situation. But our community does just the opposite, i.e. use our history and existential reality to shed light on the Bible. The first approach enables the dominant community to remain in power and continue subjecting us to lower-class treatment. The second approach, especially in the light of the liberation of the Hebrews found in the book of Exodus, informs us that God is like theologian James Cone said, "a God of the oppressed." Reading the Bible in the light of our oppression enables us to discover the message of hope, liberation, justice, and equality, and en fin, to reverse the historical use of the Bible as a tool of oppression and subjugation, and to see the Bible as a tool and mechanism of liberation.
I invite you, the reader, to share your thoughts with us on this approach to Bible reading and interpretation in the Hispanic community. Tell us if you think that this approach is valid or invalid, and also tell us the reason for whatever position you take. We look forward to hearing from you.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
We Hispanics have a peculiar way of reading the Scriptures, which is in many ways different from that of the Euro-American community. We do not claim that ours is the "universally correct" way of reading and interpreting the Bible, because as I've mentioned in previous articles, there is no "neutral" or "universally correct" way of approaching the Scriptures. Neither will we claim that our biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) is "universally valid." We will, however, state it as our hermeneutic, derived from our history and life situations and that it gives us an insight which is relevant and viable for our spiritual journey and practice of the Christian faith.
Fernando Segovia, who has served as Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University reminds us that all readings of the Bible are "contextual," i.e. readings from a particular social location, and that no reading can claim or pretend to be acultural or ahistorical. Segovia correctly points out that at the very least, ethnic background, and sociopolitical status have an affect on the reading and interpretation of the Bible. In that respect, then, a Hispanic reading of the Bible goes over and beyond the implicit theoretical orientation of historical criticism, the dominant approach to biblical interpretation in the 1970's. This approach addresses the issues of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, writing styles, sources of information, and possible revision or editing of the books of the Bible. While a Hispanic reading of the Bible does not discount this approach, its peculiarity lies in the way we read the Bible, i.e. in the light of our history as an oppressed and marginalized community in the U.S.A.
There are certain things which I will point to as our frame of reference for reading and understanding the Scriptures. They are the following:
1. The colonization and usurpation of the lands of our indigenous ancestors in the Americas (Central and South America in particular) in the sixteenth century.
2. The genocide of our indigenous ancestors in the Americas and the Caribbean.
3. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade which resulted in people from the African continent being brought to the Western Hemisphere to replace the indigenous people who died and were decimated as a result of hard labor imposed by the Spaniards and the attendant illnesses that accompanied that hard labor.
4. The neo-colonization of Hispanic America by the U.S.A. at the end of the nineteenth century. This neo-colonization in particular affected the Caribbean islands of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, and has continued in direct and indirect ways to the present moment.
5. The issues of immigration and deportation of the so-called "illegal" aliens of Mexican and Central American descent. A more appropriate word for this group would be "undocumented." as no one is "illegal" in the sight of God, and furthermore, the migrants who come here from that part of the Americas, are actually migrating to another part of the land which was historically theirs prior to colonization and neo-colonization by Spain and the U.S.A.
6. The second-class citizenship and treatment that Hispanic Americans are subjected to in the U.S.A relative to employment, education, housing, and political representation. While there have been vast improvements in these areas, Hispanics are still at the lower rung of the economic ladder in the U.S.A.
7. Hispanics constitute at least one third of the population which is confined to the penal institutions in the U.S.A. This is not due by any stretch of the imagination to our being naturally more criminally inclined than the Caucasian community, but rather because "law enforcement" focuses more on crime and illegal activity in the Hispanic community than it does in the dominant community. By the very nature of being Hispanic. our people come under suspicion and ethnic profiling by "law enforcement."
All in all, the Hispanic reading of the Bible is more in the light of the historical patterns of socio-economic alienation and marginalization, institutional and systemic racism, and other forms of social dehumanization and oppression. The dominant culture (Caucasian) would prefer that we use the Bible to shed light on our situation. But our community does just the opposite, i.e. use our history and existential reality to shed light on the Bible. The first approach enables the dominant community to remain in power and continue subjecting us to lower-class treatment. The second approach, especially in the light of the liberation of the Hebrews found in the book of Exodus, informs us that God is like theologian James Cone said, "a God of the oppressed." Reading the Bible in the light of our oppression enables us to discover the message of hope, liberation, justice, and equality, and en fin, to reverse the historical use of the Bible as a tool of oppression and subjugation, and to see the Bible as a tool and mechanism of liberation.
I invite you, the reader, to share your thoughts with us on this approach to Bible reading and interpretation in the Hispanic community. Tell us if you think that this approach is valid or invalid, and also tell us the reason for whatever position you take. We look forward to hearing from you.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, September 19, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Euro-Americans
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Euro-Americans: Considering that the Euro-American (Western) way of reading and interpreting the Bible has been the dominant one in the last several centuri...
Reading the Bible as Euro-Americans
Considering that the Euro-American (Western) way of reading and interpreting the Bible has been the dominant one in the last several centuries, I think that it would be appropriate to consider this particular hermeneutic before continuing on with other ways of interpreting and reading Scripture.
Let me begin by saying what I've said before, i.e. that there is no "universally valid" way of reading the Bible. We all come to the Bible from our respective social locations.
There are two prevalent means of approaching the Bible in the Euro-American community.
One is called lower (some prefer to call it textual) criticism. This approach involves comparing the existing manuscripts to determine which ones most accurately reflect what the original documents (autographs) of the Bible contained. Manuscripts (handwritten copies) vary in length and content. The various translations that we have of the Bible are based on the manuscripts, and depending on which manuscript the translators have used, the particular translation will reflect the length and content of the biblical message. In the more conservative or "evangelical" wing of the Church, those who subscribe to this approach, tend to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and believe that the Bible is the "authoritative Word of God," and the primary (for some only) source of faith and practice. Because the Bible is "divinely inspired," according to this view, it is also inerrant and infallible in the original autographs, but not necessarily in the manuscripts (hand-written copies), or the translations which are based on the manuscripts.
Another approach which began in the seventeenth century and became popular in the nineteenth century in the Western Church was that known as the "historical-critical" approach, or as some would define it as "higher criticism." This approach to biblical interpretation entailed questions of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, types of literature, and whether or not the biblical writers edited or revised anything they said. Those who subscribe to the approach do not necessarily deny the inspiration of the Bible, but do acknowledge that this approach helps us to understand that the Bible is culturally conditioned. This approach enables us to read the Bible in its original cultural and social context, and in a sense, get to "the story behind the story," i.e. that background against which the biblical authors wrote. This approach is used by the more "liberal" churches, i.e. those that are open to a wide variety of biblical interpretation and theological perspectives.
The historical-critical approach has been the dominant one in the majority of Euro-American churches which prize highly the study of comparative religions, history, philosophy, etc. These churches do everything possible to avoid the "quick to verse" approach, i.e. the tendency to quote the Bible without taking its cultural and social context into consideration, that is found among many conservative and evangelical Christians.
The Euro-American churches that use the historical-critical approach to the Bible, believe that this approach can result in a more "universal" reading of Scripture. The major fallacy of this belief, is however, that scholars who use this approach differ among themselves relative to questions of authorship, date, etc. Many who use this approach bring certain presuppositions to their reading of Scripture, such as the belief in the theory of human evolution, an anti-supernatural mindset, etc. They tend to interpret the miracle stories in the Bible in terms of natural happenings.
Because there is a belief that this approach will result in a "universally valid" interpretation of the Bible, there is an attitude, (perhaps a subsconscious one) that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is superior to that of other ethnic, national, or social groups. Basically, those who utilize this method, bring their white-middle class assumptions and values into the equation, and therefore, tend to denigrate all other approaches. This has been made possible by the economic, international, political, and social power that Euro-Americans have exerted over others.
If we describe those in power as the "oppressors," and those ruled by those in power as the "oppressed," then what we have is a biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) that is utilized by the oppressors in order to justify the continued subjugation of the oppressed. A perfect example of this would be the slave masters quoting biblical texts that exhort slaves to " be obedient to their masters." Another example would be the white power structure in South Africa telling the blacks that to rebel against "the powers that be" would be a violation of what the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13 in saying that we should obey the magistrates and that whoever rebels against the authorities, is in essence rebelling against God.
Given world events in recent years, especially revolutions in the so-called Third World against Euro-American powers, and given how some non-Euro-American people have come to power, what would say about the particular approach to biblical interpretation in the Euro-American community? Do you think that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is universally valid or is "beauty in the eyes of the beholder?" Should a biblical hermeneutic be considered valid by those in power or by those who are ruled? Please share your perspective on this issue with us.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Let me begin by saying what I've said before, i.e. that there is no "universally valid" way of reading the Bible. We all come to the Bible from our respective social locations.
There are two prevalent means of approaching the Bible in the Euro-American community.
One is called lower (some prefer to call it textual) criticism. This approach involves comparing the existing manuscripts to determine which ones most accurately reflect what the original documents (autographs) of the Bible contained. Manuscripts (handwritten copies) vary in length and content. The various translations that we have of the Bible are based on the manuscripts, and depending on which manuscript the translators have used, the particular translation will reflect the length and content of the biblical message. In the more conservative or "evangelical" wing of the Church, those who subscribe to this approach, tend to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and believe that the Bible is the "authoritative Word of God," and the primary (for some only) source of faith and practice. Because the Bible is "divinely inspired," according to this view, it is also inerrant and infallible in the original autographs, but not necessarily in the manuscripts (hand-written copies), or the translations which are based on the manuscripts.
Another approach which began in the seventeenth century and became popular in the nineteenth century in the Western Church was that known as the "historical-critical" approach, or as some would define it as "higher criticism." This approach to biblical interpretation entailed questions of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, types of literature, and whether or not the biblical writers edited or revised anything they said. Those who subscribe to the approach do not necessarily deny the inspiration of the Bible, but do acknowledge that this approach helps us to understand that the Bible is culturally conditioned. This approach enables us to read the Bible in its original cultural and social context, and in a sense, get to "the story behind the story," i.e. that background against which the biblical authors wrote. This approach is used by the more "liberal" churches, i.e. those that are open to a wide variety of biblical interpretation and theological perspectives.
The historical-critical approach has been the dominant one in the majority of Euro-American churches which prize highly the study of comparative religions, history, philosophy, etc. These churches do everything possible to avoid the "quick to verse" approach, i.e. the tendency to quote the Bible without taking its cultural and social context into consideration, that is found among many conservative and evangelical Christians.
The Euro-American churches that use the historical-critical approach to the Bible, believe that this approach can result in a more "universal" reading of Scripture. The major fallacy of this belief, is however, that scholars who use this approach differ among themselves relative to questions of authorship, date, etc. Many who use this approach bring certain presuppositions to their reading of Scripture, such as the belief in the theory of human evolution, an anti-supernatural mindset, etc. They tend to interpret the miracle stories in the Bible in terms of natural happenings.
Because there is a belief that this approach will result in a "universally valid" interpretation of the Bible, there is an attitude, (perhaps a subsconscious one) that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is superior to that of other ethnic, national, or social groups. Basically, those who utilize this method, bring their white-middle class assumptions and values into the equation, and therefore, tend to denigrate all other approaches. This has been made possible by the economic, international, political, and social power that Euro-Americans have exerted over others.
If we describe those in power as the "oppressors," and those ruled by those in power as the "oppressed," then what we have is a biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) that is utilized by the oppressors in order to justify the continued subjugation of the oppressed. A perfect example of this would be the slave masters quoting biblical texts that exhort slaves to " be obedient to their masters." Another example would be the white power structure in South Africa telling the blacks that to rebel against "the powers that be" would be a violation of what the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13 in saying that we should obey the magistrates and that whoever rebels against the authorities, is in essence rebelling against God.
Given world events in recent years, especially revolutions in the so-called Third World against Euro-American powers, and given how some non-Euro-American people have come to power, what would say about the particular approach to biblical interpretation in the Euro-American community? Do you think that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is universally valid or is "beauty in the eyes of the beholder?" Should a biblical hermeneutic be considered valid by those in power or by those who are ruled? Please share your perspective on this issue with us.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Reading the Bible as Asian Americans
Chan -Hie Kim, who has served as Professsor of New Testament and Director of Korean Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, informs us that the Bible is the canon of the Asian American community, just as it is the canon of other Christian communities. In other words, for Asian Americans, the Bible is the norm or the rule by which divine truth is measured and doctrine is established. We ask then, if this is the case, what makes the reading of Scripture in the Asian American community any different from reading it in any other community?
As I have mentioned in previous articles, there is no such thing as a "neutral" or "objective" reading of Scripture. The Bible itself is a culturally conditioned book, and those who read it, approach it from both their individual and cultural matrix.
So we ask then, if the Bible is considered "the Word of God," why do we subject its reading and interpretation to cultural norms? The answer is that the the Bible is the product of culture. In other words, the "Word of God" comes to us, filtered through culture. The "universal" elements of divine revelation come to us through the "culture specific" elements that are found in the Bible itself, and also in the lives and minds of the interpreter/reader.
Professor Kim points out that Asian Americans are a people whose forebears emigrated from many different countries in Asia. He states that they include first-generation immigrants , a majority of whom came to this side of the Pacific Ocean , beginning in 1965, but who share very little in common among themselves.
Because they come from different countries, their culture and cultural perspectives would naturally vary from one country to the other. In this article, I will not focus on the intercultural variety of Asians, but rather on the common thread of reading the Bible from a perspective which is different from that of the Western Euro-American.
Asian Americans read the Scriptures from their own historical and cultural perspective in the U.S.A. They read and understand the Bible from their present social location, which has a long history of struggle for survival in the midst of discrimination and inequity. Such a reading, as Professor Kim reminds us, is not intentional, but rather a natural response to circumstances.
An example of how Asian Americans would read the Bible with a specific question in mind would be that of understanding their immigration and settlement in the U.S.A.
Like the ancient people of Israel who looked forward to a land of "milk and honey," the early Asian immigrants also looked forward "a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey." The Hebrew immigration into Canaan served as a model for Asian Americans.
In some respects, the "house of abundance" became the "house of bondage" for Asian Americans, as in this land which was plentiful in resources, they had to face hard labor and exploitation, which in some respects they would compare to the bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt. The dreams Asians had, says Professor Kim, at the time of their entry into this "promised land," were shattered by the harsh reality of ardous American life as they got a better, and I would add, a more realistic understanding of they country they had made their home.
Ironically enough, Asian Americans find that the Bible does not always present God as the liberator, as is claimed by Liberation Theology. In some cases, Professor Kim points out, God is depicted as the oppressor of the Canaanites on behalf of the invading Israelites. The Pilgrims who risked their lives crossing the Atlantic Ocean on the Mayflower in quest of religious freedom, were no longer the persecuted Puritans once they landed on shore. Their freedom led to oppression for other races on the continent. In other words, as we hear often said, "The oppressed became the oppressor." Professor Kim raises the question "If the God of Israel is also the God of all nations, why does God fulfill justice by annihilating other nations?" Subsequently, Asian Americans have a difficult time in understanding how is it that those who "welcomed" them here, were at the same time, those who annihilated the original inhabitants of the land?
Asian Americans have their own precious cultural heritage. In the same manner that the Israelites cherished their heritage and identity as integral to the fulfillment of God's promise, Asian American Christians honor and treasure the values inherent in their traditions. It is in the light of this, that Asian Americans read and understand the biblical message, which rather than denigrate or suppress their culture, affirms and encourages it as part of God's creation.
Please share with us how you view the Asian American reading of Scripture. Do you believe that there is validity in the Asian American biblical hermeneutic (interpretation)? Or does interpreting the Bible from an Asian American perspective result in "unsound" doctrine? Please tell us where you stand on this matter.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Reading the Bible as African Americans
In the previous article "Reading the Bible from Particular Social Locations," I had indicated that there is no such thing as reading the Bible "objectively." The only way that this could happen is for us to be detached from everything that happens on earth by elevating ourselves to a different realm other than that of history. And since that is not going to happen, neither will be able to read the Bible in an "objective" manner. Our reading of the Bible will always be biased and subjective due to our human condition.
There is no "universal" way of reading Scripture. Neither is there a "universal" way of interpreting the Bible. The reading and interpretation of the Bible in the African American community will naturally be different than its reading and interpretation in the Euro-American community. There are two basic reasons for that:
1. The Bible was not written in Euro-America, and neither is it the product of Euro-American culture. The Bible was written in a culture which is far different than that of Euro-America.
2. African Americans read the Bible in light of their existential reality and experience, i.e. slavery, discrimination and oppression.
In saying this, it is clear that African Americans and others do not consider the Euro-American
interpretation of Scripture to be "universally valid." In other words, the idea that "white is right" has no place in African American church life or Scripture reading and hermeneutic (interpretation).
James Earl Massey reminds us that African Americans accept the Bible as an adequate, practical, and immediate statement of the divine intention for humankind. The thrust of their Bible reading is practical, i.e. trying to discern the voice of God addressing oneself and one's people in the context of life's immediacies.
Those who are used to and comfortable with the Euro-American interpretation of the Bible will consider an African American biblical hermeneutic to be of inferior quality. This is a result of considering blacks and other people "of color" to be inferior to Caucasians.
The African American biblical hermeneutic is a challenge to the notion of "white superiority" both in its interpretation of the Bible and that of the Christian faith. In essence, since the biblical interpretation of the Bible is done from the bottom up (the standpoint of the marginalized and powerless), rather than from the top down ( hegemony and power), those who read the Bible through the prism of the black experience are saying to the white power structure "the hell with you and your oppressive interpretation of Scripture."
Whereas historically, the Bible was used by Euro-Americans as a tool of enslavement and subjugation, the African American community reads and interprets the Bible as a tool of spiritual, as well as socio-economic liberation. While the Euro-American community and power structure would quote those biblical passages that appear to justify slavery and white superiority, the African American community would read those passages that speak of equality, especially of equality in Christ. They would also reinterpret from their own standpoint of the experience of discrimination and oppression, those passages which are used by the white power structure to keen them in a state
of economic, political, and social subjugation.
I invite you the reader, especially if you are not African American, to critique and evaluate how African Americans read and interpret Scripture. In your opinion, is their way of doing biblical theology correct and valid or is it incorrect and invalid? Whatever your position is, I challenge you to state the basis for that position. Tell us why you subscribe to one position of the other. Does the reading and interpretation of the Bible take you out of your comfort zone? I look forward to your input on this vital issue.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
There is no "universal" way of reading Scripture. Neither is there a "universal" way of interpreting the Bible. The reading and interpretation of the Bible in the African American community will naturally be different than its reading and interpretation in the Euro-American community. There are two basic reasons for that:
1. The Bible was not written in Euro-America, and neither is it the product of Euro-American culture. The Bible was written in a culture which is far different than that of Euro-America.
2. African Americans read the Bible in light of their existential reality and experience, i.e. slavery, discrimination and oppression.
In saying this, it is clear that African Americans and others do not consider the Euro-American
interpretation of Scripture to be "universally valid." In other words, the idea that "white is right" has no place in African American church life or Scripture reading and hermeneutic (interpretation).
James Earl Massey reminds us that African Americans accept the Bible as an adequate, practical, and immediate statement of the divine intention for humankind. The thrust of their Bible reading is practical, i.e. trying to discern the voice of God addressing oneself and one's people in the context of life's immediacies.
Those who are used to and comfortable with the Euro-American interpretation of the Bible will consider an African American biblical hermeneutic to be of inferior quality. This is a result of considering blacks and other people "of color" to be inferior to Caucasians.
The African American biblical hermeneutic is a challenge to the notion of "white superiority" both in its interpretation of the Bible and that of the Christian faith. In essence, since the biblical interpretation of the Bible is done from the bottom up (the standpoint of the marginalized and powerless), rather than from the top down ( hegemony and power), those who read the Bible through the prism of the black experience are saying to the white power structure "the hell with you and your oppressive interpretation of Scripture."
Whereas historically, the Bible was used by Euro-Americans as a tool of enslavement and subjugation, the African American community reads and interprets the Bible as a tool of spiritual, as well as socio-economic liberation. While the Euro-American community and power structure would quote those biblical passages that appear to justify slavery and white superiority, the African American community would read those passages that speak of equality, especially of equality in Christ. They would also reinterpret from their own standpoint of the experience of discrimination and oppression, those passages which are used by the white power structure to keen them in a state
of economic, political, and social subjugation.
I invite you the reader, especially if you are not African American, to critique and evaluate how African Americans read and interpret Scripture. In your opinion, is their way of doing biblical theology correct and valid or is it incorrect and invalid? Whatever your position is, I challenge you to state the basis for that position. Tell us why you subscribe to one position of the other. Does the reading and interpretation of the Bible take you out of your comfort zone? I look forward to your input on this vital issue.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, September 1, 2014
Reading the Bible from Particular Social Locations
In the next several articles, I will be inviting you to dialogue on the issue of reading the Bible from the locations of class, ethnicity/race, and gender. Some of you may be uncomfortable doing this in that you believe that Bible to be a divinely inspired book that is universal in scope and that we should not attach any human conditions to the reading of Scripture. While this writer truly believes that the Bible is inspired by God, he acknowledges that it is also culturally conditioned, reflecting the mindset of biblical times, and the perspectives of the writers of Scripture. For more extensive information on this topic, I would refer the reader to the Interpreter's Bible Commentary published in 1994 by Abingdon Press.
James Earl Massey, who has served as Dean and Professor of Preaching and Biblical Studies at Anderson University reminds us that biblical interpretation depends largely on the social perspective of the interpreter. He goes on to say that this should not surprise us because whether we are dealing with the Bible or with any other written materials, there is usually some influence on our thinking from the sociocultural setting that has affected our lives. Massey points out that our thinking has been influenced by elements of rationalism, or by some brand of nationalism, or perhaps by a narrow individualism, but always by communal identity. In various combinations, says Massey, these factors have affected us; they have shaped the way we view the world, and that world view influences the way we read the Word of God and use that Word in preaching and teaching. I would add that this particular world view affects the way we live our lives and engage in our spiritual journey.
En fin, none of us read the Bible "objectively," since pure objectivity does not exist. Neither do any of us read the Bible with a blank mind waiting to be filled with information. We are all conditioned by our culture and by life experiences, and subsequently, we bring the baggage of culture and experience to our reading of Scripture. Some may want to argue that we should leave that baggage behind. This writer believes that it is absolutely impossible to extricate ourselves from that baggage as it is part and parcel of our very being. Trying to shed that baggage would be the same as trying to be something other than human. We cannot do it.
For starters, why don't you briefly share with us what approaches you use when you read the Bible?
Do you just open it up and begin reading? Are there details that you pay attention to when you read Scripture.? Are there details that you are not aware of or just simply choose to ignore? How do your life experiences color your reading of Scripture? Please join us in what I think can be a very fruitful and healthy discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
James Earl Massey, who has served as Dean and Professor of Preaching and Biblical Studies at Anderson University reminds us that biblical interpretation depends largely on the social perspective of the interpreter. He goes on to say that this should not surprise us because whether we are dealing with the Bible or with any other written materials, there is usually some influence on our thinking from the sociocultural setting that has affected our lives. Massey points out that our thinking has been influenced by elements of rationalism, or by some brand of nationalism, or perhaps by a narrow individualism, but always by communal identity. In various combinations, says Massey, these factors have affected us; they have shaped the way we view the world, and that world view influences the way we read the Word of God and use that Word in preaching and teaching. I would add that this particular world view affects the way we live our lives and engage in our spiritual journey.
En fin, none of us read the Bible "objectively," since pure objectivity does not exist. Neither do any of us read the Bible with a blank mind waiting to be filled with information. We are all conditioned by our culture and by life experiences, and subsequently, we bring the baggage of culture and experience to our reading of Scripture. Some may want to argue that we should leave that baggage behind. This writer believes that it is absolutely impossible to extricate ourselves from that baggage as it is part and parcel of our very being. Trying to shed that baggage would be the same as trying to be something other than human. We cannot do it.
For starters, why don't you briefly share with us what approaches you use when you read the Bible?
Do you just open it up and begin reading? Are there details that you pay attention to when you read Scripture.? Are there details that you are not aware of or just simply choose to ignore? How do your life experiences color your reading of Scripture? Please join us in what I think can be a very fruitful and healthy discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)