In this essay, I would like to invite you to consider the question of the role of God or lack thereof in our lives. One of the questions that I pose to couples who ask me to perform their wedding ceremony by way of premarital counseling is "What role, if any, do religion and spirituality play in your life? Needless to say, I've received a variety of answers to that question ranging from "none" to "religion is a priority in our lives."
In this writing, I would like to, if at all possible, go over and beyond the question of what the church or any community of faith has to say about any given issue. I know that for many people, what the faith community (be it church, masjid, synagogue, etc.) has to say is the equivalent of what God has to say. In other words, for many people, the community of faith is the voice of God. God, they say, speaks through the community of faith and its scriptures and traditions. For these persons, we cannot speak about God unless we include the community of faith in the conversation.
For other people, God is someone with whom they have an individual relationship with. It is almost like saying that these persons have a private "pipeline" through which they communicate with God. They bypass what the consider to be the "razzle dazzle" of organized religion and its policies and structures, and go "right to the top." For them, the community of faith is not even a necessary component of their spiritual journey since the relationship with God is an "individual thing." They would be bound to think in terms of "Me and God, we've got a thing going on." Therefore, their attitude is "the hell with what the religious institution says, I'm going to do my own thing, and I'm sure that God is on board with me."
I will not take the time at this point to engage in the debate of "individual vs. community" relative to the issue of the role of God in our lives. Nevertheless, I would like to pose the following questions for our consideration and dialogue.
1. Has God given us instructions and guidelines by which to live, or does God leave it up to us to carve out our own lifestyles?
2. If, indeed, God has given us guidelines, where do we find them? Are they to be found in the Bible, the Holy Qu'aran, the Buddhist Scriptures, the Gospel according to Pinocchio,, or in some other written document? Or are these guidelines and instructions to be found somewhere else other than in written documents? Are our individual feelings, outlooks, and perspectives the equivalent of these guidelines?
3. Does God really give a damn if I am living in a common-law relationship without the formality of marriage, or has God set down a set of rules governing the relationship between partners?
4. Does God really care if I play the lotto, or does God have something to say about that?
5. Is God really concerned with such things as gambling at the casino, and dancing with someone other than my wife?
6. Is God going to have a tantrum, or as some would say "a cow," because I smoke an occasional cigar or pipe? Is God going to get "all bent and out of shape," because on certain occasions I've either used or thought of using weed for purposes of entertainment?
These are just a few of many more questions that we might ask in terms of whether or not God is involved in our lives to the extent of telling us or even suggesting how we should live. If we say that God speaks through the community of faith and its scriptures and traditions, by saying "the hell with what the church says," are we not in essence saying "the hell with what God says?" If on the other hand, we take the approach of an individual pipeline to heaven, can we then equate how we feel and view things with how God views things? Are we not then, in this case, setting ourselves up as God, by making our individual and personal viewpoints the ultimate truth?
Please talk with us on these matters, as they are in one way or the other, important to all of our lives. Tell us if you would rather have God mind God's own business while you live your life according to your whims and dictates, or would you be more comfortable with the notion that God has given you a set of guidelines to go by so that you can have a more fruitful and productive life?
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Thursday, October 23, 2014
On Mother God
Our Mother, who art in Heaven, hollowed be thy name.
I believe in God, the Mother Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
In the Name of the Mother, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Our heavenly Mother, we come before your holy presence.
Do any of these sayings sound familiar to you? Of course they do. The only thing that sounds strange is the insertion of the word "Mother" in place of the word "Father."
Why would anyone in their right mind want to refer to God as "Mother" instead of "Father?"
After all, the Bible refers to God in masculine and not in feminine terms. In addition to that,
it has been argued, Jesus Himself referred to God as His "Father," not as His "Mother." Furthermore,
the community of faith (Jewish and Christian) has historically referred to God in masculine terms.
Let me point out the weaknesses of the above three defenses for retaining a masculine God.
1. The Bible refers to God as "Father," and as "He." The reason for this should be obvious, i.e.,
the Bible was written primarily by men and is a product of a male-dominated society. Some may wish to argue that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible "Word of God," and should not be tampered with. While I will not argue with that position, I also acknowledge that the "Word of God" comes to us filtered through human experience and human language. We cannot bypass the historical and cultural mediation of the Bible just because we consider it to be "the Word of God." If we attempt to do that, we are being careless, dishonest, irresponsible, and sloppy in our use of the Bible.
2. Jesus referred to God as His "Father." The major weakness of this argument is that Jesus as a human being, lived in a male-dominated society and therefore, adhered to the cultural and social norms of His time. While He did clash with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, the clashes were not regarding the gender nature of God, but rather about how they interpreted the Law.
3. The community of faith (both Jewish and Christian) has traditionally referred to God in masculine terms. The major problem with this argument is that what is being said here, directly, or indirectly, is that we should keep tradition for tradition's sake and not tamper with it. It is the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In other words, what is being said is that if it has been a certain way all along, we shouldn't bother to change things. Well, "all along" there has been classism, racism, and sexism. Should we not try to do away with these forms of discrimination and dismantle these structures of oppression just because "it's been that way all along?"
There are Scripture portions which present feminine imagery of God. We are told in the opening portion of Genesis (the Creation Story) that the Spirit of God "hovered" over the face of the deep.
It is the image of a mother hovering over her child.
The writer of the book of Proverbs personifies "wisdom" in feminine terms, and then later on in the New Testament, we are told that Jesus constitutes the "wisdom of God."
The Gospel accounts of Jesus's' baptism speaks about the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of "a dove," an image of female gentleness and softness.
What then, do we do with the masculine images of God? Do we retain them for the sake of retaining them? Do we allow feminine images of God to co-exist side by side with the masculine images? Do we replace the masculine images and put feminine images in their place?
This writer has witnessed efforts to write translations of the Bible that are more inclusive in their language about God and other issues. He has also gladly seen some of the traditional hymns of the Church revised to include more inclusive language.
Please share with us where you stand on this matter. Tell us why you favor one position or the other.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I believe in God, the Mother Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
In the Name of the Mother, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Our heavenly Mother, we come before your holy presence.
Do any of these sayings sound familiar to you? Of course they do. The only thing that sounds strange is the insertion of the word "Mother" in place of the word "Father."
Why would anyone in their right mind want to refer to God as "Mother" instead of "Father?"
After all, the Bible refers to God in masculine and not in feminine terms. In addition to that,
it has been argued, Jesus Himself referred to God as His "Father," not as His "Mother." Furthermore,
the community of faith (Jewish and Christian) has historically referred to God in masculine terms.
Let me point out the weaknesses of the above three defenses for retaining a masculine God.
1. The Bible refers to God as "Father," and as "He." The reason for this should be obvious, i.e.,
the Bible was written primarily by men and is a product of a male-dominated society. Some may wish to argue that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible "Word of God," and should not be tampered with. While I will not argue with that position, I also acknowledge that the "Word of God" comes to us filtered through human experience and human language. We cannot bypass the historical and cultural mediation of the Bible just because we consider it to be "the Word of God." If we attempt to do that, we are being careless, dishonest, irresponsible, and sloppy in our use of the Bible.
2. Jesus referred to God as His "Father." The major weakness of this argument is that Jesus as a human being, lived in a male-dominated society and therefore, adhered to the cultural and social norms of His time. While He did clash with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, the clashes were not regarding the gender nature of God, but rather about how they interpreted the Law.
3. The community of faith (both Jewish and Christian) has traditionally referred to God in masculine terms. The major problem with this argument is that what is being said here, directly, or indirectly, is that we should keep tradition for tradition's sake and not tamper with it. It is the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In other words, what is being said is that if it has been a certain way all along, we shouldn't bother to change things. Well, "all along" there has been classism, racism, and sexism. Should we not try to do away with these forms of discrimination and dismantle these structures of oppression just because "it's been that way all along?"
There are Scripture portions which present feminine imagery of God. We are told in the opening portion of Genesis (the Creation Story) that the Spirit of God "hovered" over the face of the deep.
It is the image of a mother hovering over her child.
The writer of the book of Proverbs personifies "wisdom" in feminine terms, and then later on in the New Testament, we are told that Jesus constitutes the "wisdom of God."
The Gospel accounts of Jesus's' baptism speaks about the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of "a dove," an image of female gentleness and softness.
What then, do we do with the masculine images of God? Do we retain them for the sake of retaining them? Do we allow feminine images of God to co-exist side by side with the masculine images? Do we replace the masculine images and put feminine images in their place?
This writer has witnessed efforts to write translations of the Bible that are more inclusive in their language about God and other issues. He has also gladly seen some of the traditional hymns of the Church revised to include more inclusive language.
Please share with us where you stand on this matter. Tell us why you favor one position or the other.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, October 20, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Is There Truth Outside the Bible?
Small-talk Dialogue: Is There Truth Outside the Bible?: This essay is intended to provoke and stimulate honest and serious thinking. I know that some people may even be offended by the very quest...
Is There Truth Outside the Bible?
This essay is intended to provoke and stimulate honest and serious thinking. I know that some people may even be offended by the very question in the title of the essay. While it has never been my intention to hurt or offend anyone by anything that I say, I know that for whatever reason, there are people whose sensibilities are challenged by what they read. I, however, submit everything I write with humility and respect for the opinions and views of others, regardless of whether I agree or not with their perspectives.
So we ask the question, is there truth beyond the confines of that book which we call the Bible? Like with the questions of previous essays, we are dealing with complex issues. There are no "black or white" answers, but rather answers that some of us may offer, which in turn, will lead to more questions. In that spirit, I offer the following for your consideration and dialogue:
1. I think that the attempt to answer this question would include the question "What is truth" or "What do we mean by truth?" For many of us, "truth" is whatever we believe to be reflective of the objective reality of life, i.e. something that cannot be doubted, refuted, or even questioned. In other words, truth is whatever we believe to be the final answer to all questions, "end of story," and away with "razzle dazzle." For many people, to even begin to question whatever is considered the absolute truth, is to commit blasphemy or to be inspired by some demonic entity. For them, truth is truth, and as we Spanish-speaking people say "se acabo (it is finished)."
2. From a faith standpoint, I think that a more appropriate and relevant question would be "Who is the truth?" Relative to this discussion, truth then would be (at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition), the person of God or God as an entity as the embodiment of truth.
3. To believe or state that there is no truth outside the Bible poses the following problems:
a. Those who subscribe to this position fail to take into consideration that God, who is truth, existed eternally long before the Bible was written. Without realizing it, they are in essence, saying that truth came into existence when the Bible was written and completed. That would mean, then, that there was no truth prior to the written record of Scripture.
b. To subscribe to this position is to" box" God in to a book which was written by fallible and imperfect human beings. In saying this, I am not overlooking the element of the divine inspiration of the Bible, but rather affirming that the truths of the Bible come to us filtered and mediated through the agency of frail, sinful, and weak human beings.
c. To say that truth does not exist aside from the Bible is to tamper with the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty, i.e. the notion of God doing what God wants, and how, and when, and through whomever God wants. This is like saying that if God in God's sovereignty chooses to speak to us through means other than the Bible, that it is to be rejected because the Bible is considered to be "the only source of truth."
d. To say that truth is limited to the Bible is, in essence, to say that the people who lived long before the Bible was written had no truth. This is, in a sense, a continuation of point "a" above. That means that these civilizations and peoples lived in utter darkness.
e. If we hold on to point "d," above that would mean that the people who lived long before the Bible was written can not be held accountable for not living according to the "truth." Some might respond that they had "nature" as a source of truth, but nature could never in and of itself, provide the foundation for a systematic or even half-baked organized body of teachings that would enable people to live responsibly with both God and their neighbor.
f. To affirm that there is no truth aside from Scripture is reflective of religious imperialism, i.e. words the arrogant notion that only those communities of faith (Jewish and Christian) who subscribe to the Bible as a rule of faith, are somehow under the provisions of God's liberating and redemptive activities in the world. That would mean that the Africans, Asians, and others who lived before the Bible was written were confined to eternal condemnation through no fault of their own. That position, in, and of itself, contradicts what we find in many portions of Scripture, i.e. that God is the God of all who seek for God and live according to God's revelation of Godself. The story of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10, and other portions of Scripture attest to this fact.
I now invite you the reader, to respond to this, and to engage with us. It should be a very interesting topic of discussion. Tell us where you stand on this issue and why. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated by all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
So we ask the question, is there truth beyond the confines of that book which we call the Bible? Like with the questions of previous essays, we are dealing with complex issues. There are no "black or white" answers, but rather answers that some of us may offer, which in turn, will lead to more questions. In that spirit, I offer the following for your consideration and dialogue:
1. I think that the attempt to answer this question would include the question "What is truth" or "What do we mean by truth?" For many of us, "truth" is whatever we believe to be reflective of the objective reality of life, i.e. something that cannot be doubted, refuted, or even questioned. In other words, truth is whatever we believe to be the final answer to all questions, "end of story," and away with "razzle dazzle." For many people, to even begin to question whatever is considered the absolute truth, is to commit blasphemy or to be inspired by some demonic entity. For them, truth is truth, and as we Spanish-speaking people say "se acabo (it is finished)."
2. From a faith standpoint, I think that a more appropriate and relevant question would be "Who is the truth?" Relative to this discussion, truth then would be (at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition), the person of God or God as an entity as the embodiment of truth.
3. To believe or state that there is no truth outside the Bible poses the following problems:
a. Those who subscribe to this position fail to take into consideration that God, who is truth, existed eternally long before the Bible was written. Without realizing it, they are in essence, saying that truth came into existence when the Bible was written and completed. That would mean, then, that there was no truth prior to the written record of Scripture.
b. To subscribe to this position is to" box" God in to a book which was written by fallible and imperfect human beings. In saying this, I am not overlooking the element of the divine inspiration of the Bible, but rather affirming that the truths of the Bible come to us filtered and mediated through the agency of frail, sinful, and weak human beings.
c. To say that truth does not exist aside from the Bible is to tamper with the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty, i.e. the notion of God doing what God wants, and how, and when, and through whomever God wants. This is like saying that if God in God's sovereignty chooses to speak to us through means other than the Bible, that it is to be rejected because the Bible is considered to be "the only source of truth."
d. To say that truth is limited to the Bible is, in essence, to say that the people who lived long before the Bible was written had no truth. This is, in a sense, a continuation of point "a" above. That means that these civilizations and peoples lived in utter darkness.
e. If we hold on to point "d," above that would mean that the people who lived long before the Bible was written can not be held accountable for not living according to the "truth." Some might respond that they had "nature" as a source of truth, but nature could never in and of itself, provide the foundation for a systematic or even half-baked organized body of teachings that would enable people to live responsibly with both God and their neighbor.
f. To affirm that there is no truth aside from Scripture is reflective of religious imperialism, i.e. words the arrogant notion that only those communities of faith (Jewish and Christian) who subscribe to the Bible as a rule of faith, are somehow under the provisions of God's liberating and redemptive activities in the world. That would mean that the Africans, Asians, and others who lived before the Bible was written were confined to eternal condemnation through no fault of their own. That position, in, and of itself, contradicts what we find in many portions of Scripture, i.e. that God is the God of all who seek for God and live according to God's revelation of Godself. The story of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10, and other portions of Scripture attest to this fact.
I now invite you the reader, to respond to this, and to engage with us. It should be a very interesting topic of discussion. Tell us where you stand on this issue and why. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated by all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Women
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Women: The title of this essay might, from the very beginning, lead some to ask "What is the difference between a man reading the Bible and a ...
God Was In Christ
This essay will serve as a foundation for a subsequent essay entitled "Is There Truth Outside the Bible?" In the present essay, I would invite you, the reader, to engage in the matter of God's reconciling acts with humankind. The essay carries the assumption which I believe characterizes many religions, i.e. that there has been a rupture in the divine-human relationship, and that some kind of reconciliatory measures are necessary to repair that brokenness.
In his second letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul states that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself." I will not resort to the "quick to verse" approach that many believers resort to in order to justify their belief or practice, but rather invite you to read both of Paul's letters to the Corinthian Church. When we read the Corinthian correspondence in context, we find that the background of these letters is one of people who have come from a Gentile background with minimal knowledge of the Jewish faith, and who are now incorporated by faith in Jesus into the Christian community. As with other piece of Paul's correspondence, we find that he alludes to God's reconciling acts in history.
The question for us is, when Paul says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world," was he referring to the event of Jesus's crucifixion and death as the means of divine-human reconciliation, or was he referring to something over and beyond that? This writer's (yours truly) position is that since Paul was very familiar with the notion of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and that since Paul's view of Jesus was not one restricted to the incarnation at Bethlehem, that his notion of reconciliation extends to the pre-Christian era. In other words, for Paul, the Christ-event of reconciliation did not begin at Calvary, but rather long before.
This of course, raises the question of whether or not, there were civilizations and peoples that experienced God's reconciling acts in Christ prior to the formation of the Jewish and Christian communities? In response to that, I would humbly and respectfully submit that a careful and thorough reading of Paul's letters to the different churches will reveal that Paul's view of Jesus was that of the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who had been at work throughout human history in ways which perhaps were not recorded in writing, nor fully understood or even agreed on by the Christian community. This issue raises the question of "Christophanies", i.e. manifestations of Christ prior to the incarnation at Bethlehem. Many Christians will state that it began at Bethlehem and ended at Calvary. This writer believes that it started in the mythological Garden of Eden and continues on to the present day. Let me clarify that when I use the term "mythological," I do not mean "not true," but rather a sacred story which may or may not be literally true, but that nevertheless points to something greater beyond itself, i.e. in this case, the fall of humankind into sin, and God's initiative in liberating and reconciling acts.
Well, this brings us back to the question of whether there were Christophanies in those nations whose religious practices predated Judaism and Christianity? Because the biblical witness describes a God who is cosmic and universal, and because the Jesus described in the New Testament is a person whose message of love, justice, and reconciliation had a universal thrust, I cannot help but believe that many prior civilizations experienced the reconciling acts of God in Christ in their own ways. God was in Christ throughout the whole of human history, and continues the acts of reconciliation in our times. While the Old Testament scriptures restrict the dealings of God to the nation of Israel, and while the New Testament scriptures restrict God's dealings to the Church, other civilizations and peoples are not mentioned directly in these divine-human reconciliatory activities. This does not mean however, that because they are not mentioned, that they are "outside" the scope of God's initiative of reconciling with humankind. Only a Judaeo-Christian imperialistic interpretation of the Bible would lead us to that conclusion.
I now invite you to engage in this discussion by sharing with us your views on God's dealings with humankind. Is God, in your view, only the God of Christians and Jews, or is God also the God of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others? Tell us where you stand on this issue and what the basis is for your position. Your input should make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his second letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul states that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself." I will not resort to the "quick to verse" approach that many believers resort to in order to justify their belief or practice, but rather invite you to read both of Paul's letters to the Corinthian Church. When we read the Corinthian correspondence in context, we find that the background of these letters is one of people who have come from a Gentile background with minimal knowledge of the Jewish faith, and who are now incorporated by faith in Jesus into the Christian community. As with other piece of Paul's correspondence, we find that he alludes to God's reconciling acts in history.
The question for us is, when Paul says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world," was he referring to the event of Jesus's crucifixion and death as the means of divine-human reconciliation, or was he referring to something over and beyond that? This writer's (yours truly) position is that since Paul was very familiar with the notion of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and that since Paul's view of Jesus was not one restricted to the incarnation at Bethlehem, that his notion of reconciliation extends to the pre-Christian era. In other words, for Paul, the Christ-event of reconciliation did not begin at Calvary, but rather long before.
This of course, raises the question of whether or not, there were civilizations and peoples that experienced God's reconciling acts in Christ prior to the formation of the Jewish and Christian communities? In response to that, I would humbly and respectfully submit that a careful and thorough reading of Paul's letters to the different churches will reveal that Paul's view of Jesus was that of the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who had been at work throughout human history in ways which perhaps were not recorded in writing, nor fully understood or even agreed on by the Christian community. This issue raises the question of "Christophanies", i.e. manifestations of Christ prior to the incarnation at Bethlehem. Many Christians will state that it began at Bethlehem and ended at Calvary. This writer believes that it started in the mythological Garden of Eden and continues on to the present day. Let me clarify that when I use the term "mythological," I do not mean "not true," but rather a sacred story which may or may not be literally true, but that nevertheless points to something greater beyond itself, i.e. in this case, the fall of humankind into sin, and God's initiative in liberating and reconciling acts.
Well, this brings us back to the question of whether there were Christophanies in those nations whose religious practices predated Judaism and Christianity? Because the biblical witness describes a God who is cosmic and universal, and because the Jesus described in the New Testament is a person whose message of love, justice, and reconciliation had a universal thrust, I cannot help but believe that many prior civilizations experienced the reconciling acts of God in Christ in their own ways. God was in Christ throughout the whole of human history, and continues the acts of reconciliation in our times. While the Old Testament scriptures restrict the dealings of God to the nation of Israel, and while the New Testament scriptures restrict God's dealings to the Church, other civilizations and peoples are not mentioned directly in these divine-human reconciliatory activities. This does not mean however, that because they are not mentioned, that they are "outside" the scope of God's initiative of reconciling with humankind. Only a Judaeo-Christian imperialistic interpretation of the Bible would lead us to that conclusion.
I now invite you to engage in this discussion by sharing with us your views on God's dealings with humankind. Is God, in your view, only the God of Christians and Jews, or is God also the God of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others? Tell us where you stand on this issue and what the basis is for your position. Your input should make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, October 10, 2014
Reading the Bible as Women
The title of this essay might, from the very beginning, lead some to ask "What is the difference between a man reading the Bible and a woman reading the Bible?" This question almost assumes that when people read the Bible, regardless of their gender, that they should arrive at the same conclusion as to its meaning. In other words, according to this assumption, there are or should not be any differences in biblical interpretation between a male and female reading of Scripture. This writer wishes to humbly and respectfully submit that there are and should be differences. And while the Bible can be considered "the Word of God," regardless of who is reading it, the fact remains that each one us brings baggage to the reading of Scripture. As I've stated in previous essays, no one brings a blank slate to the reading of Scripture.
Because men, historically speaking, have been in a position of dominance and power, and women, historically speaking, have been in a condition of subjugation and subservience, the baggage that each of the genders brings to the reading Scripture will naturally be different. Men will read and interpret the Scripture in such a manner as to maintain women in a state of submission to them. Women will read and interpret the Bible in such a way as to find equality between the sexes. In both cases, both the male and the feminine interpretation of Scripture will be rooted in their historical experiences relative to power and powerlessness.
Carolyn Osiek, who has served as Professor of New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union, points out that since the middle of the nineteen century there has been a growing awareness of the part of some women that their very devotion to the Bible has put them in a conflictive situation and that the Bible itself is partly responsible for the ambiguity and even outright oppression that they suffer in societies that claim the Bible as their moral and creedal foundation. Someone may ask "How can the Word of God be oppressive?" The answer would probably be that it is not the Scripture itself that is oppressive, but rather its misuse by men in terms of how they read the Scriptures and impose their interpretation of what they read on women.
Professor Osiek goes on to mention that with the rediscovery and growing popularity of religious feminism in the middle of the twentieth century, that there was a surge of new interest in how women relate to the Bible. I'm certain that some men in the community of faith who wish to hold on to power, will attribute the rising popularity in religious feminism to the "diabolical and evil" influence of secular feminism upon women in the faith community. Because of their desire to protect what they have controlled for ages, they will attribute any rise to power by women as being "Satanically inspired." They will also say that women now want to use the Bible not only to rebel against male authority, but also to "change the batting order" in order to exert authority over men.
Professor Osiek states that in the mid- 1970's questions such as "Was Jesus a feminist?" and "was Paul a chauvinist?" were being raised. In the late 1970's and early 1980's feminist bible scholars and theologians, according to Professor Osiek, were not only using the traditional historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation (questions of authorship, audience, date, reasons for writing, literary styles, sources of information, and where or not there was redaction), but also began to use the hermeneutical (interpretive) tools of Liberation Theology, a school of thought which emphasizes that oppression is the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Lynn Japinga, a Professor of Religion at Hope Colleg in her book "Feminism and Christianity" relates the experience of three of her students in a course which she taught on Christian Feminism. The expressed perspectives of the three were as follows:
Susan says she attends a "Bible-believing" church. She adds "I've been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is true. The man was created first, and the woman sinned first, so it is clear that men are meant to lead and women are meant to be submissive wives and mothers. The Bible does not allow women to be leaders of the church."
Barbara introduces herself as a women's studies major and says, "I think that the Bible has caused most of the problems that women have in our society. It blames women for causing sin in the world. It treats women like property, not persons. It does not allow women positions of power and influence. The Bible was obviously written by men, about men, to promote a male agenda. It is not a good book for women."
Jenny says "I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and I've always considered myself to be both a Christian and a feminist. I am beginning to wonder if that is possible. If it is, what do Christian feminists do with the Bible?'
Dr. Japinga asks "How can the same book provoke such different interpretations?" Some readers think that the Bible imprisons women and restricts the options they have for their lives. Others conclude that that the Bible empowers women to resist oppression and ultimately sets them free. The Bible is a symbol of oppression for some and a positive resource for others.
One of the things that Dr. Japinga goes on to mention in her book is that the Christian feminist movement is very Euro-American centric, and neglects women from the so-called Third World, and who are of a different socio-economic class than the Euro-American women who by and large are tied into the white middle class. According to Prof. Japinga, true feminine liberation will be inclusive of women of color and class and their particular aspirations and needs.
How do we then solve the issue of reading the Bible from a woman's standpoint? There are obviously certain texts in Scripture that appear to support the notion of women in a subservient and submissive positions. But then there are other passages of Scripture that point to equality between men and women, and that also promote women in leadership, both in the church and in society.
In one of his letters to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul speaks about women being silent in the church, but earlier on in that same letter he speaks about women prophesying.
The issue is not resolved merely by quoting Scripture passages. Anyone, including a child can do that. The "quick to verse" approach is not appropriate for either this topic or any other topic regarding biblical interpretation. While no perfect solution might ever be found, this writer humbly submits the following proposal to get us started on the road to faithfulness to the message of the Bible, proper interpretation and understanding, and finally appropriate application in the life of the community of faith.
1. Begin by examining the biblical languages of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew in order to determine if what was said in the original languages corresponds to what we understand today in the modern languages in which we read the Bible.
2. Examine the "Sitz en Leben" (German for "life setting) of those biblical passages which deal with the relationship between men and women relative to social status and authority. In other words, get to "the story behind the story" in each of those biblical passages. By this I mean, leave behind the syndrome of "the Bible says, end of story," and examine what is meant by what "the Bible says" in its original context.
3. Examine the engagement between writer and reader. By this I mean, explore the baggage that the writer (biblical author) brings and compare it to the baggage that the reader (you and I) brings to the reading of Scripture.
4. Engage in continuous dialogue within the community of faith and examining the best of biblical scholarship relative to this issue.
I welcome and encourage your response to this essay. Your input and insight are very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Because men, historically speaking, have been in a position of dominance and power, and women, historically speaking, have been in a condition of subjugation and subservience, the baggage that each of the genders brings to the reading Scripture will naturally be different. Men will read and interpret the Scripture in such a manner as to maintain women in a state of submission to them. Women will read and interpret the Bible in such a way as to find equality between the sexes. In both cases, both the male and the feminine interpretation of Scripture will be rooted in their historical experiences relative to power and powerlessness.
Carolyn Osiek, who has served as Professor of New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union, points out that since the middle of the nineteen century there has been a growing awareness of the part of some women that their very devotion to the Bible has put them in a conflictive situation and that the Bible itself is partly responsible for the ambiguity and even outright oppression that they suffer in societies that claim the Bible as their moral and creedal foundation. Someone may ask "How can the Word of God be oppressive?" The answer would probably be that it is not the Scripture itself that is oppressive, but rather its misuse by men in terms of how they read the Scriptures and impose their interpretation of what they read on women.
Professor Osiek goes on to mention that with the rediscovery and growing popularity of religious feminism in the middle of the twentieth century, that there was a surge of new interest in how women relate to the Bible. I'm certain that some men in the community of faith who wish to hold on to power, will attribute the rising popularity in religious feminism to the "diabolical and evil" influence of secular feminism upon women in the faith community. Because of their desire to protect what they have controlled for ages, they will attribute any rise to power by women as being "Satanically inspired." They will also say that women now want to use the Bible not only to rebel against male authority, but also to "change the batting order" in order to exert authority over men.
Professor Osiek states that in the mid- 1970's questions such as "Was Jesus a feminist?" and "was Paul a chauvinist?" were being raised. In the late 1970's and early 1980's feminist bible scholars and theologians, according to Professor Osiek, were not only using the traditional historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation (questions of authorship, audience, date, reasons for writing, literary styles, sources of information, and where or not there was redaction), but also began to use the hermeneutical (interpretive) tools of Liberation Theology, a school of thought which emphasizes that oppression is the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Lynn Japinga, a Professor of Religion at Hope Colleg in her book "Feminism and Christianity" relates the experience of three of her students in a course which she taught on Christian Feminism. The expressed perspectives of the three were as follows:
Susan says she attends a "Bible-believing" church. She adds "I've been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is true. The man was created first, and the woman sinned first, so it is clear that men are meant to lead and women are meant to be submissive wives and mothers. The Bible does not allow women to be leaders of the church."
Barbara introduces herself as a women's studies major and says, "I think that the Bible has caused most of the problems that women have in our society. It blames women for causing sin in the world. It treats women like property, not persons. It does not allow women positions of power and influence. The Bible was obviously written by men, about men, to promote a male agenda. It is not a good book for women."
Jenny says "I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and I've always considered myself to be both a Christian and a feminist. I am beginning to wonder if that is possible. If it is, what do Christian feminists do with the Bible?'
Dr. Japinga asks "How can the same book provoke such different interpretations?" Some readers think that the Bible imprisons women and restricts the options they have for their lives. Others conclude that that the Bible empowers women to resist oppression and ultimately sets them free. The Bible is a symbol of oppression for some and a positive resource for others.
One of the things that Dr. Japinga goes on to mention in her book is that the Christian feminist movement is very Euro-American centric, and neglects women from the so-called Third World, and who are of a different socio-economic class than the Euro-American women who by and large are tied into the white middle class. According to Prof. Japinga, true feminine liberation will be inclusive of women of color and class and their particular aspirations and needs.
How do we then solve the issue of reading the Bible from a woman's standpoint? There are obviously certain texts in Scripture that appear to support the notion of women in a subservient and submissive positions. But then there are other passages of Scripture that point to equality between men and women, and that also promote women in leadership, both in the church and in society.
In one of his letters to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul speaks about women being silent in the church, but earlier on in that same letter he speaks about women prophesying.
The issue is not resolved merely by quoting Scripture passages. Anyone, including a child can do that. The "quick to verse" approach is not appropriate for either this topic or any other topic regarding biblical interpretation. While no perfect solution might ever be found, this writer humbly submits the following proposal to get us started on the road to faithfulness to the message of the Bible, proper interpretation and understanding, and finally appropriate application in the life of the community of faith.
1. Begin by examining the biblical languages of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew in order to determine if what was said in the original languages corresponds to what we understand today in the modern languages in which we read the Bible.
2. Examine the "Sitz en Leben" (German for "life setting) of those biblical passages which deal with the relationship between men and women relative to social status and authority. In other words, get to "the story behind the story" in each of those biblical passages. By this I mean, leave behind the syndrome of "the Bible says, end of story," and examine what is meant by what "the Bible says" in its original context.
3. Examine the engagement between writer and reader. By this I mean, explore the baggage that the writer (biblical author) brings and compare it to the baggage that the reader (you and I) brings to the reading of Scripture.
4. Engage in continuous dialogue within the community of faith and examining the best of biblical scholarship relative to this issue.
I welcome and encourage your response to this essay. Your input and insight are very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, October 6, 2014
Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage
Once again we find ourselves facing a moral issue in which the Supreme Court refuses to get involved. It is the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. And like other moral issues, we encounter the complexity of who should decide what is ethically and morally right or wrong, in this case, relative to sexual morality. The questions to be considered are the following:
1. Should secular entities such as the Court System legislate sexual morality? This writer (yours truly) and preacher believes that it is not within the domain of secular entities to determine the correctness or incorrectness of sexual behavior. If it were to take it upon itself to do so, it would have to end up endorsing the moral standards of some faith groups and totally deny the moral standards of other faith groups.
2. Can the issues be resolved by allowing the faith community to legislate social morality? In general, morality might be rooted in the belief system of the faith community, but then again, we encounter complexity in that each faith community has its own definition of what constitutes sexual morality. Add to that, that within each individual community faith, there are factions that approach the issue of sexual morality in divergent ways.
3. Are sexual morality and the attending elements such as marriage something to be determined by individuals? While there is much to be said about the value of individual freedom relative to outlooks and perspectives on different issues, we run the risk of social chaos because every person, then, would be doing what is right in her/his own eyes. We would then end up with an "amok" sexual morality. There would be no other standard than to "agree to disagree."
4. Should sexual morality be based on "what the Bible says?" In this country, this approach would be problematic because the Bible is the sacred book of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. But then we run into the problem that other faith communities have their own sacred literature, and to impose the moral standards as set forth by one sacred book and ignore the standards of the other sacred texts, would amount to religious imperialism. Some may want to make the age-old and naïve argument that this nation was "built on Christian principles." Nothing could be farther from the truth. This country was built on the triple pillar of genocide, slavery, and colonization. These three forms of brutal inhumanity are not compatible with the claims of the Christian faith, and I highly doubt as to whether they are compatible with the claims of any other faith group.
5. Should the issue of same-sex marriage (assuming that we are talking about civil legality and not the blessing of the faith community) be determined by the Federal government or by the states? I am personally biased in favor of a national consensus. In this manner, people who are married by civil decree do not have to encounter the harassment of different standards every time they cross state lines, or relocate from one state to the other.
How then, should the issue of same-sex marriage be ultimately resolved? I do not have a magical answer to that question. I can only propose ongoing healthy dialogue leading to consensus. Tell us what you think about this. Your contribution is important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Should secular entities such as the Court System legislate sexual morality? This writer (yours truly) and preacher believes that it is not within the domain of secular entities to determine the correctness or incorrectness of sexual behavior. If it were to take it upon itself to do so, it would have to end up endorsing the moral standards of some faith groups and totally deny the moral standards of other faith groups.
2. Can the issues be resolved by allowing the faith community to legislate social morality? In general, morality might be rooted in the belief system of the faith community, but then again, we encounter complexity in that each faith community has its own definition of what constitutes sexual morality. Add to that, that within each individual community faith, there are factions that approach the issue of sexual morality in divergent ways.
3. Are sexual morality and the attending elements such as marriage something to be determined by individuals? While there is much to be said about the value of individual freedom relative to outlooks and perspectives on different issues, we run the risk of social chaos because every person, then, would be doing what is right in her/his own eyes. We would then end up with an "amok" sexual morality. There would be no other standard than to "agree to disagree."
4. Should sexual morality be based on "what the Bible says?" In this country, this approach would be problematic because the Bible is the sacred book of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. But then we run into the problem that other faith communities have their own sacred literature, and to impose the moral standards as set forth by one sacred book and ignore the standards of the other sacred texts, would amount to religious imperialism. Some may want to make the age-old and naïve argument that this nation was "built on Christian principles." Nothing could be farther from the truth. This country was built on the triple pillar of genocide, slavery, and colonization. These three forms of brutal inhumanity are not compatible with the claims of the Christian faith, and I highly doubt as to whether they are compatible with the claims of any other faith group.
5. Should the issue of same-sex marriage (assuming that we are talking about civil legality and not the blessing of the faith community) be determined by the Federal government or by the states? I am personally biased in favor of a national consensus. In this manner, people who are married by civil decree do not have to encounter the harassment of different standards every time they cross state lines, or relocate from one state to the other.
How then, should the issue of same-sex marriage be ultimately resolved? I do not have a magical answer to that question. I can only propose ongoing healthy dialogue leading to consensus. Tell us what you think about this. Your contribution is important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: A Fishy Story
Small-talk Dialogue: A Fishy Story: In the creation narrative of the book of Genesis, we find reference to God creating the birds of the air, sea creatures (including fish), l...
Friday, October 3, 2014
Reading the Bible as Native Americans
Having written about reading the Bible from the standpoint of Euro-Americans and other ethnic/racial groups in the U.S.A., I would like now to invite you to consider the reading of the Bible from the standpoint of the original inhabitants of the this land, i.e. Native Americans. One can ask if our Native American sisters and brothers are capable of contributing anything worthwhile to the reading and interpretation of Scripture. My response to that would be that the question itself is condescending and paternalistic. To assume that only one cultural/ethnic/racial group can generate anything of value to the study of this sacred text is not only arrogant, but also presumptuous.
George E. Tinker, who has served as Professor of Cross-Cultural Ministries at The Iliff School of Theology informs us that Native American reading of the Bible presents an interesting challenge to the predominant Eurocentric tradition of biblical scholarship. He states that Western biblical scholarship has long struggled with the task of accurately and adequately translating a text from one language to the other. He adds, furthermore, that since languages are never simply codes for one another, there are always things that one can say in one language that may not be able to be said at all in another language. More recently, Prof. Tinker says, scholars have begun to understand that their task also includes the greater difficulty of translating from one culture to another. The failure to understand this, as he so correctly points out, caused Christian missionaries to function genocidally with respect to Native American cultures.
There are at least three ways in which a Native American reading of the Bible will differ from Euro-American interpretations. They are as follows:
1. The theological function of the Old Testament in a Native American context will differ. Native American Christians would claim their own histories, cultural traditions, narratives, and traditional ceremonies to be an appropriate traditional covenant (Old Testament, if you will) to their communities.
2. The socio-political context of Native American peoples generate interpretations that are particularly Native American in terms of outlook and life-application.
3. The discrete cultural particularities, informs us Prof. Tinker, generate normatively divergent readings of the Bible.
There is some dysfunction in the relationship between a Native American biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) and the other biblical hermeneutics that we have previously considered. An example of this would be that the Native American community would consider the Bible (especially the Old Testament) to be the imposition of a foreign history. Subsequently, in order for the biblical message to be relevant and viable for their community, the Scriptures have to reappropiated, recontextualized, and reread in the light of Native American existential reality.
Robert Warrior, author of "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians," indicates that the Israelite conquest of Canaan has little affinity with the Native American experience. On the contrary, he says, the closest analogy to Native American history in the Old Testament seems to be the experience of the Canaanites, dispossessed of their land, and annihilated by a foreign invader. Warrior adds that in Native American eyes, the liberation of Israel is linked to the conquest and destruction of the Canaanites .
Norman Gottwald,, author of The Tribes of Yahweh, under an obvious influence of Marxism, argues for a "peasant revolt," paradigm for interpreting the same event. This paradigm is also problematic for the Native American community, because of its emphasis on egalitarianism. It is also problematic because of the Marxist inclination to overlook or deny cultural distinctions in favor of an imposed, classless social homogenization which is antithetical to Native American social thought.
The notion of the reign (or kingdom, for those used to more traditional language) of God in Native American biblical hermeneutic is also different than that in the Western reading and interpretation of Scripture. The Western biblical hermeneutic emphasizes chronological time, whereas the Native American hermeneutic emphasizes space. The question for those used to a Euro-American hermeneutic would be "when will the kingdom of God come?", whereas for the Native American outlook it is a question of "where?' Tinker points out that because of their spatial orientation, Native American religious thought begins with some sense of creation.
An important historical point for our consideration is that as Prof. Tinker points out, Native American communities in North America had a healthy and responsible relationship with God as Creator long before they even heard the Christian message of the Gospel. This poses a problem for those Christians who will deny this on the basis of their belief that the entirety of divine truth is enclosed in the Christian religion and in its sacred book, i.e. the Bible. This writer (yours truly) believes that this attitude is reflective of Christian imperialism. To judge the truth or non-truth of any faith community strictly on the basis of Scripture is to place limitations on God's power to reveal Godself to humankind. This, of course, results in tampering with the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty, i.e. that God can do whatever God wants, whenever God wants, and however God wants.
In this posting, we have been exposed to just some of the peculiarities of a Native American biblical hermeneutic. There are more, but for the sake of time and space, I will invite you (the reader) to engage with us on the little that has been said. How would you as a non-Native American evaluate their reading and interpretation of the Bible? Do you believe that their biblical hermeneutic is inferior to yours, and if so, why? Your input will be very well received. I look forward to it.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
George E. Tinker, who has served as Professor of Cross-Cultural Ministries at The Iliff School of Theology informs us that Native American reading of the Bible presents an interesting challenge to the predominant Eurocentric tradition of biblical scholarship. He states that Western biblical scholarship has long struggled with the task of accurately and adequately translating a text from one language to the other. He adds, furthermore, that since languages are never simply codes for one another, there are always things that one can say in one language that may not be able to be said at all in another language. More recently, Prof. Tinker says, scholars have begun to understand that their task also includes the greater difficulty of translating from one culture to another. The failure to understand this, as he so correctly points out, caused Christian missionaries to function genocidally with respect to Native American cultures.
There are at least three ways in which a Native American reading of the Bible will differ from Euro-American interpretations. They are as follows:
1. The theological function of the Old Testament in a Native American context will differ. Native American Christians would claim their own histories, cultural traditions, narratives, and traditional ceremonies to be an appropriate traditional covenant (Old Testament, if you will) to their communities.
2. The socio-political context of Native American peoples generate interpretations that are particularly Native American in terms of outlook and life-application.
3. The discrete cultural particularities, informs us Prof. Tinker, generate normatively divergent readings of the Bible.
There is some dysfunction in the relationship between a Native American biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) and the other biblical hermeneutics that we have previously considered. An example of this would be that the Native American community would consider the Bible (especially the Old Testament) to be the imposition of a foreign history. Subsequently, in order for the biblical message to be relevant and viable for their community, the Scriptures have to reappropiated, recontextualized, and reread in the light of Native American existential reality.
Robert Warrior, author of "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians," indicates that the Israelite conquest of Canaan has little affinity with the Native American experience. On the contrary, he says, the closest analogy to Native American history in the Old Testament seems to be the experience of the Canaanites, dispossessed of their land, and annihilated by a foreign invader. Warrior adds that in Native American eyes, the liberation of Israel is linked to the conquest and destruction of the Canaanites .
Norman Gottwald,, author of The Tribes of Yahweh, under an obvious influence of Marxism, argues for a "peasant revolt," paradigm for interpreting the same event. This paradigm is also problematic for the Native American community, because of its emphasis on egalitarianism. It is also problematic because of the Marxist inclination to overlook or deny cultural distinctions in favor of an imposed, classless social homogenization which is antithetical to Native American social thought.
The notion of the reign (or kingdom, for those used to more traditional language) of God in Native American biblical hermeneutic is also different than that in the Western reading and interpretation of Scripture. The Western biblical hermeneutic emphasizes chronological time, whereas the Native American hermeneutic emphasizes space. The question for those used to a Euro-American hermeneutic would be "when will the kingdom of God come?", whereas for the Native American outlook it is a question of "where?' Tinker points out that because of their spatial orientation, Native American religious thought begins with some sense of creation.
An important historical point for our consideration is that as Prof. Tinker points out, Native American communities in North America had a healthy and responsible relationship with God as Creator long before they even heard the Christian message of the Gospel. This poses a problem for those Christians who will deny this on the basis of their belief that the entirety of divine truth is enclosed in the Christian religion and in its sacred book, i.e. the Bible. This writer (yours truly) believes that this attitude is reflective of Christian imperialism. To judge the truth or non-truth of any faith community strictly on the basis of Scripture is to place limitations on God's power to reveal Godself to humankind. This, of course, results in tampering with the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty, i.e. that God can do whatever God wants, whenever God wants, and however God wants.
In this posting, we have been exposed to just some of the peculiarities of a Native American biblical hermeneutic. There are more, but for the sake of time and space, I will invite you (the reader) to engage with us on the little that has been said. How would you as a non-Native American evaluate their reading and interpretation of the Bible? Do you believe that their biblical hermeneutic is inferior to yours, and if so, why? Your input will be very well received. I look forward to it.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)