On December 25, the Christian world will be commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. This is the first piece of what is known as the "Christ event," the other two pieces being His death and His resurrection. In a very strict sense, we cannot separate these one from another.
The incarnation of Jesus ( God becoming human) has raised a number of issues, and even controversies in the Christian Church. The controversies have focused on the issues of Jesus's relationship to God, the nature of Jesus, and the role of Mary, Jesus's mother.
I would like to invite the readers, regardless of what branch of Christianity you are affiliated with, or what particular brand of theology you subscribe to, to think about the role of Marianism, which is the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mother. For the purposes of this essay, I will make a distinction between Mariolatry, which is the worship of Mary, on the one hand, and Marianism, which is venerating and holding in high esteem, the mother of Jesus.
There are two particular issues which I would like us to focus on this essay. They are as follows:
1. Our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers refer to Mary as the "Mother of God," or in more specific terms, the "God-bearer." This concept of God-bearer is known in the Greek language as the "Theotokos." Protestant Christianity has always had some problems with this concept because they cannot conceive of God having a mother, who for all effects and purposes would herself be God, because She gave birth to someone that did not always exist. Furthermore, Protestants remember that in the Scriptures, the prophets denounced the pagan worship of the "Queen of Heaven," and since in Roman Catholic theology, Mary is considered the Queen of Heaven, Protestants believe that this is a continuation of pagan worship incorporated into, and syncretized with the Christian faith.
So the question before us is whether it is or isn't correct to refer to Mary as the "Mother of God?"
The Catholics and Orthodox Christians would say an absolute "yes" to it being correct. The Protestant Christians, on the other hand, would give a resounding "no" to that for the reason already mentioned above, and also, because nowhere in Scripture (according to them), is Mary referred to as the "Mother of God." The closest that Protestants will come to that concept is to affirm that Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not of His divine nature, because that is something that always existed, even prior to the creation of humankind.
But wait a minute. Can we really resort to the gimmick of referring to Mary as the mother of the human part of Jesus and not the divine part? This writer thinks that it would be incorrect to resort to this gimmick. Why do I say that? I say that for the simple reason that according to Scripture, God was incarnated in human form and we cannot separate the human from the divine. The Gospel according to John, the letters of John at the end of the New Testament, and Paul's letter to Timothy all speak about God taking on a human body. The writer of the letter to Hebrews mentioned that in this body Jesus was tempted in every point "as we are." The writer of John's letters declared that anyone that denied that Jesus had come in the flesh was to be considered accursed and denounced.
The Christian traditions of the first four centuries depict an incarnated God, and never allowed for the separation of the two natures in Jesus. The Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Chalecdon in 451 both affirmed the doctrine of the God-man and declared heretical any one who promoted a teaching that was hereto contrary.
I, as a Protestant minister and theologian, respectfully submit, then, that it is proper on the basis of both Scripture and tradition to refer to Mary as the "Theotokos" (God-bearer). I furthermore, respectfully submit that it is a violation of both Scripture and tradition to deny this on the ground that she gave birth only to Jesus's human part. Mary gave birth to the God-man, who alone is to be worshipped and given honor and glory. Amen!
2. Can we venerate Mary? Again, our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers will give a resounding "yes," while our Protestant sisters and brothers will say "absolutely not!" The major problem here is two-fold:
a. Many Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers get so emotionally caught up in the veneration of Mary that they fall into border-line idolatry.
b. Many Protestants do not know how to distinguish between venerating and worshiping. They fail to acknowledge their own inconsistencies. For example, they refer to their pastors and other ministers as "Reverend," forgetting that in a strict sense, reverence belongs only to God.
The problem that we face here is that Catholic and Orthodox Christians come close to deifying Mary, i.e. making her a God. Protestants, on the other hand, come close to debasing her, overlooking her as the mother of our Lord, when in Scripture, she herself is quoted as saying "All generations shall call me blessed."
In closing, I invite you to help us resolve this conundrum. How would you as a follower of Jesus resolve and address this complex issue? Help us please.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson
Small-talk Dialogue: Jesus Returns to Ferguson: Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict polic...
Jesus Returns to Ferguson
Breaking News: Jesus of Nazareth was summoned back to Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for killing an unarmed African American man, Michael Brown. Demonstrations and protests have been carried out in different cities of the U.S.A. There have been reports of burned businesses, and overturned police cars. Emotions, as can be expected, are running high.
Once again we are faced with a situation where a Caucasian police officer is cleared in the shooting and killing of a black person. It is reminiscent of the Rodney King situation in Los Angeles some years ago. The police officers who beat the living hell out of King, were cleared and exonerated of any wrong doing, because they "were doing their job." That is exactly what officer Darren Wilson claims, i.e. "I was doing my job." In the case of King, it took a Presidential act in order to get the officers who brutalized him back to court to get not only indicted, but also convicted, and sentenced.
The questions for us might be the following:
1. Will the decision of the grand jury not to indicted Officer Wilson stand or will another Presidential act generate him coming back to court?
2. Will the African American and Latino community continue to demonstrate and protest until this is done or will they "cool down" after a while?
3. Will people continue to believe Officer Wilson's narrative about self-defense and Brown's refusal to comply with the orders given to him?
There are no simple answers to these questions. Like with similar situations, the matter is very complex. It is said that Michael Brown was no angel, and that just prior to getting killed, he was involved in an act of criminal behavior. Other narratives have Officer Wilson not being angelic either, and that he had a history of contemptuous relations with the African American community.
But now that Jesus is back in Ferguson, what can we expect him to do? Will he side with law enforcement or will he side with the community? Will he refuse to make that dichotomy between law enforcement and community? Will he console the family of Michael Brown while applauding the decision of the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson?
While only time will tell as to what Jesus will do relative to these issues, I am convinced of this:
1. Jesus will condemn the fact the so-called "law enforcement" was not established for the safety and well-being of the African American and other socially oppressed communities. The well-being and safety of socially oppressed groups is a secondary consideration, subordinate to the protection of the interests of the white power structure in the U.S.A., if a consideration at all. One would have to be either outright naïve or outright dishonest to deny this.
2. Jesus will continue to exercise pastoral care to the family of Michael Brown as well to other families who have lost loved ones tragically.
3. Jesus will continue to address issues of the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism.
4. Jesus will continue to mobilize the community around issues of oppression such as racism, classism, and sexism.
5. Jesus will continue to promote the fight for justice, not the American way, but in a global manner.
Please feel free to comment on the points in this essay. Your contribution will be enlightening and helpful.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Once again we are faced with a situation where a Caucasian police officer is cleared in the shooting and killing of a black person. It is reminiscent of the Rodney King situation in Los Angeles some years ago. The police officers who beat the living hell out of King, were cleared and exonerated of any wrong doing, because they "were doing their job." That is exactly what officer Darren Wilson claims, i.e. "I was doing my job." In the case of King, it took a Presidential act in order to get the officers who brutalized him back to court to get not only indicted, but also convicted, and sentenced.
The questions for us might be the following:
1. Will the decision of the grand jury not to indicted Officer Wilson stand or will another Presidential act generate him coming back to court?
2. Will the African American and Latino community continue to demonstrate and protest until this is done or will they "cool down" after a while?
3. Will people continue to believe Officer Wilson's narrative about self-defense and Brown's refusal to comply with the orders given to him?
There are no simple answers to these questions. Like with similar situations, the matter is very complex. It is said that Michael Brown was no angel, and that just prior to getting killed, he was involved in an act of criminal behavior. Other narratives have Officer Wilson not being angelic either, and that he had a history of contemptuous relations with the African American community.
But now that Jesus is back in Ferguson, what can we expect him to do? Will he side with law enforcement or will he side with the community? Will he refuse to make that dichotomy between law enforcement and community? Will he console the family of Michael Brown while applauding the decision of the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson?
While only time will tell as to what Jesus will do relative to these issues, I am convinced of this:
1. Jesus will condemn the fact the so-called "law enforcement" was not established for the safety and well-being of the African American and other socially oppressed communities. The well-being and safety of socially oppressed groups is a secondary consideration, subordinate to the protection of the interests of the white power structure in the U.S.A., if a consideration at all. One would have to be either outright naïve or outright dishonest to deny this.
2. Jesus will continue to exercise pastoral care to the family of Michael Brown as well to other families who have lost loved ones tragically.
3. Jesus will continue to address issues of the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism.
4. Jesus will continue to mobilize the community around issues of oppression such as racism, classism, and sexism.
5. Jesus will continue to promote the fight for justice, not the American way, but in a global manner.
Please feel free to comment on the points in this essay. Your contribution will be enlightening and helpful.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?
Small-talk Dialogue: Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?: Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day." I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical o...
Thanksgiving: How Genuine are We?
Next Thursday we will be celebrating "Thanksgiving Day." I wonder how many of us know or even care to know about the historical origins of this celebration. Like with many other cultural, religious, and social holidays, many, if not most of us, tend to do things in a very mechanical and robotic manner, i.e. not even thinking about why we do things. We take things for granted. In many cases, we have the attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In this case, we feel or think that if things have been done a certain way for ages, why bother changing them? We act and think as if age-long traditions establish the truth of what we do.
In a historical perspective, Thanksgiving Day, dating back to the seventeenth century, was an act of thanking God for the harvest. In later centuries, and in our times. Thanksgiving has become a secular tradition in which we gather with family and friends to eat and socialize. I would be the last person to say that this tradition should be discontinued. However, when we put it against the backdrop of history, can we really in all good conscience give thanks for the "blessings" that we have received, knowing full-well that these "blessings" are nothing more than that which we as a nation have usurped from the original inhabitants of this land? As an Afro-Puerto Rican, I can affirm that my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with Plymouth Rock. When I think of how my ancestors were brought here from Africa in animalistic conditions, and how my indigenous ancestors from the Caribbean were treated so inhumanely, can I have the audacity to refer to what was received through their hard work and labor as "blessings?" Where is God in all of this?
Did God bless the Pilgrims and Puritans by having them take the land away from its original inhabitants? Did God bless our national ancestors by having them enslave others and colonizing their lands? These are questions that are disturbing in that most of us don't want to deal with or be reminded of the past. We feel we had absolutely nothing to do with what happened back then. I respectfully submit that while we are not doing anything to reverse the course of that historical moment, that we are just as guilty as our national ancestors of maintaining certain groups within and sectors of society in subjugation, and marginalization. We have continued the "sins of our fathers." When President Obama makes his decision regarding undocumented migrants tomorrow, and we remember the origins of Thanksgiving, dare we celebrate it with a bold face? May God have mercy on us as we celebrate in the midst of misery, poverty, and suffering.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your comments will enable us to have more serious reflections.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In a historical perspective, Thanksgiving Day, dating back to the seventeenth century, was an act of thanking God for the harvest. In later centuries, and in our times. Thanksgiving has become a secular tradition in which we gather with family and friends to eat and socialize. I would be the last person to say that this tradition should be discontinued. However, when we put it against the backdrop of history, can we really in all good conscience give thanks for the "blessings" that we have received, knowing full-well that these "blessings" are nothing more than that which we as a nation have usurped from the original inhabitants of this land? As an Afro-Puerto Rican, I can affirm that my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with Plymouth Rock. When I think of how my ancestors were brought here from Africa in animalistic conditions, and how my indigenous ancestors from the Caribbean were treated so inhumanely, can I have the audacity to refer to what was received through their hard work and labor as "blessings?" Where is God in all of this?
Did God bless the Pilgrims and Puritans by having them take the land away from its original inhabitants? Did God bless our national ancestors by having them enslave others and colonizing their lands? These are questions that are disturbing in that most of us don't want to deal with or be reminded of the past. We feel we had absolutely nothing to do with what happened back then. I respectfully submit that while we are not doing anything to reverse the course of that historical moment, that we are just as guilty as our national ancestors of maintaining certain groups within and sectors of society in subjugation, and marginalization. We have continued the "sins of our fathers." When President Obama makes his decision regarding undocumented migrants tomorrow, and we remember the origins of Thanksgiving, dare we celebrate it with a bold face? May God have mercy on us as we celebrate in the midst of misery, poverty, and suffering.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your comments will enable us to have more serious reflections.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Christians for Socialism
I would like to invite you the reader to reflect on the matter of which existing economic system is the most appropriate one for Christians to advocate for. Should it be capitalism, which is a basically a system that allows some to have and others to have little if any? Should it be socialism, which is a system in which the government owns the tree and the workers own the fruit? Or should it be communism, where the government owns both the tree and the fruit, and in which there is no existence of social classes?
In order to attempt answering that question, let me begin by saying that the major political concern of those who claim to be Christians or followers of Jesus should be the politics of the reign of God enacted through Jesus the Christ. In other words, the politics of Christians should be the politics of Jesus, a system of total justice based on love for God and love for one's neighbor. While we have not seen the accomplishment of this condition in its fullest sense, Christians should continue striving for it through their lives and examples. As followers of Jesus, we are called to live as if the reign or kingdom were already here in its fullest sense.
Can Christians support the market economy (capitalism) in an ethical manner? Some Christians are of the opinion that we can support it by striving to put a human compassionate face on capitalism, and subsequently have a capitalism which is not based on greed or human competition, but rather a capitalism that is based on cooperation and the desire to give people their fair share of the resources necessary for survival. Many of these Christians tend to equate capitalism with "democracy," thinking that they are one and the same. They fail to see that democracy does not presuppose or even require a market economy. For example, in 1970, the people of Chile democratically elected a socialist President. Unfortunately, this democratically elected President was assassinated by a group of Chileans who were in turn receiving economic and military support from the government of the
U.S.A., because it was feared that to allow this government and economy to exist would present a threat to the economic interests of the U.SA. It is highly suspected, and pretty well-documented that the U.S.A. not only supported the removal of this President and replacement with a brutal dictator, but that the U.S.A. actually engineered this overthrow of the Chilean government in the name of "economic freedom."
Other Christians, including myself, sustain that to support the capitalist economy is to run counter to the Gospel. The Gospel is a message of liberation and an emphasis on equality. The capitalist system is by its very nature one which allows some people to profit from the hard labor of others, and to exploit the working class. Some people may say that "if you work hard enough, you can make it."
Well, we need to define what "making it" means. If you have people who are working hard and barely making a living wage and at the same time enriching those for whom they work, where is the "making it?' If the resources that are necessary for survival are limited, and you have a few who hoard the majority of the resources right from the beginning, how can we speak about the majority of the workers "making it?" I ask, then, how can Christians in all good conscience support an economy which allows for 96% of the resources to be owned and controlled by 4% of an elite who benefit and profit from the hard labor of the working class?
Can Christians support a communist economy? My response to that would be yes and no. If by "communist" we mean a system in which there are no social classes, then yes, Christians can and should in principle support that type of system. If, on the other hand, by "communist" we mean a system whereby the government becomes an agent of exploitation, i.e. a system of governmental capitalism (state capitalism), then we are faced with the same situation that we are faced with in capitalism. If communism amounts to state capitalism, then we just have a situation where the oppressed become the oppressors. The other thing is that "communism" does not really exist in the strictest sense of the word. If "communism" means the elimination of social classes, we have not achieved as of yet that level of economic development, even if certain governments refer to themselves as "communist." In every single country of the world, there are those who rule and those who are ruled. In every country, there are those who have more and those who have way less. In every single country, there are social classes some of whom have economic advantages over other social classes. To support this type of "communism" would also run contrary to the Gospel.
This leaves us then with the question of a socialist economy. For the purposes of this essay, I will define "socialism" as a system where the government owns the means of production and the workers own the fruit or end product. In this economy, workers and citizens would be guaranteed quality health care, quality education, quality housing, and quality employment. There would be equality of employment opportunity for everyone that wanted to work. Ideally, there would be no unemployment, nor would we have a situation where people have to present an insurance card in order to receive proper health care.
Can and should Christians support socialism? My answer in principle would be in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I would qualify that by saying that we need to ask ourselves what model of socialism we are advocating for and supporting. I am not necessarily advocating for a Marxist model of socialism, as that model has its own short-comings. As Christians we need to support a model which has the minimum of flaws, and which by its very nature, approximates the values of the reign of God through Jesus the Christ. While no existing human government has a fully developed model of perfect socialism, we are called as Christians to be constant and consistent in our efforts to achieve the construction of a such a system. And we must be prepared to acknowledge that whenever there has been failure, it has been not because of socialism per se being deficient, but rather because of the attempts of those who prefer the market economy to undermine the development of socialism. The blockade/embargo imposed on the people of Cuba by our government, and continued to this day, is a perfect example of the attempts of capitalists systems undermining the development of socialism. I am not suggesting that without the embargo that Cuba would have a perfectly developed socialism, but I would venture to say that they certainly would come closer than many countries that have attempted socialism. The mere fact that the government of Cuba has been able to maintain intact the basic provisions of socialism in the light of the embargo, and also in the light of the abandonment of their main supporter, i.e. the Soviet Union, is a witness to this. While there are economic problems in Cuba, and while the Cuban government has made some small-scale concessions to the forces of the global market economy, it continues to make every effort to maintain strong the fruits of the revolution of 1959.
In summary, we should then as followers of Jesus strive to achieve the construction of a just society which will be based on the love of God and love for one's neighbor. While sin continues to prevail preventing this from happening in the fullest sense of the word, we should remember the words of the Apostle Paul that "wherever sin abounds, grace exceeds." May the grace of the Jesus the true Liberator of all humankind inspire us to work for the construction of a system which will model and be reflective of the coming kingdom of God. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.
Feel free to comment and give your input on this essay.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In order to attempt answering that question, let me begin by saying that the major political concern of those who claim to be Christians or followers of Jesus should be the politics of the reign of God enacted through Jesus the Christ. In other words, the politics of Christians should be the politics of Jesus, a system of total justice based on love for God and love for one's neighbor. While we have not seen the accomplishment of this condition in its fullest sense, Christians should continue striving for it through their lives and examples. As followers of Jesus, we are called to live as if the reign or kingdom were already here in its fullest sense.
Can Christians support the market economy (capitalism) in an ethical manner? Some Christians are of the opinion that we can support it by striving to put a human compassionate face on capitalism, and subsequently have a capitalism which is not based on greed or human competition, but rather a capitalism that is based on cooperation and the desire to give people their fair share of the resources necessary for survival. Many of these Christians tend to equate capitalism with "democracy," thinking that they are one and the same. They fail to see that democracy does not presuppose or even require a market economy. For example, in 1970, the people of Chile democratically elected a socialist President. Unfortunately, this democratically elected President was assassinated by a group of Chileans who were in turn receiving economic and military support from the government of the
U.S.A., because it was feared that to allow this government and economy to exist would present a threat to the economic interests of the U.SA. It is highly suspected, and pretty well-documented that the U.S.A. not only supported the removal of this President and replacement with a brutal dictator, but that the U.S.A. actually engineered this overthrow of the Chilean government in the name of "economic freedom."
Other Christians, including myself, sustain that to support the capitalist economy is to run counter to the Gospel. The Gospel is a message of liberation and an emphasis on equality. The capitalist system is by its very nature one which allows some people to profit from the hard labor of others, and to exploit the working class. Some people may say that "if you work hard enough, you can make it."
Well, we need to define what "making it" means. If you have people who are working hard and barely making a living wage and at the same time enriching those for whom they work, where is the "making it?' If the resources that are necessary for survival are limited, and you have a few who hoard the majority of the resources right from the beginning, how can we speak about the majority of the workers "making it?" I ask, then, how can Christians in all good conscience support an economy which allows for 96% of the resources to be owned and controlled by 4% of an elite who benefit and profit from the hard labor of the working class?
Can Christians support a communist economy? My response to that would be yes and no. If by "communist" we mean a system in which there are no social classes, then yes, Christians can and should in principle support that type of system. If, on the other hand, by "communist" we mean a system whereby the government becomes an agent of exploitation, i.e. a system of governmental capitalism (state capitalism), then we are faced with the same situation that we are faced with in capitalism. If communism amounts to state capitalism, then we just have a situation where the oppressed become the oppressors. The other thing is that "communism" does not really exist in the strictest sense of the word. If "communism" means the elimination of social classes, we have not achieved as of yet that level of economic development, even if certain governments refer to themselves as "communist." In every single country of the world, there are those who rule and those who are ruled. In every country, there are those who have more and those who have way less. In every single country, there are social classes some of whom have economic advantages over other social classes. To support this type of "communism" would also run contrary to the Gospel.
This leaves us then with the question of a socialist economy. For the purposes of this essay, I will define "socialism" as a system where the government owns the means of production and the workers own the fruit or end product. In this economy, workers and citizens would be guaranteed quality health care, quality education, quality housing, and quality employment. There would be equality of employment opportunity for everyone that wanted to work. Ideally, there would be no unemployment, nor would we have a situation where people have to present an insurance card in order to receive proper health care.
Can and should Christians support socialism? My answer in principle would be in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I would qualify that by saying that we need to ask ourselves what model of socialism we are advocating for and supporting. I am not necessarily advocating for a Marxist model of socialism, as that model has its own short-comings. As Christians we need to support a model which has the minimum of flaws, and which by its very nature, approximates the values of the reign of God through Jesus the Christ. While no existing human government has a fully developed model of perfect socialism, we are called as Christians to be constant and consistent in our efforts to achieve the construction of a such a system. And we must be prepared to acknowledge that whenever there has been failure, it has been not because of socialism per se being deficient, but rather because of the attempts of those who prefer the market economy to undermine the development of socialism. The blockade/embargo imposed on the people of Cuba by our government, and continued to this day, is a perfect example of the attempts of capitalists systems undermining the development of socialism. I am not suggesting that without the embargo that Cuba would have a perfectly developed socialism, but I would venture to say that they certainly would come closer than many countries that have attempted socialism. The mere fact that the government of Cuba has been able to maintain intact the basic provisions of socialism in the light of the embargo, and also in the light of the abandonment of their main supporter, i.e. the Soviet Union, is a witness to this. While there are economic problems in Cuba, and while the Cuban government has made some small-scale concessions to the forces of the global market economy, it continues to make every effort to maintain strong the fruits of the revolution of 1959.
In summary, we should then as followers of Jesus strive to achieve the construction of a just society which will be based on the love of God and love for one's neighbor. While sin continues to prevail preventing this from happening in the fullest sense of the word, we should remember the words of the Apostle Paul that "wherever sin abounds, grace exceeds." May the grace of the Jesus the true Liberator of all humankind inspire us to work for the construction of a system which will model and be reflective of the coming kingdom of God. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.
Feel free to comment and give your input on this essay.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Would Jesus Vote Republican?
So the most recent elections brought the GOP to dominate both Houses of Congress. Now we have a Democratic President torn between enacting policies that reflect his own personal convictions, and perhaps those of his party, on the one hand, and on the other, working together with those of the Republican Party who are his ideological enemies.
One thing that I find amazing is how certain conservative and evangelical Christians have chosen to express their delight that the Republicans have once again come to power. Some have even alluded to the "kingdom of God as having arrived," because we finally have a party in power that reflects the values of God's reign. To hear them shout for glee, any one would believe that the Messianic era has finally erupted into human history. I've even seen some writings that indicate that the Lordship of Jesus the Christ has been manifested in and through these recent elections.
Well, let's examine some things here. To begin with, let us imagine Jesus living in twenty-first century America instead of first-century Palestine. We can ask the following questions:
1. Would Jesus vote for and promote the platform of the "conservative" Republicans or would He be more in favor of the "liberal" Democrats? Would Jesus be in favor of the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-same sex marriage, gay bashing and war-mongering politics, or would He favor the Democratic platform of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), "liberal moral permissiveness," raising taxes for social programs, and the raising of the minimum wage?
My response to that would be that Jesus would not favor either party or its agenda. Neither would He be involved in partisan politics. Jesus would be so involved in attending to basic human needs that He would have no interest in or time for dealing with petty political bickering and mud-slinging.
2. If Jesus were not registered in either the Democratic or Republican party, then which party would He be registered in to vote? I do not see Jesus registering in any political party, because none of the existing parties represent to the fullest extent the interests His politics, i.e. the politics of the reign of God, which supersede by far, all the agendas and ideologies of all human government. If He were to register, I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that He would register as an "Independent," so that He would not be bound by the dictates of any organization. Jesus was His own person in the first century, and I have no trouble believing that He would be the same living in our time.
3. Why then are Christians so insistent on aligning Jesus with their political ideology? It is the human tendency to think that whatever ideology we subscribe to is the "correct" one and that everyone else is wrong. We demonize those who do not view things that we see them. We tend to think that those who do not agree with us are intellectually, morally, and spiritually inferior.
If Jesus were living in the twenty-first century in America, He would be calling all of us "on the carpet," and demonstrating as He did with the religious leaders of His time (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes), that all ideologies and political agendas fall short, and leave a lot to be desired.
Please comment on the above essay. Give us your opinion of how you think Jesus would act politically in twenty-first century America. Do you see Him engaging in partisan politics, or do you see Him in proclaiming a type of politics that transcends all present human systems?
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
One thing that I find amazing is how certain conservative and evangelical Christians have chosen to express their delight that the Republicans have once again come to power. Some have even alluded to the "kingdom of God as having arrived," because we finally have a party in power that reflects the values of God's reign. To hear them shout for glee, any one would believe that the Messianic era has finally erupted into human history. I've even seen some writings that indicate that the Lordship of Jesus the Christ has been manifested in and through these recent elections.
Well, let's examine some things here. To begin with, let us imagine Jesus living in twenty-first century America instead of first-century Palestine. We can ask the following questions:
1. Would Jesus vote for and promote the platform of the "conservative" Republicans or would He be more in favor of the "liberal" Democrats? Would Jesus be in favor of the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-same sex marriage, gay bashing and war-mongering politics, or would He favor the Democratic platform of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), "liberal moral permissiveness," raising taxes for social programs, and the raising of the minimum wage?
My response to that would be that Jesus would not favor either party or its agenda. Neither would He be involved in partisan politics. Jesus would be so involved in attending to basic human needs that He would have no interest in or time for dealing with petty political bickering and mud-slinging.
2. If Jesus were not registered in either the Democratic or Republican party, then which party would He be registered in to vote? I do not see Jesus registering in any political party, because none of the existing parties represent to the fullest extent the interests His politics, i.e. the politics of the reign of God, which supersede by far, all the agendas and ideologies of all human government. If He were to register, I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that He would register as an "Independent," so that He would not be bound by the dictates of any organization. Jesus was His own person in the first century, and I have no trouble believing that He would be the same living in our time.
3. Why then are Christians so insistent on aligning Jesus with their political ideology? It is the human tendency to think that whatever ideology we subscribe to is the "correct" one and that everyone else is wrong. We demonize those who do not view things that we see them. We tend to think that those who do not agree with us are intellectually, morally, and spiritually inferior.
If Jesus were living in the twenty-first century in America, He would be calling all of us "on the carpet," and demonstrating as He did with the religious leaders of His time (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes), that all ideologies and political agendas fall short, and leave a lot to be desired.
Please comment on the above essay. Give us your opinion of how you think Jesus would act politically in twenty-first century America. Do you see Him engaging in partisan politics, or do you see Him in proclaiming a type of politics that transcends all present human systems?
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, November 13, 2014
The Christian Church: A Pig in the Oppressed Community
Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital stated that religion is the opiate of the masses. There should be no doubt that Marx was speaking within a context of the religious institutions being aligned with corrupt economic and political systems. I have no recollection of Marx denying in an outright manner the existence of God, or even saying that religion in and of itself is something evil. He alluded to "privileged" religion, i.e. organized religion enjoying the favor of the state as long as it catered to the whims and dictates of the socio-political system.
We should consider the Church in terms of what Jesus intended it to be, i.e. a movement (not just another institution of society) that would identify with the social outcasts in both its life and mission. The Church in the mind of Jesus is not what it turned out to be in the latter stages of history.
After the first century, the Church, in spite of the many persecutions that it endured, began to grow in numbers and political influence. After the fourth century, the Roman Empire began to decline, and the Church in a certain sense replaced it after becoming not only a legalized faith, but also a popular one. The Church during that time, because of its acceptance by the Empire, became politically popular. The Church not only became the official faith of the Roman Empire, but in a sense became the new Empire. In a historical sense, the Church went from being the oppressed community to becoming the oppressing agent in society, weeding and stamping out by force, if necessary, those who did not subscribe to its tenets or pander to its dictates.
During the ensuing centuries, the Church, through its missionary enterprise, became an agent of genocide, slavery, and colonization. As an institution of society, it gave its rubber stamp to those governmental entities that carried out these brutal acts of dehumanization.
There have been many attempts to bring the Church back to its roots, i.e." to bring it back to what it was in the first century in terms of the early Church's identification with social outcasts. In our times, through the advent of feminism and Liberation Theology, there have been voices in the Church who have denounced its oppressive structures and policies.
You might find it strange to hear me, a Christian minister, referring to the Church as "a pig." To the extent that it has at various moments in its history, stood against oppressed and suffering people, it has been just that, i.e. a pig. However, all praise and thanks be to God that there have been people within the Church who have been used by God to raise a prophetic voice and to restore the Church to a condition of being pure. That process has a long way to go before being completed, but the Church is under construction, and God is not done with us yet.
Through its many prophets and leaders who are in tune with the voice of God, the Lord is saying to the us "go take a bath you dirty pig." God through the Holy Spirit continues to purify the Church and lead it to where it was originally intended to be, i.e. in a place of living out and proclaiming the good news that in Jesus the Christ, God has acted to bring about the liberating and redemptive activity throughout the historical process. Please share with us how you see Jesus cleansing His Church of sin and impurity.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
We should consider the Church in terms of what Jesus intended it to be, i.e. a movement (not just another institution of society) that would identify with the social outcasts in both its life and mission. The Church in the mind of Jesus is not what it turned out to be in the latter stages of history.
After the first century, the Church, in spite of the many persecutions that it endured, began to grow in numbers and political influence. After the fourth century, the Roman Empire began to decline, and the Church in a certain sense replaced it after becoming not only a legalized faith, but also a popular one. The Church during that time, because of its acceptance by the Empire, became politically popular. The Church not only became the official faith of the Roman Empire, but in a sense became the new Empire. In a historical sense, the Church went from being the oppressed community to becoming the oppressing agent in society, weeding and stamping out by force, if necessary, those who did not subscribe to its tenets or pander to its dictates.
During the ensuing centuries, the Church, through its missionary enterprise, became an agent of genocide, slavery, and colonization. As an institution of society, it gave its rubber stamp to those governmental entities that carried out these brutal acts of dehumanization.
There have been many attempts to bring the Church back to its roots, i.e." to bring it back to what it was in the first century in terms of the early Church's identification with social outcasts. In our times, through the advent of feminism and Liberation Theology, there have been voices in the Church who have denounced its oppressive structures and policies.
You might find it strange to hear me, a Christian minister, referring to the Church as "a pig." To the extent that it has at various moments in its history, stood against oppressed and suffering people, it has been just that, i.e. a pig. However, all praise and thanks be to God that there have been people within the Church who have been used by God to raise a prophetic voice and to restore the Church to a condition of being pure. That process has a long way to go before being completed, but the Church is under construction, and God is not done with us yet.
Through its many prophets and leaders who are in tune with the voice of God, the Lord is saying to the us "go take a bath you dirty pig." God through the Holy Spirit continues to purify the Church and lead it to where it was originally intended to be, i.e. in a place of living out and proclaiming the good news that in Jesus the Christ, God has acted to bring about the liberating and redemptive activity throughout the historical process. Please share with us how you see Jesus cleansing His Church of sin and impurity.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, November 10, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal
Small-talk Dialogue: Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal: This essay reflects in part, this writer's spiritual journey in terms of both faith and the practice of the profession of the ministry. ...
Small-talk Dialogue: The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation...
Small-talk Dialogue: The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation...: There are terms that are used in the Scriptures and within the context of the Christian community. One of those terms is "gospel,"...
Christian Social Activism
One of the many issues that Christians have always been faced with, is that of social activism. By social activism I mean the engagement of people with economic, political, and social issues. The concept of social activism is associated to a certain degree with opposition to and protests against policies and structures which the activists consider to be wrong. Social activism is nothing new to Christians. Neither is the question as to whether this activism should take on the character of verbal protests, or should it include, if need be, physical action and armed struggle. There have been many Christian social activists such as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Jeremiah Wright, and others.
With the exception of Jeremiah Wright, the others mentioned above have, for the most part, expressed their activism in a verbal, but non-physically aggressive manner. Dr. Wright has not openly advocated physical aggression, but has been more verbally aggressive than the others, to the point of saying "God damn America." Dr. King advocated for a more "compassionate" capitalist system (if indeed such an animal exists), while Dr. Wright confronted racism right to the core.
The questions as to whether social activism has a place in the life of the Church, and as to what form it should take continue to haunt us. We cannot evade answering or confronting those questions in that we are continuously faced with all kinds of social evils.
For the sake of brevity, I would like to invite you share with us where you stand on the question of what you believe to be the proper way for Christians, both individually and collectively, to deal with social issues. Some of you might recommend that we pray for a solution to social problems. Others would recommend that we have limited participation, never going to the extent of forgetting that our prime mission is to "preach the Gospel." Others of you may not advocate initiation of physical aggression and/or bloodshed, but would have no moral or theological adversity to self-defense. Can you tell us what is the basis for whatever position you hold to?
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
With the exception of Jeremiah Wright, the others mentioned above have, for the most part, expressed their activism in a verbal, but non-physically aggressive manner. Dr. Wright has not openly advocated physical aggression, but has been more verbally aggressive than the others, to the point of saying "God damn America." Dr. King advocated for a more "compassionate" capitalist system (if indeed such an animal exists), while Dr. Wright confronted racism right to the core.
The questions as to whether social activism has a place in the life of the Church, and as to what form it should take continue to haunt us. We cannot evade answering or confronting those questions in that we are continuously faced with all kinds of social evils.
For the sake of brevity, I would like to invite you share with us where you stand on the question of what you believe to be the proper way for Christians, both individually and collectively, to deal with social issues. Some of you might recommend that we pray for a solution to social problems. Others would recommend that we have limited participation, never going to the extent of forgetting that our prime mission is to "preach the Gospel." Others of you may not advocate initiation of physical aggression and/or bloodshed, but would have no moral or theological adversity to self-defense. Can you tell us what is the basis for whatever position you hold to?
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Ramblings of a Renegade Pentecostal
This essay reflects in part, this writer's spiritual journey in terms of both faith and the practice of the profession of the ministry. At the same time, it is intended to have you the reader do the following:
1. Reflect upon and evaluate your own spiritual journey, regardless of what it looks like.
2. Share with us whatever you feel comfortable with relative to this essay.
I am a New York born and raised Puerto Rican. In my childhood, like most other Puerto Rican children of my time, I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. I must say that my baptism took place, for the most part, not because of any desire of my parents to raise me in the faith, per se, but rather because it was the cultural thing to do. For many people, religion is nothing more than folk religion, where they practice it as part of their culture. I was really never encouraged by my parents to attend Mass or to be involved in the life of the church.
In my pre-teen years, my sister and I attended Sunday School in a United Methodist church in Staten Island, New York. I simultaneously attended religious instruction in a Lutheran church on Wednesday afternoons, during a time when students were allowed to be dismissed from school early in order to attend the congregation of their choice for religious instruction.
At the age of 12, I started attending a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church in Staten Island. It was in this church where I made my profession of faith and commitment to Jesus and promised to follow Him all the days of my life. In this church, I became active in the youth group, and preached my first "sermon" at the age of 14. It was in this environment where I first became exposed to the "holiness standards" of the Pentecostal movement. These standards consisted of the imposition of dress codes, and an emphasis on abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, as well as refraining from participating in "worldly" things such as dancing, mixed bathing and attending the theaters. Numerous Bible verses were used to support this legalistic aspect of holiness. It was emphasized that the Bible prohibited believers from "sitting in the seat of the ungodly," and that by so doing, we would run the risk of "losing our salvation." I enjoyed participating in the style of worship that was carried out in the church, and even played my guitar in these services.
During my high school years, I joined a Christian club by the name of Hi-BA which stood for High School Born Again. In this club, I mixed with Christians of different denominations, i.e Baptist, Methodist, etc. In the Pentecostal movement at that time, non-Pentecostal Christians were considered
"cold" because they "did not have the Holy Spirit." A Baptist would be considered a half brother or sister. A Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian could possibly be seen as "cousins." Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox Christians were considered "out of the fold," because their churches were considered "falsifications of Christianity." Through interaction with my friends in Hi-BA and other churches and organizations, I learned two things in particular.
1. The Body of Christ does not consist exclusively of Pentecostals. These names that we use to designate ourselves, are human constructs that have absolutely nothing to do with how God sees us.
2. Pentecostals do not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. This was a hard pill for me to swallow because I was under the impression that the Pentecostal movement was the one that most accurately resembled the early Church which was started on the day of Pentecost. I learned the hard way that people experience the Holy Spirit in different ways, and cannot be boxed into doctrinal modes.
In 1967, I was initiated into the formal aspect of ministry by teaching at the Latin American Bible Institute in New York City, a Pentecostal Bible school from which I had graduated a year earlier after 3 years of study. I taught at that school for 3 years. In 1969, I was credentialed as an ordained minister by an independent Pentecostal church at the age of 22. In 1977, those credentials were transferred into the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal organization in the world. In the meantime, I was a student at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Jersey. Upon my graduation from New Brunswick Seminary in 1978, my credentials were transferred into the Reformed Church in America, the oldest Protestant church in the United States. I have been a Reformed Church minister ever since, having served in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, and teaching at various colleges and seminaries.
The purpose of this brief autobiographical sketch has not been to bore the reader with my life's journey per se, but rather to talk about my spiritual journey and the process of evaluation that I have undergone during that journey, and how that process might be of help to you the reader, and others that have undergone various types of evolution within their own journey.
Having been away from the Pentecostal movement for 46 years now, I reflect upon the foundation that was given to me by the leaders and how that foundation helped form and shape who I am today as a minister and theologian in the Reformed tradition. In retrospect, though I no longer subscribe to the strict Pentecostal theology or biblical hermeneutics that I grew up with, I always remain grateful for their emphasis on personal holiness and piety, though I think that their emphasis was in the wrong place as far as these are concerned. I am also grateful for their strong emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer, and in the life of the Church. In the final years of my involvement in the Pentecostal movement, I had already started to move away from the legalistic forms of holiness which they emphasized, which though in their opinion was biblically based, was in reality rooted in skewed hermeneutics. When I was received into the Reformed Church, I was already in a position to compare and evaluate the Pentecostal emphasis on "individual salvation," with the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology.
When I came to Rochester in 1978 to plant a new Reformed church in the Hispanic community, I encountered the hostility of several Pentecostal pastors who were at times in conflict with each other, but upon my arrival they formed a united front to guard themselves from this "wolf in sheep's clothing." They knew of my Pentecostal background and formation, and accused me of "selling out," or as they put it in their language, changing my affiliation for "loave and fishes."
How do I, as an ex-Pentecostal relate to my Pentecostal sisters and brothers? I still have the highest love and respect for them. On occasion, I have visited and preached at the church in Staten Island that I grew up in. I have visited and fellowshipped with other Pentecostal churches in Rochester, New York City, and Raleigh, North Carolina. I have maintained strong friendships with people in Pentecostal churches, including my first pastor, and other friends.
I miss, to a certain extent, the "good ole days" of worship, fasting, and all night long prayer meetings on Friday evenings going into Saturday morning. I also miss, to a certain extent, the spontaneous forms of worship, with the freedom to praise God without the restrictions of program bulletins and set schedules. But I also enjoy the formality and structure of the Reformed and other mainline Protestant churches. I revel in structured worship, knowing that people can know why they worship in a particular manner, and subsequently worship in a more informed manner. I also appreciate the responsible freedom in the Reformed churches relative to Christian living, having moved away from the well-intended, but misplaced restrictions of the Pentecostal churches
Forty-six years later, I am still struggling with the question of whether I am a Pentecostal with a Reformed mind, or a Reformed Christian with a Pentecostal heart. In either case, I trust that God will continue to guide my paths.
I now invite you, the reader to share snippets of your journey with us. Is it similar to mine? Is it radically different? At the end of the day, does it really make any difference? I would love for you to "put yourself out there" and dialogue with us on this issue of spiritual journey and theological evolution. I think that it would be edifying and uplifting for many of us. I look forward to hearing from you.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Reflect upon and evaluate your own spiritual journey, regardless of what it looks like.
2. Share with us whatever you feel comfortable with relative to this essay.
I am a New York born and raised Puerto Rican. In my childhood, like most other Puerto Rican children of my time, I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. I must say that my baptism took place, for the most part, not because of any desire of my parents to raise me in the faith, per se, but rather because it was the cultural thing to do. For many people, religion is nothing more than folk religion, where they practice it as part of their culture. I was really never encouraged by my parents to attend Mass or to be involved in the life of the church.
In my pre-teen years, my sister and I attended Sunday School in a United Methodist church in Staten Island, New York. I simultaneously attended religious instruction in a Lutheran church on Wednesday afternoons, during a time when students were allowed to be dismissed from school early in order to attend the congregation of their choice for religious instruction.
At the age of 12, I started attending a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church in Staten Island. It was in this church where I made my profession of faith and commitment to Jesus and promised to follow Him all the days of my life. In this church, I became active in the youth group, and preached my first "sermon" at the age of 14. It was in this environment where I first became exposed to the "holiness standards" of the Pentecostal movement. These standards consisted of the imposition of dress codes, and an emphasis on abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, as well as refraining from participating in "worldly" things such as dancing, mixed bathing and attending the theaters. Numerous Bible verses were used to support this legalistic aspect of holiness. It was emphasized that the Bible prohibited believers from "sitting in the seat of the ungodly," and that by so doing, we would run the risk of "losing our salvation." I enjoyed participating in the style of worship that was carried out in the church, and even played my guitar in these services.
During my high school years, I joined a Christian club by the name of Hi-BA which stood for High School Born Again. In this club, I mixed with Christians of different denominations, i.e Baptist, Methodist, etc. In the Pentecostal movement at that time, non-Pentecostal Christians were considered
"cold" because they "did not have the Holy Spirit." A Baptist would be considered a half brother or sister. A Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian could possibly be seen as "cousins." Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox Christians were considered "out of the fold," because their churches were considered "falsifications of Christianity." Through interaction with my friends in Hi-BA and other churches and organizations, I learned two things in particular.
1. The Body of Christ does not consist exclusively of Pentecostals. These names that we use to designate ourselves, are human constructs that have absolutely nothing to do with how God sees us.
2. Pentecostals do not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. This was a hard pill for me to swallow because I was under the impression that the Pentecostal movement was the one that most accurately resembled the early Church which was started on the day of Pentecost. I learned the hard way that people experience the Holy Spirit in different ways, and cannot be boxed into doctrinal modes.
In 1967, I was initiated into the formal aspect of ministry by teaching at the Latin American Bible Institute in New York City, a Pentecostal Bible school from which I had graduated a year earlier after 3 years of study. I taught at that school for 3 years. In 1969, I was credentialed as an ordained minister by an independent Pentecostal church at the age of 22. In 1977, those credentials were transferred into the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal organization in the world. In the meantime, I was a student at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Jersey. Upon my graduation from New Brunswick Seminary in 1978, my credentials were transferred into the Reformed Church in America, the oldest Protestant church in the United States. I have been a Reformed Church minister ever since, having served in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, and teaching at various colleges and seminaries.
The purpose of this brief autobiographical sketch has not been to bore the reader with my life's journey per se, but rather to talk about my spiritual journey and the process of evaluation that I have undergone during that journey, and how that process might be of help to you the reader, and others that have undergone various types of evolution within their own journey.
Having been away from the Pentecostal movement for 46 years now, I reflect upon the foundation that was given to me by the leaders and how that foundation helped form and shape who I am today as a minister and theologian in the Reformed tradition. In retrospect, though I no longer subscribe to the strict Pentecostal theology or biblical hermeneutics that I grew up with, I always remain grateful for their emphasis on personal holiness and piety, though I think that their emphasis was in the wrong place as far as these are concerned. I am also grateful for their strong emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer, and in the life of the Church. In the final years of my involvement in the Pentecostal movement, I had already started to move away from the legalistic forms of holiness which they emphasized, which though in their opinion was biblically based, was in reality rooted in skewed hermeneutics. When I was received into the Reformed Church, I was already in a position to compare and evaluate the Pentecostal emphasis on "individual salvation," with the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology.
When I came to Rochester in 1978 to plant a new Reformed church in the Hispanic community, I encountered the hostility of several Pentecostal pastors who were at times in conflict with each other, but upon my arrival they formed a united front to guard themselves from this "wolf in sheep's clothing." They knew of my Pentecostal background and formation, and accused me of "selling out," or as they put it in their language, changing my affiliation for "loave and fishes."
How do I, as an ex-Pentecostal relate to my Pentecostal sisters and brothers? I still have the highest love and respect for them. On occasion, I have visited and preached at the church in Staten Island that I grew up in. I have visited and fellowshipped with other Pentecostal churches in Rochester, New York City, and Raleigh, North Carolina. I have maintained strong friendships with people in Pentecostal churches, including my first pastor, and other friends.
I miss, to a certain extent, the "good ole days" of worship, fasting, and all night long prayer meetings on Friday evenings going into Saturday morning. I also miss, to a certain extent, the spontaneous forms of worship, with the freedom to praise God without the restrictions of program bulletins and set schedules. But I also enjoy the formality and structure of the Reformed and other mainline Protestant churches. I revel in structured worship, knowing that people can know why they worship in a particular manner, and subsequently worship in a more informed manner. I also appreciate the responsible freedom in the Reformed churches relative to Christian living, having moved away from the well-intended, but misplaced restrictions of the Pentecostal churches
Forty-six years later, I am still struggling with the question of whether I am a Pentecostal with a Reformed mind, or a Reformed Christian with a Pentecostal heart. In either case, I trust that God will continue to guide my paths.
I now invite you, the reader to share snippets of your journey with us. Is it similar to mine? Is it radically different? At the end of the day, does it really make any difference? I would love for you to "put yourself out there" and dialogue with us on this issue of spiritual journey and theological evolution. I think that it would be edifying and uplifting for many of us. I look forward to hearing from you.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, November 3, 2014
The Gospel: A Slogan or a Mechanism of Liberation?
There are terms that are used in the Scriptures and within the context of the Christian community. One of those terms is "gospel," which comes from the Greek language meaning "good news."
In this essay, I would like to give the concept of "gospel" a new spin, while retaining the element of good news.
When we hear the word "gospel," we tend to think of either one of the four accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) or a sermon preached by a Christian minister. In either case, the Gospel is associated with the life and person of Jesus of Nazareth.
In most cases, the focus is on what God has done on behalf of humanity through Jesus, i.e. liberating humanity from the consequences of individual and collective sin, and preparing them for eternal life in "heaven." More often than not, the emphasis is on the hereafter. I would also add, that after much practice, the word "gospel" becomes a slogan that is used in worship services. I say "slogan," because it is used habitually without giving much thought to the meaning of the word. Furthermore, we act and live as if the Gospel were intended exclusively for those within the community of faith.
Here I am proposing that we take the word "gospel" out of the context of the community of faith (the Church), and apply it to the historical reality of humankind with its bad and good experiences. If the Gospel has nothing to do with reality as we know it, then it is a fairy tale or myth to be discarded and totally rejected. Any claim to proclaim a message entitled "gospel," which does not touch on cultural, economic, political, and social reality, is an exercise in futility and semantics. It is mental gymnastics and a play on words.
I will begin by saying that the concept of "gospel" does not begin in the New Testament. It begins with God calling Moses and saying to him, "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to help and deliver them." God commissioned Moses to proclaim to the Hebrews a "gospel" of liberation. In other words, Moses was called to give the Hebrews that good news that the time for the end of their bondage and oppression had come. The "good news" had an element of denunciation, i.e. God was not happy with the condition of people living in physical servitude and was acting to bring about freedom from that condition.
The concept of "gospel" continued throughout the prophetic books. Through the prophets, God made it clear to the people that their neglect of the needy, the orphans, the poor, and the widows was not acceptable. The good news was that God was speaking to and about their condition, and that God was acting in history to dismantle these conditions and structures of oppression and dehumanization.
In the New Testament, the concept of "gospel," was that in Jesus the Christ, God was finalizing the process of human liberation from all degrading conditions. All dehumanizing conditions were judged in the light of the Gospel, and subsequently condemned.
Any claim that the Gospel of Jesus was exclusively a "spiritual" message that had or has nothing to do with existing political or social conditions is not the Gospel of Jesus. Any message that claims to be "gospel," while remaining within the confines of the Church, is not the message of Jesus.
The Gospel is a cosmic and historical act on the part of God in the world, denouncing all policies and structures that destroy the image of God in humans, and that suppress the aspirations and goals of God for the human race. Any attempt to retain the Gospel as a religious term goes contrary to the purposes of God in history. The Gospel is the good news that God is acting in history, even in those spheres where things look bleak and ugly.
The Gospel denounces classism, racism, sexism, and all those "isms" that set out to destroy God's creation. The Gospel includes, but is not limited to environmental conservation. The Gospel speaks against people being defamed and mistreated because of their sexual orientation. The Gospel protests all institutional and political systems that prevent people from achieving their maximum potential.
I invite you the reader, to share with us, your concept of "gospel," and how that concept differs or is similar to that presented in this essay. Through your contribution, we will be in a much better position to proclaim and live out a more realistic and responsible Gospel message.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In this essay, I would like to give the concept of "gospel" a new spin, while retaining the element of good news.
When we hear the word "gospel," we tend to think of either one of the four accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) or a sermon preached by a Christian minister. In either case, the Gospel is associated with the life and person of Jesus of Nazareth.
In most cases, the focus is on what God has done on behalf of humanity through Jesus, i.e. liberating humanity from the consequences of individual and collective sin, and preparing them for eternal life in "heaven." More often than not, the emphasis is on the hereafter. I would also add, that after much practice, the word "gospel" becomes a slogan that is used in worship services. I say "slogan," because it is used habitually without giving much thought to the meaning of the word. Furthermore, we act and live as if the Gospel were intended exclusively for those within the community of faith.
Here I am proposing that we take the word "gospel" out of the context of the community of faith (the Church), and apply it to the historical reality of humankind with its bad and good experiences. If the Gospel has nothing to do with reality as we know it, then it is a fairy tale or myth to be discarded and totally rejected. Any claim to proclaim a message entitled "gospel," which does not touch on cultural, economic, political, and social reality, is an exercise in futility and semantics. It is mental gymnastics and a play on words.
I will begin by saying that the concept of "gospel" does not begin in the New Testament. It begins with God calling Moses and saying to him, "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to help and deliver them." God commissioned Moses to proclaim to the Hebrews a "gospel" of liberation. In other words, Moses was called to give the Hebrews that good news that the time for the end of their bondage and oppression had come. The "good news" had an element of denunciation, i.e. God was not happy with the condition of people living in physical servitude and was acting to bring about freedom from that condition.
The concept of "gospel" continued throughout the prophetic books. Through the prophets, God made it clear to the people that their neglect of the needy, the orphans, the poor, and the widows was not acceptable. The good news was that God was speaking to and about their condition, and that God was acting in history to dismantle these conditions and structures of oppression and dehumanization.
In the New Testament, the concept of "gospel," was that in Jesus the Christ, God was finalizing the process of human liberation from all degrading conditions. All dehumanizing conditions were judged in the light of the Gospel, and subsequently condemned.
Any claim that the Gospel of Jesus was exclusively a "spiritual" message that had or has nothing to do with existing political or social conditions is not the Gospel of Jesus. Any message that claims to be "gospel," while remaining within the confines of the Church, is not the message of Jesus.
The Gospel is a cosmic and historical act on the part of God in the world, denouncing all policies and structures that destroy the image of God in humans, and that suppress the aspirations and goals of God for the human race. Any attempt to retain the Gospel as a religious term goes contrary to the purposes of God in history. The Gospel is the good news that God is acting in history, even in those spheres where things look bleak and ugly.
The Gospel denounces classism, racism, sexism, and all those "isms" that set out to destroy God's creation. The Gospel includes, but is not limited to environmental conservation. The Gospel speaks against people being defamed and mistreated because of their sexual orientation. The Gospel protests all institutional and political systems that prevent people from achieving their maximum potential.
I invite you the reader, to share with us, your concept of "gospel," and how that concept differs or is similar to that presented in this essay. Through your contribution, we will be in a much better position to proclaim and live out a more realistic and responsible Gospel message.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)