One of the many challenges that the Christian Church has been faced with in a very intensive way in recent times is that of race relations. This is not to say that this has not been an issue in the past. Any good student of both secular and Church history knows that this issue is nothing new. As a matter of fact, the New Testament itself makes reference to issues of discrimination based on ethnicity and race. The one situation is where the Greek members of the first century Church lodged a complaint that their widows were not being as well taken care of and provided for as were the Jewish members of the Church. The other situation was where God gave Peter ( a Jew turned Christian) a vision of unclean meats descending from heaven and commanding him to eat them. After his initial resistance in which he stated that he did not eat anything unclean, God told him not to classify anything as unclean that God had cleansed. This vision was given to Peter in preparation for his encounter with Cornelius, a Gentile affiliated with the Roman Army. The Apostle Paul on one occasion had to call Peter to task for playing both sides of the fence with Jews and Gentiles, associating with one group while disassociating from the other, at different times.
So we ask, then, how can the Church confront a social ill which exists within its very ranks? How can the Church address the issue of societal racism, when racism exists within the very life of the Church itself? How can the Church point to the issues of societal racism, when throughout its very own history, the Church has functioned as a racist institution?
The issues that have brought racism to the surface again in recent times have been that of the relationship between the African American and Latino communities on the one hand, and law enforcement on the other. Caucasian police officers have shot and killed unarmed African Americans, and conversely, in recent times, an African American shot and killed two police officers, neither of which by the way, was Caucasian.
Dare we as a Christian community fall into the trap of " the pot calling the kettle black?" How can we confront something which is a very part of our institutional fabric?
While there are no easy answers to these questions, I propose the following steps (consider them baby steps or giant steps, as you wish) for the Christian community to deal with this matter.
1. Affirm our oneness in Christ. I do not mean this as a platitude or as a slogan. What I mean by this is that we have to acknowledge that the reconciling acts of God in Christ were for the whole world, Gentile and Jew, African American and Caucasian, Asian, Latino, Native American, etc., and not just for a select ethnic, national, or racial group. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself," says the Apostle Paul. We have to break down and dismantle any structures of racism which exist in our faith community. We must also address individual racist attitudes that are rampant within the membership of the Church. We have to ask ourselves, if, as individuals we have, if nothing else, subconscious and unintentional racist attitudes that we may not even be aware of. For example, I will admit that due to television stereotypes of certain ethnic or national groups involved in crime. for sometime I tended to believe that all Italians must have some type of affiliation with the Mafia or that all Irish men were either all drunkards, or had a history of having many drunkards in their families. Again, these were subconscious attitudes due to the influence of social stereotyping.
2. Unmask, identify, denounce (prophetically speaking) the pervasive racism which permeates society, especially here in the good ole U.S.A, "land of the free and home of the brave." We need to call a spade a spade, regardless of whether it takes us out of our individual comfort zones.
3. Do everything in our power to dismantle the racist structures which are alive and well in our social institutions, church, the public school system (the school to prison pipeline), law enforcement, housing market, etc. A prophetic message calls for prophetic action. We need to learn to "pray with our legs," in other words, add action to our speeches. This should not be taken as "anti-church, anti-school, anti-law enforcement," etc. as such, but rather calls for a revamping of these social entities so that they can reflect full equality and fully applied justice.
I invite you, the reader to comment on this essay. Feel free to BYOV (Bring Your Own View) and tell us how you think we as a Christian community can confront and deal with the issue of racism.
Your comments will be very helpful.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, December 29, 2014
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
One of the many reasons why we find rejection of the Christian faith is because each Christian community claims something different about the person that they claim to be the founder of their faith and the incarnation of God as well. They each clam to have the true identity and picture of who Jesus was and is today. These disputes are as old as the Christian religion itself. When we read the Gospel accounts, we find different views of Jesus depending on which audience the Gospel writer is addressing. In John's Gospel account and the letters of John a the end of the New Testament, we find that the early Church in the first century was contending with the various view of Jesus that were prevalent at the time. In the fourth century, there were many debates and conflicts taking place about the being and nature of Jesus.Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries threatened to tear the Church apart through the arguments and debates which took place relative to the person of Jesus. Some said that Jesus was the incarnate God. Others said that Jesus was an artificial imitation of God, slightly higher than angels and humans, but inferior to God. Others, yet, claimed that Jesus had the two natures (divine and human) blended into one nature.
In later centuries, the image of Jesus that was presented by the Church was that of one who resembled those in power. In Euro-America, even to this day, Jesus came to be depicted as a blonde hair, blue-eyed Jesus, which in essence, was a Jesus reflective of the white middle class and the white-power structure in Euro-America. In some of the hymns (for example, "Fairest Lord Jesus), it was assumed that Jesus looked more European or American than Asian or African. In the white Protestant churches in the U.S.A. Jesus is painted or depicted as white, and many members of these churches assume that the depictions and paintings are "Gospel truth." As a matter of fact, it was and is thought today, that the paintings and depictions of Jesus as Caucasian corresponds more to the Gospel narratives that we find written in the New Testament.
Because of the advent of Liberation Theology in Latin America, and other countries of the so-called Third World, Jesus is now depicted in those countries in images of people of those nationalities. In other words, Jesus is depicted as black in Africa, and among people of African descent in different nations, including the U.S.A. In Asia, He would be depicted as looking like Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc. Furthermore, because of Liberation Theology's emphasis on social class, Jesus would be depicted as a poor person who was a social prophet denouncing oppression. This image would also be present in the so-called "Jesus Seminar" movement of the late 1980's and 1990's. This movement would project a Jesus who was disillusioned with His own aspirations and goals relative to the future of humanity and the reign of God.
There are those who might attempt resolving this problem by quoting Scripture. This, however, does not solve the problem completely for the reasons already mentioned, i.e. that even in Scripture we find Jesus presented in various images, depending on the audience addressed and the issue involved.
One theologian back in the 1960's stated that it wasn't a question of determining what Jesus was like in the first century, but rather asking who is for us today what Jesus was for the people of His time?
So then, we go back to square one. Will the real Jesus please stand up? Rather than propose my physical image of what Jesus looked like or what His color was, I would rather state that for me Jesus (independent of any of these other factors) was sent by God into the world to liberate us from the power of individual and systemic sin. To me, Jesus's mission is far more important that his ethncity, nationality, or race.
Can you share with us who the real Jesus is for you? Is it the Jesus who is aligned and linked with the power structures of oppression? Is Jesus linked with those social groups who are oppressed? Or is Jesus "neutral," not really caring one way or the other about those actions and policies that dehumanize people? Please give us your image of Jesus.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, December 22, 2014
Which Lives Matter?
In the aftermath of the shooting of unarmed African Americans by police officers, as well as the shooting of police officers by African Americans and/or Latinos, we are now being constantly bombarded by the sayings of "Black lives matter," and "All lives matter." It is not my purpose here to put one paradigm against the other, but rather to have us look at the worth of human dignity and lives in a broader context. The questions for us would be the following:
1. Whose lives matter the most?
2. How do we go about determining whose lives matter the most?
3. Who made us God that we should be so arrogant as to think that we have a right to determine the value of one life vs. another?
I will leave it up to you, the reader, to answer those questions in your own way and to draw your own conclusions regarding these vital matters.
It is this writer's position that no one individual or corporate entity is the final authority on whose life matters the most. The final determination lies with God the Creator, independent of how you perceive Her/him and independent of what your faith community affiliation/or lack thereof is.
God is the author and creator of life, and only God can determine and authenticate the value of life. I am personally opposed to the notion that we can place value on the lives of people based on class, gender, or ethnicity and race. I am further opposed to the notion that the value of life is contingent on the type of employment that one is engaged in, and in this particular case, so-called "law enforcement." When the life of an unarmed African American is taken by "law enforcement," the tendency is to bring up that person's alleged criminal history, whether proven or not. But when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, the reaction is to downplay or deny that person's alleged criminal history and abuse of power. Furthermore, when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, there is the tendency to react as if that person's life is of more intrinsic worth than any one else's. We are very inconsistent in weighing the scales of the value of life.
In a recent thread of communications that I have been engaged in on Facebook, it has been said that "RESPECT" is the key to addressing these issues and solving these problems. While I do agree that "RESPECT" is necessary and vital, we must careful not to allow the concept of "RESPECT" to become a mere platitude or slogan which is not supported by concrete action. "RESPECT" has to be mutual between the community and law enforcement. "RESPECT" entails the uncomfortable task of engaging in the combat against social injustice. This task requires us to do whatever is in our power to dismantle the structures of injustice. Anything short of this is just rhetorical conversation and "hot air." This engagement will demonstrate that we truly believe that ALL lives matter. Please feel free to comment and contribute your perspectives on both the subject and this above essay. Dialogue is important for our communities to move forward in peace and reconciliation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Whose lives matter the most?
2. How do we go about determining whose lives matter the most?
3. Who made us God that we should be so arrogant as to think that we have a right to determine the value of one life vs. another?
I will leave it up to you, the reader, to answer those questions in your own way and to draw your own conclusions regarding these vital matters.
It is this writer's position that no one individual or corporate entity is the final authority on whose life matters the most. The final determination lies with God the Creator, independent of how you perceive Her/him and independent of what your faith community affiliation/or lack thereof is.
God is the author and creator of life, and only God can determine and authenticate the value of life. I am personally opposed to the notion that we can place value on the lives of people based on class, gender, or ethnicity and race. I am further opposed to the notion that the value of life is contingent on the type of employment that one is engaged in, and in this particular case, so-called "law enforcement." When the life of an unarmed African American is taken by "law enforcement," the tendency is to bring up that person's alleged criminal history, whether proven or not. But when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, the reaction is to downplay or deny that person's alleged criminal history and abuse of power. Furthermore, when the life of a law enforcement officer is taken, there is the tendency to react as if that person's life is of more intrinsic worth than any one else's. We are very inconsistent in weighing the scales of the value of life.
In a recent thread of communications that I have been engaged in on Facebook, it has been said that "RESPECT" is the key to addressing these issues and solving these problems. While I do agree that "RESPECT" is necessary and vital, we must careful not to allow the concept of "RESPECT" to become a mere platitude or slogan which is not supported by concrete action. "RESPECT" has to be mutual between the community and law enforcement. "RESPECT" entails the uncomfortable task of engaging in the combat against social injustice. This task requires us to do whatever is in our power to dismantle the structures of injustice. Anything short of this is just rhetorical conversation and "hot air." This engagement will demonstrate that we truly believe that ALL lives matter. Please feel free to comment and contribute your perspectives on both the subject and this above essay. Dialogue is important for our communities to move forward in peace and reconciliation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, December 19, 2014
The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology
Dear friends:
For those of you who have not heard this through Facebook or any other means, I want to share with you the good news that with the help of God, the moral support of my wife Ruth and my children Geoffrey, Jennica, and Jessica, and the stimulation and energy that I have received from knowing and interacting with you, that after two years of reading, research, and writing, I have finally completed my book "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology. The book focuses on the migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland U.S.A, the issues that affect us here, and the roles (both negative and positive) that religion has played in the life of the Puerto Rican-American community. The next step is publication. I am now in the process of seeking out prospective publishing houses. If any of you know of any one that would be interested in publishing this work, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am so grateful for having all of you in my life.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
For those of you who have not heard this through Facebook or any other means, I want to share with you the good news that with the help of God, the moral support of my wife Ruth and my children Geoffrey, Jennica, and Jessica, and the stimulation and energy that I have received from knowing and interacting with you, that after two years of reading, research, and writing, I have finally completed my book "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology. The book focuses on the migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland U.S.A, the issues that affect us here, and the roles (both negative and positive) that religion has played in the life of the Puerto Rican-American community. The next step is publication. I am now in the process of seeking out prospective publishing houses. If any of you know of any one that would be interested in publishing this work, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am so grateful for having all of you in my life.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
The Season of Advent: Signs of Hope
For the Jewish community prior to the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth, there was a sense of both hope and despair. The prophets of God made every attempt to encourage the people of Israel to remain steadfast in their hope that oppression by their enemies would cease for once and for all, and that they as a nation would ascend to a position of power and importance. There is no doubt that many of them misinterpreted this hope for a type of Jewish imperialism.
On the other hand, there were those who despaired. They had been hearing messages of consolation and hope for decades, and what they experienced was a vicious cycle of temporary spiritual revival and moral relapse. Some of their kings would make every attempt to do the right thing in maintaining a monotheistic faith, while others would drag the nation down the road of polytheism.
Whenever they heard the prophets predict a future of restoration, they would respond with doubt and with cynicism. They would even make fun of the prophets.
In the Christian community we have the same dynamic. During the Season of the Advent, in which the Church prepares for the return of its Lord, we hear messages of hope, peace, and reconciliation. But at the same time we live with the reality of ethnic/racial, gender, and class barriers which need to be surmounted. We also hear on a daily basis new of international conflict. Subsequently, we can't help but wonder if we are deluding ourselves into thinking that justice and peace will finally prevail.
Today, December 17, 2014 is a very special day in the history of international relations. It is also a very special day for the Church of Jesus the Christ as it hope against hope during the Season of the Advent. As we continue to hold out hope for peace in the midst of despair, the President of the United States, Barack Obama makes an announcement that takes many people by pleasant surprise, and no doubt, angers others. After an agreement relative to a prisoner swap, President Obama announced that the United States and Cuba would move to end their acrimony of over fifty years. He indicated that "we cannot continue to do the same thing for over a decade and expect different results. We have learned that isolation is not the answer and does not work."
I find it interesting that talks about reestablishing diplomatic relationships between the countries, overshadowed talks about ending the embargo that was imposed on the people of Cuba in the decade of the 1960's. But it appears that reestablishing diplomatic relationships presupposes ending the embargo, which in essence, served no logical purpose other than to strengthen the Cuban regime under Presidents Fidel and Raul Castro.
This latest move can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some may wonder if the recent revelations that the CIA not only knew, but also encouraged and participated in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay put the government of the USA to shame and left them with no alternative than to move in a different direction. Others may say that President Obama is taking the position that "I am the President, I am in charge, and the hell with what you Republicans and other obstinate people think, I am moving forward." Others may think that the President was "caving in" to certain interests groups in the Latino community in the U.S.A., including Cubans-Americans who realized that they had no vested interest in the U.S.A maintaining a strangulating hold on their families back home.
Undoubtedly, all of the above-mentioned factors played a role in these decisions, albeit a small one. However, there is one element that should not be overlooked in this, and it is the role that the communities of faith have played. For decades many Christian leaders and churches sponsored exchanges between Cuba and the United States, though these exchanges were limited. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam advocated for peaceful coexistence. In the most recent conversations, the Pope played a very important role in initiating them.
While we cannot afford to think that we will totally "kiss and make up," or that everything will be "honky dory," this announcement is a sign of hope. In the community of faith, we must appreciate any concrete action taken to establish ties of harmony and peace between our country and other nations. Truly, the Season of Advent, is a Season of hope for the future in terms of international relations and also for social affairs as we see signs that point to the coming universal reign of God. In the midst of despair, steps are being taken to move in the right direction. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Please feel free to comment.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
On the other hand, there were those who despaired. They had been hearing messages of consolation and hope for decades, and what they experienced was a vicious cycle of temporary spiritual revival and moral relapse. Some of their kings would make every attempt to do the right thing in maintaining a monotheistic faith, while others would drag the nation down the road of polytheism.
Whenever they heard the prophets predict a future of restoration, they would respond with doubt and with cynicism. They would even make fun of the prophets.
In the Christian community we have the same dynamic. During the Season of the Advent, in which the Church prepares for the return of its Lord, we hear messages of hope, peace, and reconciliation. But at the same time we live with the reality of ethnic/racial, gender, and class barriers which need to be surmounted. We also hear on a daily basis new of international conflict. Subsequently, we can't help but wonder if we are deluding ourselves into thinking that justice and peace will finally prevail.
Today, December 17, 2014 is a very special day in the history of international relations. It is also a very special day for the Church of Jesus the Christ as it hope against hope during the Season of the Advent. As we continue to hold out hope for peace in the midst of despair, the President of the United States, Barack Obama makes an announcement that takes many people by pleasant surprise, and no doubt, angers others. After an agreement relative to a prisoner swap, President Obama announced that the United States and Cuba would move to end their acrimony of over fifty years. He indicated that "we cannot continue to do the same thing for over a decade and expect different results. We have learned that isolation is not the answer and does not work."
I find it interesting that talks about reestablishing diplomatic relationships between the countries, overshadowed talks about ending the embargo that was imposed on the people of Cuba in the decade of the 1960's. But it appears that reestablishing diplomatic relationships presupposes ending the embargo, which in essence, served no logical purpose other than to strengthen the Cuban regime under Presidents Fidel and Raul Castro.
This latest move can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some may wonder if the recent revelations that the CIA not only knew, but also encouraged and participated in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay put the government of the USA to shame and left them with no alternative than to move in a different direction. Others may say that President Obama is taking the position that "I am the President, I am in charge, and the hell with what you Republicans and other obstinate people think, I am moving forward." Others may think that the President was "caving in" to certain interests groups in the Latino community in the U.S.A., including Cubans-Americans who realized that they had no vested interest in the U.S.A maintaining a strangulating hold on their families back home.
Undoubtedly, all of the above-mentioned factors played a role in these decisions, albeit a small one. However, there is one element that should not be overlooked in this, and it is the role that the communities of faith have played. For decades many Christian leaders and churches sponsored exchanges between Cuba and the United States, though these exchanges were limited. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam advocated for peaceful coexistence. In the most recent conversations, the Pope played a very important role in initiating them.
While we cannot afford to think that we will totally "kiss and make up," or that everything will be "honky dory," this announcement is a sign of hope. In the community of faith, we must appreciate any concrete action taken to establish ties of harmony and peace between our country and other nations. Truly, the Season of Advent, is a Season of hope for the future in terms of international relations and also for social affairs as we see signs that point to the coming universal reign of God. In the midst of despair, steps are being taken to move in the right direction. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Please feel free to comment.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, December 12, 2014
The Ethics of Sexuality
Though I have written about this issue before, I would like to invite the readers of this brief essay to reconsider it. I do so for two reasons. First, in my previous writings, I addressed a limited number of people, primarily through eblast. Now through this blog site, and the subsequent postings on Facebook, it is possible for a larger number of people to read, and participate, by responding to these postings. Second, because the Church is constantly faced with the temptation to adjust its moral standards to those of secular society, those of us who are members of Christ's Church find ourselves constantly reevaluating our positions on sexuality and in many cases, asking questions which few, if any, would have thought of asking long ago.
We begin, then, by posing the question, what should be the criteria or source for our sexual ethics?
Should our ethics be rooted in Scripture, i.e. be based on "what the Bible says?" Should they be based on the historical traditions of the Church? Should they be based on what is "popular" in today's society? Should they based on what one pastor in the 1960's called a "pragmatic model?"
As a Minister of the Gospel, and as a theologian, I will be the first to admit that this is a very complex subject. It is not as simple of just falling back on the slogan of "the Bible says." Nor is it as simple as engaging in a decontextualized and superficial reading of Scripture. As a Bible teacher of fourty-seven years, I've had to revise my thinking on several issues. The major reason for this, is because further contextual reading of Scripture, along with study of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek), have forced me to examine "what the Bible says" in a different light. By this, I do not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that I read the Bible in order to accommodate it to what is popular in today's society. Quite the contrary is true. My own reading of the Bible involves studying the socio-cultural context from which the Scriptures emerged, asking what they meant at the time they were written, and how they can be applied today. My reading has also involved examining the variety of theological perspectives which exist in the body of the text itself.
I propose that sexual ethics, just like the ethics of war and peace, death and life, etc. need to be considered in the light of how Scripture, tradition, experience, and the different branches of human knowledge (humanities, natural sciences, social sciences) interact with each other. To attempt constructing an ethical system, and for that matter, a theological system, which leaves out any of these elements, is to, in essence, set ourselves up for a faulty ethical and theological enterprise. To divorce "what the Bible says" from tradition, experience and the different branches of human knowledge, is to do a grave injustice to the biblical message. The Bible was produced and written in a particular cultural matrix, and therefore should be examined in the light of such. It does not serve any logical purpose to limit ourselves to quoting Scriptures. Anyone, including a child, can do that.
If Scripture, then, is to be used as a source for establishing sexual ethics, we must bear in mind, as I wrote in a recent essay, that the Scripture is not an end in and of itself. The main role of Scripture is to serve as a witness to the Word of God, which is none other than Jesus the Christ. Subsequently, since Jesus is the Word of God, and according to the Christian tradition, the finality of God's revelation to humankind, we need to ask ourselves how would Jesus respond to the various issues and perspectives on human sexuality. If Jesus were living as a human being in the twenty-first century, would His position on matters such as masturbation, pre-marital sex, extra-marital affairs, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and common-law marriage be identical to the positions which many individual Christians and churches take today? Would He be a Torah-thomping Jew going around condemning people who engage in these things? Would He be a literalist when approaching and reading the Torah? Would He be a Jewish fundamentalist?
Though I cannot say with precision how Jesus would respond to issues of sexuality in our time, I suspect that He would not have the same approach that we have in the churches and other communities of faith in modern times. Given how the institution of marriage in the Middle East (arranged marriages) functioned, and considering that many of the laws governing sexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) favored the man over the woman, and taking into account that even in the community of Israel, slaves were considered the property of their masters, and women the property of their husbands, I do not see a twenty-first century Jesus operating in that mode. When we also consider that sexual relations in those days, by and large, favored physical gratification, especially for the man, and focused very little, if at all, on mutual affirmation between the two partners, that Jesus would be emphasizing the externals of sexuality as opposed to the internal dynamics of commitment, love, and tenderness, as described in the Song of Solomon.
I end this essay by saying that Jesus is the ultimate source of our sexual ethics. In making decisions as to how we are to act and engage in sexual and partnering relationships, we operate with the question of "What would Jesus do?" I now invite you to contribute to this discussion by telling us what you think Jesus would do and how He would approach the various issues regarding sexuality if He were living in the twenty-first century. Share with us how Jesus is the well-spring of your ethical life and moral conduct in both the Church and society.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
We begin, then, by posing the question, what should be the criteria or source for our sexual ethics?
Should our ethics be rooted in Scripture, i.e. be based on "what the Bible says?" Should they be based on the historical traditions of the Church? Should they be based on what is "popular" in today's society? Should they based on what one pastor in the 1960's called a "pragmatic model?"
As a Minister of the Gospel, and as a theologian, I will be the first to admit that this is a very complex subject. It is not as simple of just falling back on the slogan of "the Bible says." Nor is it as simple as engaging in a decontextualized and superficial reading of Scripture. As a Bible teacher of fourty-seven years, I've had to revise my thinking on several issues. The major reason for this, is because further contextual reading of Scripture, along with study of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek), have forced me to examine "what the Bible says" in a different light. By this, I do not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that I read the Bible in order to accommodate it to what is popular in today's society. Quite the contrary is true. My own reading of the Bible involves studying the socio-cultural context from which the Scriptures emerged, asking what they meant at the time they were written, and how they can be applied today. My reading has also involved examining the variety of theological perspectives which exist in the body of the text itself.
I propose that sexual ethics, just like the ethics of war and peace, death and life, etc. need to be considered in the light of how Scripture, tradition, experience, and the different branches of human knowledge (humanities, natural sciences, social sciences) interact with each other. To attempt constructing an ethical system, and for that matter, a theological system, which leaves out any of these elements, is to, in essence, set ourselves up for a faulty ethical and theological enterprise. To divorce "what the Bible says" from tradition, experience and the different branches of human knowledge, is to do a grave injustice to the biblical message. The Bible was produced and written in a particular cultural matrix, and therefore should be examined in the light of such. It does not serve any logical purpose to limit ourselves to quoting Scriptures. Anyone, including a child, can do that.
If Scripture, then, is to be used as a source for establishing sexual ethics, we must bear in mind, as I wrote in a recent essay, that the Scripture is not an end in and of itself. The main role of Scripture is to serve as a witness to the Word of God, which is none other than Jesus the Christ. Subsequently, since Jesus is the Word of God, and according to the Christian tradition, the finality of God's revelation to humankind, we need to ask ourselves how would Jesus respond to the various issues and perspectives on human sexuality. If Jesus were living as a human being in the twenty-first century, would His position on matters such as masturbation, pre-marital sex, extra-marital affairs, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and common-law marriage be identical to the positions which many individual Christians and churches take today? Would He be a Torah-thomping Jew going around condemning people who engage in these things? Would He be a literalist when approaching and reading the Torah? Would He be a Jewish fundamentalist?
Though I cannot say with precision how Jesus would respond to issues of sexuality in our time, I suspect that He would not have the same approach that we have in the churches and other communities of faith in modern times. Given how the institution of marriage in the Middle East (arranged marriages) functioned, and considering that many of the laws governing sexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) favored the man over the woman, and taking into account that even in the community of Israel, slaves were considered the property of their masters, and women the property of their husbands, I do not see a twenty-first century Jesus operating in that mode. When we also consider that sexual relations in those days, by and large, favored physical gratification, especially for the man, and focused very little, if at all, on mutual affirmation between the two partners, that Jesus would be emphasizing the externals of sexuality as opposed to the internal dynamics of commitment, love, and tenderness, as described in the Song of Solomon.
I end this essay by saying that Jesus is the ultimate source of our sexual ethics. In making decisions as to how we are to act and engage in sexual and partnering relationships, we operate with the question of "What would Jesus do?" I now invite you to contribute to this discussion by telling us what you think Jesus would do and how He would approach the various issues regarding sexuality if He were living in the twenty-first century. Share with us how Jesus is the well-spring of your ethical life and moral conduct in both the Church and society.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
The Advent Season: Interrogation Tactics vs. the Church
Recently, it has come to light that brutal and inhumane tactics were used to coerce confessions on the part of alleged and suspected terrorists. Issues of waterboarding and other forms of torture were reported to have been used. Subsequently, we have been placed on "high alert" for fear that these revelations will result in either intense domestic uprisings and intensification of "terrorism" by foreign elements.
It is amazing that some would justify these brutal actions on the grounds that they "saved lives," and averted further "terrorism." History repeats itself in that we see once and again that justification will be offered for inhumanity and animalistic treatment of other human beings.
What does the Church of Jesus Christ have to say about this? Quite frankly, the Church is in a difficult position because it has its own history of justifying genocide and torture in the "name of Christ." The Church as at times justified witch hunts, the genocide of indigenous people, the institution of chattel slavery, and even the colonization of certain lands, so that the inhabitants of those lands can be "gained for Christ."
My question is as a Christian minister and theologian, how is it that in an age of "advanced civilization and knowledge" that we supposedly have today, we can even think of rationalizing and justifying such brutal acts, and then on top of that, justify these immoral actions theologically speaking? Are we as a church a bipolar entity?
As a member of the Church of Jesus the Christ, I submit that it is our role to prophetically denounce these tactics. We cannot subscribe to the notion of "the end justifies the means" as a manner of dismissing the immorality of these actions. It is also our call to denounce any attempt to justify these actions on whatever grounds social and political institutions want to make their arguments.
As we continue the Advent Season in preparation for the coming of our Lord, I would invite you to consider ways in which we as the Body of Christ can exercise our prophetic role in opposing inhumanity and injustice in all its forms. Please respond to this by giving your opinion on the subject, and what an appropriate Christians response would be from your perspective.
The King is coming. Peace, Shalom Aleichem, Asalaam-alaikum
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
It is amazing that some would justify these brutal actions on the grounds that they "saved lives," and averted further "terrorism." History repeats itself in that we see once and again that justification will be offered for inhumanity and animalistic treatment of other human beings.
What does the Church of Jesus Christ have to say about this? Quite frankly, the Church is in a difficult position because it has its own history of justifying genocide and torture in the "name of Christ." The Church as at times justified witch hunts, the genocide of indigenous people, the institution of chattel slavery, and even the colonization of certain lands, so that the inhabitants of those lands can be "gained for Christ."
My question is as a Christian minister and theologian, how is it that in an age of "advanced civilization and knowledge" that we supposedly have today, we can even think of rationalizing and justifying such brutal acts, and then on top of that, justify these immoral actions theologically speaking? Are we as a church a bipolar entity?
As a member of the Church of Jesus the Christ, I submit that it is our role to prophetically denounce these tactics. We cannot subscribe to the notion of "the end justifies the means" as a manner of dismissing the immorality of these actions. It is also our call to denounce any attempt to justify these actions on whatever grounds social and political institutions want to make their arguments.
As we continue the Advent Season in preparation for the coming of our Lord, I would invite you to consider ways in which we as the Body of Christ can exercise our prophetic role in opposing inhumanity and injustice in all its forms. Please respond to this by giving your opinion on the subject, and what an appropriate Christians response would be from your perspective.
The King is coming. Peace, Shalom Aleichem, Asalaam-alaikum
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Advent Season: Should Christians participate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
We have entered the time of year referred to in the Christian calendar as the Advent Season. This season focuses on two important moments in history. First, it recalls the period of time when the Jewish community was long awaiting the coming of the Messiah. Having experienced slavery, oppression, and captivity throughout their history, their hope for a deliverer became more intense.
The prophetic writings in the Hebrew Scriptures gave them a sense of optimism that history as they knew and experienced it was coming to a close.
The other important moment is that of the Christian community preparing for the return of Jesus who had already lived on the earth for a period of over thirty years. Jesus had promised His disciples that He would return to earth. He never specified any particular moment for this to occur. He even went as far as saying that He Himself did not know the day or the hour of His return. But Christians since the first century have been preparing for His return.
In the spirit of the Advent Season, I draw your attention to an important question. The question applies to Christians in general, spread throughout the world, and more specifically to Christians living in America, a country which many Christians naively believe was founded on Christian principles, and values.
This question is important, because for us as Christians, we expect the coming of He who is not only God's chosen Messiah, but also the coming ruler of the entire world, and it generates questions of ultimate allegiance and fidelity.
The question is should Christians participate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the USA, or for that matter of any other nation? The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. Ironically enough, Bellamy was an ordained Baptist minister. I am not sure if he was able to foresee the manner in which American patriotism would be equated with the Christian Gospel. In fact, I'm not even sure that this was his intention when he wrote the Pledge.
This writer (yours truly) respectfully submits that to pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation is a form of idolatry. There mere fact that the allegiance is given to an inanimate object such as a rag with different colors (stars and stripes) takes away the focus of what should be our true allegiance. I know that some people will submit or argue that the Pledge of Allegiance is a "sign of respect" for the nation. However, I and I'm sure other Christian believers, are persuaded that the best way to show respect for the country is by abiding by their laws to the extent that the laws do not conflict with our beliefs and practices as a Christian community. In other words, we abide by the laws as long as they do not require us to do something which is contrary to a higher law, i.e. the law of God.
The other problem with the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance (at least from a USA standpoint) is that it is linked with blind patriotism, which leads those who practice the Pledge to believe that God is on the side of America and against everyone else who does not believe the way we do. It is almost like saying that God is American and identifies with the ethos and the values of the American nation. This amounts to what one scholar referred to as "civil religion."
What, or who, then, should we Christians in America be pledging their allegiance to? This writer strongly believes that our allegiance should be exclusively to Jesus the Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. We are reminded in the Scriptures time after time, that God will not share His glory with any one. Since we believe that Jesus is God incarnated, we are called to pledge our allegiance to Him and not to share that allegiance with any one or anything else. All other commitments that we make on earth with fellow-humans is secondary and subordinate to the allegiance of our Lord
and Savior.
As we continue in the spirit of the Advent Season, let us remember that it is our Lord whom we are waiting for, and not any human system or government that requires our allegiance or fidelity. In the final book of the Bible we are reminded that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.
Our allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth supersedes all other earthly allegiances. God has given Him a name which is above every other name, so that at the Name of Jesus the Christ, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord to the glory of God.
To God in Christ be the glory, now and forever. Amen!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!
Feel free to comment. Your contributions are welcome.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The prophetic writings in the Hebrew Scriptures gave them a sense of optimism that history as they knew and experienced it was coming to a close.
The other important moment is that of the Christian community preparing for the return of Jesus who had already lived on the earth for a period of over thirty years. Jesus had promised His disciples that He would return to earth. He never specified any particular moment for this to occur. He even went as far as saying that He Himself did not know the day or the hour of His return. But Christians since the first century have been preparing for His return.
In the spirit of the Advent Season, I draw your attention to an important question. The question applies to Christians in general, spread throughout the world, and more specifically to Christians living in America, a country which many Christians naively believe was founded on Christian principles, and values.
This question is important, because for us as Christians, we expect the coming of He who is not only God's chosen Messiah, but also the coming ruler of the entire world, and it generates questions of ultimate allegiance and fidelity.
The question is should Christians participate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the USA, or for that matter of any other nation? The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. Ironically enough, Bellamy was an ordained Baptist minister. I am not sure if he was able to foresee the manner in which American patriotism would be equated with the Christian Gospel. In fact, I'm not even sure that this was his intention when he wrote the Pledge.
This writer (yours truly) respectfully submits that to pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation is a form of idolatry. There mere fact that the allegiance is given to an inanimate object such as a rag with different colors (stars and stripes) takes away the focus of what should be our true allegiance. I know that some people will submit or argue that the Pledge of Allegiance is a "sign of respect" for the nation. However, I and I'm sure other Christian believers, are persuaded that the best way to show respect for the country is by abiding by their laws to the extent that the laws do not conflict with our beliefs and practices as a Christian community. In other words, we abide by the laws as long as they do not require us to do something which is contrary to a higher law, i.e. the law of God.
The other problem with the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance (at least from a USA standpoint) is that it is linked with blind patriotism, which leads those who practice the Pledge to believe that God is on the side of America and against everyone else who does not believe the way we do. It is almost like saying that God is American and identifies with the ethos and the values of the American nation. This amounts to what one scholar referred to as "civil religion."
What, or who, then, should we Christians in America be pledging their allegiance to? This writer strongly believes that our allegiance should be exclusively to Jesus the Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. We are reminded in the Scriptures time after time, that God will not share His glory with any one. Since we believe that Jesus is God incarnated, we are called to pledge our allegiance to Him and not to share that allegiance with any one or anything else. All other commitments that we make on earth with fellow-humans is secondary and subordinate to the allegiance of our Lord
and Savior.
As we continue in the spirit of the Advent Season, let us remember that it is our Lord whom we are waiting for, and not any human system or government that requires our allegiance or fidelity. In the final book of the Bible we are reminded that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.
Our allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth supersedes all other earthly allegiances. God has given Him a name which is above every other name, so that at the Name of Jesus the Christ, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord to the glory of God.
To God in Christ be the glory, now and forever. Amen!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!
Feel free to comment. Your contributions are welcome.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, December 6, 2014
The Nature of Biblical Authority
In this essay, I will cover a topic which I have touched on in the past, but which I wish to make available to a wider audience. This issue is a very sensitive one for members of the community of faith, especially for Church members who hold to different views and who have strong feelings about this delicate topic.
The reason why I am revisiting this topic, is because we live in a time when people struggle with the issue as to who or what is the ultimate authority that we should subscribe to in order to believe the right things, and also in order to live an ethics or morality based life. We live in a time when relativism prevails, and in which people hold to the view that "whatever is right and wrong for you, might no necessarily be right and wrong for me." This relativism, then, translates into the potential for self-absorption and narcissism, and the notion of let everyone "do their own thing." It is very reminiscent of biblical times, when the writers inform us that each one did what was right in their own eyes.
Some people like structure because it makes them feel psychologically secure. Others resent structure because they feel suppressed, and that is an intrusion in their private lives. I would like to invite you to consider and comment on how you see biblical authority either in your own life or in the life of the community as a whole.
As I point out in my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective," (Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982), the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition have been considered the primary source of faith and practice for both Jews and Christians. In spite of the various views of Scripture that scholars and theologians hold to, this body of writing has been the foundation which informs the beliefs and practices of those who believe in its message.
The first question, then, that we can pose is, does the Bible claim authority? In both Old and New Testaments, there is an implicit claim to more than human authority, and in several places, this claim finds direct and open expression. We are told, for example, that Moses received from God both the moral law and also more detailed commandments. These facts are pointed out by G. W. Bromiley in an article "The Authority of Scripture" included in the New Bible Commentary.
Bromiley then includes the arguments that are made by some that in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf of the message delivered and not on behalf of the written record when the prophets and Jesus made the claim to be speaking on behalf of God. Bromiley debunks this argument by pointing out that Jesus quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testament throughout the course of His life and ministry. He also adds that the witness of the Apostles to the authority of the written record is clear.
The Bible does lay serious claim to its divine origin, status, and authority. It is stated that its message is of God. It traces its authority through the human writings to God as the primary author. It accepts the supernatural both in prophetic/apostolic utterances and in historical events. It makes no artificial distinction between the inward content of the written Word and its outward form. The message of the Bible challenges us directly to either faith or unbelief. In our approach to the Scriptures, other considerations may obtrude, but the basic challenge cannot be ignored.
The next question to be considered is, from where or from whom does the Bible derive its authority? This is a very important question, because if we are to claim and believe that the Bible is the "final court of appeal" for faith and practice, we must ask on what grounds the Bible makes that claim.
My response would be that the authority of Scripture is derivative and not inherent. In other words, the Bible is not an authority in and of itself. If we were to treat it as such, we would fall into the danger of bibliolatry, i.e worship of the Bible. The Scripture derives its authority from the one who inspired its writing, i.e. God.
If the authority of Scripture, then, goes over and beyond the Scripture itself, then we find ourselves in the position of theologian Karl Barth who said that "the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather a witness to the Word, who is Jesus." While many believers would be upset with Barth's position, no one can deny that it is a healthy one. Barth rightly pointed out that until Scripture functions as a witness to the living Word (Jesus the Christ), it is a book like any other book on a shelf. I would join Barth and other believers who acknowledge the Scripture not as revelation in and of itself, but rather a written witness to God's self-disclosure in history and through Christ.
I invite you, the reader to comment on this. Tell us, in your own words, how you think that we can maintain on the one hand, the authority of Scripture, and on the other, recognize that this authority is derivate and not inherent. Tell us how you think we can avoid the dangers and traps of worship of the Bible. Your input into this matter is very important.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The reason why I am revisiting this topic, is because we live in a time when people struggle with the issue as to who or what is the ultimate authority that we should subscribe to in order to believe the right things, and also in order to live an ethics or morality based life. We live in a time when relativism prevails, and in which people hold to the view that "whatever is right and wrong for you, might no necessarily be right and wrong for me." This relativism, then, translates into the potential for self-absorption and narcissism, and the notion of let everyone "do their own thing." It is very reminiscent of biblical times, when the writers inform us that each one did what was right in their own eyes.
Some people like structure because it makes them feel psychologically secure. Others resent structure because they feel suppressed, and that is an intrusion in their private lives. I would like to invite you to consider and comment on how you see biblical authority either in your own life or in the life of the community as a whole.
As I point out in my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective," (Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982), the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition have been considered the primary source of faith and practice for both Jews and Christians. In spite of the various views of Scripture that scholars and theologians hold to, this body of writing has been the foundation which informs the beliefs and practices of those who believe in its message.
The first question, then, that we can pose is, does the Bible claim authority? In both Old and New Testaments, there is an implicit claim to more than human authority, and in several places, this claim finds direct and open expression. We are told, for example, that Moses received from God both the moral law and also more detailed commandments. These facts are pointed out by G. W. Bromiley in an article "The Authority of Scripture" included in the New Bible Commentary.
Bromiley then includes the arguments that are made by some that in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf of the message delivered and not on behalf of the written record when the prophets and Jesus made the claim to be speaking on behalf of God. Bromiley debunks this argument by pointing out that Jesus quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testament throughout the course of His life and ministry. He also adds that the witness of the Apostles to the authority of the written record is clear.
The Bible does lay serious claim to its divine origin, status, and authority. It is stated that its message is of God. It traces its authority through the human writings to God as the primary author. It accepts the supernatural both in prophetic/apostolic utterances and in historical events. It makes no artificial distinction between the inward content of the written Word and its outward form. The message of the Bible challenges us directly to either faith or unbelief. In our approach to the Scriptures, other considerations may obtrude, but the basic challenge cannot be ignored.
The next question to be considered is, from where or from whom does the Bible derive its authority? This is a very important question, because if we are to claim and believe that the Bible is the "final court of appeal" for faith and practice, we must ask on what grounds the Bible makes that claim.
My response would be that the authority of Scripture is derivative and not inherent. In other words, the Bible is not an authority in and of itself. If we were to treat it as such, we would fall into the danger of bibliolatry, i.e worship of the Bible. The Scripture derives its authority from the one who inspired its writing, i.e. God.
If the authority of Scripture, then, goes over and beyond the Scripture itself, then we find ourselves in the position of theologian Karl Barth who said that "the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather a witness to the Word, who is Jesus." While many believers would be upset with Barth's position, no one can deny that it is a healthy one. Barth rightly pointed out that until Scripture functions as a witness to the living Word (Jesus the Christ), it is a book like any other book on a shelf. I would join Barth and other believers who acknowledge the Scripture not as revelation in and of itself, but rather a written witness to God's self-disclosure in history and through Christ.
I invite you, the reader to comment on this. Tell us, in your own words, how you think that we can maintain on the one hand, the authority of Scripture, and on the other, recognize that this authority is derivate and not inherent. Tell us how you think we can avoid the dangers and traps of worship of the Bible. Your input into this matter is very important.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Jesus Must be Tired: Give Him a Break
Once again, the dual-headed monster of individual and institutional racism rears its ugly head. For the second time, in an approximately two-week period, a Caucasian police officer is exonerated and not even indicted in killing an unarmed African American man. First, in Ferguson, Missouri, Officer Darren Wilson is exonerated of killing unarmed Michael Brown. Now in Staten Island, New York, Officer Daniel Pantaleo is cleared of any charges involving his choking of Eric Garner.
It has been the historic pattern, in situations like these, to bring up an alleged criminal history or alleged recent criminal behavior on the part of the victims in order to lend justification to the brutalization and murder of people. When a Caucasian police officer in Rochester was killed by an African American individual, then the story is interpreted as black people not having any respect for the law, even going to the extent of killing a law enforcement official. Nothing at all was said about an alleged history of this police officer having such an acrimonious relationship with the African American community in Rochester, which allegedly involved his harassment and brutalization of black people. He was classified as a fallen hero. The Mayor of Rochester, Lovely Warren, an African American woman, has now become the victim of vituperation on the part of this officer's family, because she dared to indicate that while the family of this officer was in mourning because of their loss, that the family of Michael Brown was also in mourning because of their loss.
The officer's father and brother have called for her resignation.
Jesus of Nazareth, has just been called to New York City. Poor guy, He must be tired, after traveling around Los Angeles, Ferguson, Cleveland, and now Staten Island, having to put out fires regarding racially based issues between the African American and Latino communities on the one hand, and law enforcement on the other.
So now I ask, if Jesus were living in our time, how would He handle all these situations? Would He join the chorus of law enforcement that criminalizes victims by bringing up their alleged criminal history and maybe even say "They deserved it, they're all a bunch of thugs?" Would He side with the victims against law enforcement and denounce a historic pattern of brutalization against the oppressed communities? Would He say that "Yes, these folks do have a criminal history, but that is no excuse to kill unarmed people?"
Based on what I read in Christian Scriptures (New Testament), I surmise the following:
1. Jesus as a human being would be definitely tired and worn out of being called from one city to another to address issues of criminality and institutional racism.
2. Jesus would definitely consider (I'm not saying justify) the alleged crimes of African American and Latino people acts of protest against social injustice which manifests itself through socio-cultural-economic-political alienation, disenfranchisement, marginalization, poverty, etc. Again, let me be clear in stating that I don't think that He would justify criminal behaviors. I am simply stating that Jesus would evaluate alleged criminal behavior in terms of the social conditions which breed crime. Knowing from what I know of Jesus through reading the Christian Scriptures, Jesus would address these social conditions and call for an overhaul of the system and its replacement with a system that does not have these conditions, and therefore minimizes criminal behavior.
3. While Jesus would certainly offer comfort and support to the family of a slain police officer, He would in a very intense way, identify with and establish ties of solidarity with the family of the innocent victims of police brutality. Jesus would definitely condemn police brutality in no uncertain way.
In my twenty-two years of work as a prison chaplain, I had many opportunities to face the encounter between criminal behavior and animalistic retaliation. I never justified or overlooked the actions of the residents that led to their incarceration. Nevertheless, as I believe Jesus would have done, I on many occasions had to bring out the reality of social conditions, which resulted in the greater numbers of incarcerated persons coming from the African American and Latino communities.
In closing, I ask, is it possible for us to get our act together so that Jesus does not have to be traveling from town to town dealing with these issues over and over again? As a Christian pastor, I've experienced being overwhelmed and tired with the demands of pastoring in an environment of oppression. I can just very well imagine that Pastor Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, must be exhausted. Can we give Him a break?
Please feel free to comment.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
It has been the historic pattern, in situations like these, to bring up an alleged criminal history or alleged recent criminal behavior on the part of the victims in order to lend justification to the brutalization and murder of people. When a Caucasian police officer in Rochester was killed by an African American individual, then the story is interpreted as black people not having any respect for the law, even going to the extent of killing a law enforcement official. Nothing at all was said about an alleged history of this police officer having such an acrimonious relationship with the African American community in Rochester, which allegedly involved his harassment and brutalization of black people. He was classified as a fallen hero. The Mayor of Rochester, Lovely Warren, an African American woman, has now become the victim of vituperation on the part of this officer's family, because she dared to indicate that while the family of this officer was in mourning because of their loss, that the family of Michael Brown was also in mourning because of their loss.
The officer's father and brother have called for her resignation.
Jesus of Nazareth, has just been called to New York City. Poor guy, He must be tired, after traveling around Los Angeles, Ferguson, Cleveland, and now Staten Island, having to put out fires regarding racially based issues between the African American and Latino communities on the one hand, and law enforcement on the other.
So now I ask, if Jesus were living in our time, how would He handle all these situations? Would He join the chorus of law enforcement that criminalizes victims by bringing up their alleged criminal history and maybe even say "They deserved it, they're all a bunch of thugs?" Would He side with the victims against law enforcement and denounce a historic pattern of brutalization against the oppressed communities? Would He say that "Yes, these folks do have a criminal history, but that is no excuse to kill unarmed people?"
Based on what I read in Christian Scriptures (New Testament), I surmise the following:
1. Jesus as a human being would be definitely tired and worn out of being called from one city to another to address issues of criminality and institutional racism.
2. Jesus would definitely consider (I'm not saying justify) the alleged crimes of African American and Latino people acts of protest against social injustice which manifests itself through socio-cultural-economic-political alienation, disenfranchisement, marginalization, poverty, etc. Again, let me be clear in stating that I don't think that He would justify criminal behaviors. I am simply stating that Jesus would evaluate alleged criminal behavior in terms of the social conditions which breed crime. Knowing from what I know of Jesus through reading the Christian Scriptures, Jesus would address these social conditions and call for an overhaul of the system and its replacement with a system that does not have these conditions, and therefore minimizes criminal behavior.
3. While Jesus would certainly offer comfort and support to the family of a slain police officer, He would in a very intense way, identify with and establish ties of solidarity with the family of the innocent victims of police brutality. Jesus would definitely condemn police brutality in no uncertain way.
In my twenty-two years of work as a prison chaplain, I had many opportunities to face the encounter between criminal behavior and animalistic retaliation. I never justified or overlooked the actions of the residents that led to their incarceration. Nevertheless, as I believe Jesus would have done, I on many occasions had to bring out the reality of social conditions, which resulted in the greater numbers of incarcerated persons coming from the African American and Latino communities.
In closing, I ask, is it possible for us to get our act together so that Jesus does not have to be traveling from town to town dealing with these issues over and over again? As a Christian pastor, I've experienced being overwhelmed and tired with the demands of pastoring in an environment of oppression. I can just very well imagine that Pastor Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, must be exhausted. Can we give Him a break?
Please feel free to comment.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Debunking the Myth of Inerrancy
One of the major controversies that has generated division within the Church of Christ has been that of the issue of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. For quite a long time, a good number of Christians, both lay and ordained, have subscribed to the belief and notion that the Bible as "the Word of God," is both inerrant and infallible. This notion is based on the belief that since the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is no possibility of error either in what it says or what it teaches. To admit to the slightest possibility of error, would result in either denying the divine inspiration of Scripture, or affirming the possibility that God could be mistaken.
Let us examine these two concepts. They are not exactly one and the same, though in mind of some believers, they are equated.
1. Inerrancy- The notion here is that the Bible is absolutely true in everything that it states, even in those areas that appear illogical to the human mind. This would include the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish, and the sun stopping at Joshua's command. Biblical literalists who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, take the position of "The Bible says so, end of story." There is no room in their mind for possible alternative explanations of those passages. To even suggest another explanation of these, among other passages, is to amount to "unbelief" and to denial of the divine inspiration of Scripture. In their thinking, nothing other than a literalist reading of the Bible can satisfy their notion of divine inspiration. They will dismiss all other explanations as "liberal," "modernist," and even "creeping and subtle Satanic deception." Their thinking is like that of a Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover." To them, divine inspiration excludes even the slightest degree of human error creeping into the text.
In recent years, some evangelical scholars have modified their position of inerrancy. They have not abandoned the doctrine in its totality, but they have come to affirm that the Scriptures are inerrant only in the original autographs, but not in the manuscripts or the translations based on the manuscripts. Because of the variations within the manuscripts, they allow for the possibility of human error within them. They concede these possibilities when they compare manuscripts and translations, and see that they vary as to length, and also as to either containing or omitting what other manuscripts and translations have. But they continue to affirm their belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs.
The major problem with this position is two-fold. To begin with, the original autographs no longer exist, because they have deteriorated due to age and condition of the materials on which they were written. None of us has ever seen or will see the original autographs. Therefore, the affirmation that the concept of divine inspiration relates only to the original autographs, is a statement of blind faith. How can one affirm inerrancy for a document that they have never seen or will see?
The second aspect of this problem is that the manuscripts and the translations based on the manuscripts vary with each other relative to. Some are longer or shorter than others. Some use the term "Lord" for God in the Old Testament, while others use the term "Yahweh" which is the name for God in the Hebrew language. One translation has a shorter ending than other translations for the sixteenth chapter of Mark's Gospel account. So which translation, then, most accurately reflects what the original autograph said?
2. Infallibility- The notion here is that the Bible is without error in what it intends to teach, regardless of whether it is historically and factually inerrant. The emphasis here is not so much on historical accuracy or historical fact, but rather on the intention of God in giving us the Scripture. While this position, at some points, may allow room for the possibility of human error, its thrust is to affirm that in spite of human frailty and weakness, God cannot be mistaken in the intention and purpose of giving us the Bible. This position, more so than that of inerrancy, speaks more to the concept of the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Please share with us how you would resolve this issue. How in your mind, can we dismantle the doctrine of inerrancy, and yet sustain the doctrine of infallibility? Can we do away with inerrancy and still believe that the Bible is our final court of appeal for establishing belief and practice?
Your contribution and input is very important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Let us examine these two concepts. They are not exactly one and the same, though in mind of some believers, they are equated.
1. Inerrancy- The notion here is that the Bible is absolutely true in everything that it states, even in those areas that appear illogical to the human mind. This would include the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish, and the sun stopping at Joshua's command. Biblical literalists who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, take the position of "The Bible says so, end of story." There is no room in their mind for possible alternative explanations of those passages. To even suggest another explanation of these, among other passages, is to amount to "unbelief" and to denial of the divine inspiration of Scripture. In their thinking, nothing other than a literalist reading of the Bible can satisfy their notion of divine inspiration. They will dismiss all other explanations as "liberal," "modernist," and even "creeping and subtle Satanic deception." Their thinking is like that of a Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover." To them, divine inspiration excludes even the slightest degree of human error creeping into the text.
In recent years, some evangelical scholars have modified their position of inerrancy. They have not abandoned the doctrine in its totality, but they have come to affirm that the Scriptures are inerrant only in the original autographs, but not in the manuscripts or the translations based on the manuscripts. Because of the variations within the manuscripts, they allow for the possibility of human error within them. They concede these possibilities when they compare manuscripts and translations, and see that they vary as to length, and also as to either containing or omitting what other manuscripts and translations have. But they continue to affirm their belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs.
The major problem with this position is two-fold. To begin with, the original autographs no longer exist, because they have deteriorated due to age and condition of the materials on which they were written. None of us has ever seen or will see the original autographs. Therefore, the affirmation that the concept of divine inspiration relates only to the original autographs, is a statement of blind faith. How can one affirm inerrancy for a document that they have never seen or will see?
The second aspect of this problem is that the manuscripts and the translations based on the manuscripts vary with each other relative to. Some are longer or shorter than others. Some use the term "Lord" for God in the Old Testament, while others use the term "Yahweh" which is the name for God in the Hebrew language. One translation has a shorter ending than other translations for the sixteenth chapter of Mark's Gospel account. So which translation, then, most accurately reflects what the original autograph said?
2. Infallibility- The notion here is that the Bible is without error in what it intends to teach, regardless of whether it is historically and factually inerrant. The emphasis here is not so much on historical accuracy or historical fact, but rather on the intention of God in giving us the Scripture. While this position, at some points, may allow room for the possibility of human error, its thrust is to affirm that in spite of human frailty and weakness, God cannot be mistaken in the intention and purpose of giving us the Bible. This position, more so than that of inerrancy, speaks more to the concept of the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Please share with us how you would resolve this issue. How in your mind, can we dismantle the doctrine of inerrancy, and yet sustain the doctrine of infallibility? Can we do away with inerrancy and still believe that the Bible is our final court of appeal for establishing belief and practice?
Your contribution and input is very important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)