Regardless of what approach we use to dealing with the issue of racism, or what our individual perspectives might be on the issue, we cannot treat the subject without mentioning some of the key players who were involved in the struggle to combat it. In this essay, we will deal with the person of Malcolm X. In retrospect, all of us have different opinions and views about Bro. Malcolm. My intention here, is not to persuade you, the reader, to discard whatever your perspective is, nor to adopt a new one, but rather, to present him in a historical context, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions about him and his work. I am also making every attempt to have us explore how a biblical and theological approach to racism would be relevant to this discussion.
Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1925. His father was a Baptist minister, and a former member of Garvey´s UNIA. When Malcolm was four, his family´s home wains burned down by Ku Klux Klan members. After living in various state institutions, Malcolm moved to Boston and from there to New York City. He became involved in petty criminal activity on the East Coast, was convicted for larceny in Boston, and sentenced to an eight-to ten-year jail term in 1946. While in prison, he became involved with the Nation of Islam. and on his release in 1952, he quickly rose to prominence in the organization, playing a crucial role in its increasing size and influence (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 171).
In formal terms, the ideas of the Nation of Islam were profoundly conservative. The organization combined elements of orthodox Islam with ideas of its own making, claiming that the ¨Original Man¨ was Black and that whites were a degenerate and inferior offshoot, destined to rule the world for 6000 years, after which they would be destroyed. That 6,000 year period was coming to a close, and Blacks could only save themselves by withdrawing into their own society and separating from whites. The only salvation lay in following Elijah Muhammad, Allah´s messenger on Earth. The Black Muslims, as the NOI was known, preached a doctrine of hard work, thrift, obedience, and humility. The Nation´s militia, i.e. the Fruit of Islam, strictly enforced an ultra-puritanical sexual morality (Shawki, p. 172).
Beyond pressing for demands and or defending their interests, the organization was hostile to political involvement. That such an inward-focused religious sect was capable of substantial growth growth is a testimony to the widespread bitterness of urban Blacks. To hundreds of young recruits, the Nation of Islam represented self-respect, self-reliance, and Black pride. The group´s unabashed condemnation of white America as well as its rejection of integration and non-violence, rang true, and especially appealed to Malcolm X (Shawki, p. 173).
Malcolm X rejected the view that integration into American society was possible or desirable. He said, when someone sticks a knife into my back nine inches, and then pulls it out six inches, they have´nt done me any favor. They should not have stabbed me in the first place. During slavery, they inflicted the most extreme form of brutality against us to break our spirit, to break our will........after they did all of this to us for three hundred and ten years, then they came up with some Emancipation Proclamation.......and today, the white man runs around here thinking he is doing Black people a favor (Jack Bloom, Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987, p. 194).¨
According to Malcolm X, the Federal Government and the Democratic party were not allies, but part of the problem. ¨ Roosevelt promised, Truman promised, Eisenhower promised. Negroes are still knocking on the door, begging for civil rights. Do you mean to tell me that in a powerful country like this, a so-called Christian country, that a handful of men from the South can prevent the North, the West, the Central States, and the East from giving Negroes the rights the Constitution says they already have? No, I don´t believe that, and neither do you. No white man really wants the Black man to have his rights or he´d have them. The United States does everything it wants to do ( Bloom, pps. 194-195).¨
Malcolm X was sharply critical of liberals who talked about racism in the South, but had nothing to say about conditions in the North. He said ¨They front-paged what I felt about Northern white and Black Freedom Riders going South to ´demonstrate.´ I called it ´ridiculous´; their own Northern ghettos, right at home, had enough rats and roaches to kill to keep all of the Freedom Riders busy......... The Northern Freedom Riders could light some fires under Northern city halls, unions, and major industries to give more jobs to Negroes......Yes, I will pull off that liberal´s halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North´s liberals have been so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world´s worst hypocrites (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley. New York: Grove Press, 1964, p. 274).¨
Malcolm X separated from the Nation of Islam in December 1963. Responding to a question from the audience at a meeting in New York City, Malcolm attributed John F. Kennedy´s assassination to the hate and violence produced by a society that whites themselves had created. ¨The chickens have home to roost,¨ Malcolm said. ¨Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they´ve always made me glad.¨ The statement was consistent with the hostility to the U.S. administration that Black Muslims had expressed in the past. Elijah Muhammad did not see it that way, informing Malcolm that ¨the country loved this man (Kennedy)¨ and that he (Malcolm) would be suspended for 90 days so that ¨Muslims everywhere can be disassociated with this blunder (George Breitman, The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution of a Revolutionary ( New York: Schocken Books, 1967, p. 9).¨
Malcolm accepted the suspension without protest. But soon it became clear that the suspension was in fact an expulsion( Shawki, p.177).
There are various opinions as to the actual reasons for Malcolm´s separation from the Nation of Islam. One opinion is that he separated from the Nation because he had embraced the theological tenets of mainstream Islam. Another opinion is that he posed a threat to Elijah Muhammad because of his ¨enlightment" about the true nature of the Islamic religion. Others, yet, think that the above-referred suspension/expulsion was the main factor in the separation. The reader is encouraged to draw her/his own conclusion.
The question for us from a biblical/theological standpoint would be: Are the Bible and Christian theology more resonant with Malcolm´s Black Nationalism, or with with mainstream Muslim theology which he later embraced? This minister/theologian believes that Black Nationalism is consistent with the Gospel to the extent that both are mechanisms of economic, political, and social liberation. The reader is encouraged to read ¨Black Theology and Black Power¨ by James Cone, and also ¨God of the Oppressed¨ by the same author.
This writer (yours truly) also believes that the Gospel has limited resonance with mainstream Islam, in that their Scriptures (the Holy Qu´aran) affirm the revelation of God through the prophets, including Jesus. That Christian believe that Jesus Christ and the New Testament are the final revelation of God to humankind, and that Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) and the Holy Qu´aran are the final revelation, does not prevent both faith groups from focusing on the common goal of participating in God´s liberating acts in history. It is this writer´s conviction that both the Gospel and the Holy Qu´aran can be seen as instruments of a theological commitment to liberation from individual and corporate racism.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Please feel free to comment and share your views.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Friday, December 4, 2015
A Biblical and Theological Approach to Racism: The Civil Rights Movement
One cannot discuss the issue of racism and other forms of oppression without including the history and role of the Civil Rights movement in these discussions. Whether one thinks that the Civil Rights movement only managed to accomplish some minor reformist changes, or whether they were instrumental in dismantling structures of racism in this country. the point remains that in this movement, there was engagement relative to the issue of racism.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1950´s and 1960´s lie in the transformed conditions and experiences of Blacks during the Second World War. Large numbers of jobs previously closed to Black workers were suddenly available. Black migration to the North reached an unprecedented scale. Until the eve of the first of the First World War, 90 percent of all Blacks lived in the South. As late as 1940, 77 percent of all Blacks resided in the former slave states (Manning Marable, ¨The Crisis of the Black Working Class: An Economic and Historical Analysis,¨Science and Society XLVI, no. 2, Summer 1982: 130-161, 135). By 1950, the figure had declined to 68 percent, a trend that would continue into the 1960´s (Philip Foner, Organized Labor, p. 272). In 1910, 57 percent of all Black male workers and 52 percent of all Black female workers were farmers. Eight percent of men and 42 percent of women were employed as domestics or personal servants. Only one sixth of the Black population worked in manufacturing or industries. By 1940, 28 percent of Black workers were service workers and farm employment had dropped to 32 percent. By 1960, 38 percent of Blacks were industrial workers, 32 percent service workers, and only 8 percent of all Blacks employed worked on farms (Marable, p. 136).
The urbanization of the Black population transformed its character and heightened the confidence of Blacks in both the North and the South to challenge racism. By 1946, Black employment in manufacturing had increased 135 percent over its 1940 proportion, and under the auspices of the CIO, Black workers joined industrial unions by the tens of thousands. One hundred thousand Black workers joined the aircraft industry organized by United Auto Workers (UAW). 5,000 Blacks joined the National Maritime Union, and in one Baltimore local of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Black employment went from 5 percent of the workforce in 1941 to 20 percent by 1943, and even elected a Black shop steward (Cedric Robinson, Black Movements in America, 129 Foner, Organized Labor, 259 and 264).
In spite of these apparent improvements, Blacks still had to contend with segregation in transportation, restaurants, public restrooms, the schools, and even in the churches. In this so-called ¨Post-Reconstruction Era," segregation reared its ugly head to keep Blacks and other people of color from enjoying equality in terms of opportunities for promotion in the work place, and also in terms of quality of housing conditions. The notion of ¨separate but equal,¨ was a myth in that Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other ethnically and racially oppressed groups did not really participate in having access to the good of the land on an equal footing with Caucasians. They were relegated to the jobs with the lowest salaries, the schools with inferior quality of education, and deteriorated housing conditions.
The emergence of certain movements and organizations was no panacea in that each one had a different focus. Certain organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and Congress of Racial Equality initially sought to have Blacks and other racially oppressed groups get their ¨fair share of the pie,¨ by advocating for working within a capitalist framework, and in some cases appealing to the aspirations of the Black middle class. But eventually, they began to take on a more militant and even radical character (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 161.)
What was the role of religion during this time? The Civil Rights movement was spearheaded by clergy such as Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, and Jesse Jackson. And while not directly involved in the Civil Rights Movement, people such as the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam, also raised their voices in protest against the discriminatory and oppressive treatments that the African American and other communities of color were subjected to.
In view of the reality that the policies and structures of institutional, structural, and systemic racism have not been dismantled. what is the Gospel mandate? Some within the community of faith will advocate for ¨gradual and peaceful¨ change. They will settle for ¨bits and pieces¨ of change. They will be satisfied with a few people of color ¨making it¨ in society, and see that as a sign of ¨progress.¨ There are others (including yours truly) who take on a more prophetic role identifying, unmasking, and denouncing racism not only in the secular society, but within the community of faith itself.
The message of the Gospel calls for us to be both consistent and constant in this ongoing struggle. We cannot settle for platitudes, nor for a mere smile or handshake from the oppressing community. The Gospel carries the element of both denunciation and at the same time a message of rejoicing that in Christ, God is moving in and through the historical process to bring to an end all the structures of ethnic and racial discrimination.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
The Civil Rights movement of the 1950´s and 1960´s lie in the transformed conditions and experiences of Blacks during the Second World War. Large numbers of jobs previously closed to Black workers were suddenly available. Black migration to the North reached an unprecedented scale. Until the eve of the first of the First World War, 90 percent of all Blacks lived in the South. As late as 1940, 77 percent of all Blacks resided in the former slave states (Manning Marable, ¨The Crisis of the Black Working Class: An Economic and Historical Analysis,¨Science and Society XLVI, no. 2, Summer 1982: 130-161, 135). By 1950, the figure had declined to 68 percent, a trend that would continue into the 1960´s (Philip Foner, Organized Labor, p. 272). In 1910, 57 percent of all Black male workers and 52 percent of all Black female workers were farmers. Eight percent of men and 42 percent of women were employed as domestics or personal servants. Only one sixth of the Black population worked in manufacturing or industries. By 1940, 28 percent of Black workers were service workers and farm employment had dropped to 32 percent. By 1960, 38 percent of Blacks were industrial workers, 32 percent service workers, and only 8 percent of all Blacks employed worked on farms (Marable, p. 136).
The urbanization of the Black population transformed its character and heightened the confidence of Blacks in both the North and the South to challenge racism. By 1946, Black employment in manufacturing had increased 135 percent over its 1940 proportion, and under the auspices of the CIO, Black workers joined industrial unions by the tens of thousands. One hundred thousand Black workers joined the aircraft industry organized by United Auto Workers (UAW). 5,000 Blacks joined the National Maritime Union, and in one Baltimore local of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Black employment went from 5 percent of the workforce in 1941 to 20 percent by 1943, and even elected a Black shop steward (Cedric Robinson, Black Movements in America, 129 Foner, Organized Labor, 259 and 264).
In spite of these apparent improvements, Blacks still had to contend with segregation in transportation, restaurants, public restrooms, the schools, and even in the churches. In this so-called ¨Post-Reconstruction Era," segregation reared its ugly head to keep Blacks and other people of color from enjoying equality in terms of opportunities for promotion in the work place, and also in terms of quality of housing conditions. The notion of ¨separate but equal,¨ was a myth in that Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other ethnically and racially oppressed groups did not really participate in having access to the good of the land on an equal footing with Caucasians. They were relegated to the jobs with the lowest salaries, the schools with inferior quality of education, and deteriorated housing conditions.
The emergence of certain movements and organizations was no panacea in that each one had a different focus. Certain organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and Congress of Racial Equality initially sought to have Blacks and other racially oppressed groups get their ¨fair share of the pie,¨ by advocating for working within a capitalist framework, and in some cases appealing to the aspirations of the Black middle class. But eventually, they began to take on a more militant and even radical character (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 161.)
What was the role of religion during this time? The Civil Rights movement was spearheaded by clergy such as Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, and Jesse Jackson. And while not directly involved in the Civil Rights Movement, people such as the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam, also raised their voices in protest against the discriminatory and oppressive treatments that the African American and other communities of color were subjected to.
In view of the reality that the policies and structures of institutional, structural, and systemic racism have not been dismantled. what is the Gospel mandate? Some within the community of faith will advocate for ¨gradual and peaceful¨ change. They will settle for ¨bits and pieces¨ of change. They will be satisfied with a few people of color ¨making it¨ in society, and see that as a sign of ¨progress.¨ There are others (including yours truly) who take on a more prophetic role identifying, unmasking, and denouncing racism not only in the secular society, but within the community of faith itself.
The message of the Gospel calls for us to be both consistent and constant in this ongoing struggle. We cannot settle for platitudes, nor for a mere smile or handshake from the oppressing community. The Gospel carries the element of both denunciation and at the same time a message of rejoicing that in Christ, God is moving in and through the historical process to bring to an end all the structures of ethnic and racial discrimination.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Racism within a Biblical and Theological Framework: Black Nationalism and Socialism
In this essay, I would like to cover the role that socialism has played in the African-American´s community pursuit of equality and social justice. Some readers may be ¨turned off¨ because of a negative attitude and posture towards socialism. Unfortunately, many people condemn and demonize socialism without even knowing what it is about. Their views of socialism are based, for the most part, on a combination of market-place rumors and media hype. They have not taken the time to research the issues. Their view of socialism is based on hearsay.
In the four decades before the Civil War, several communitarian and utopian socialist societies were established in the United States. Utopian socialism found fertile ground in the United States and was the dominant current among socialists until 1850 (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 110). During 1820-1850, the American countryside was liberally dotted with communities established by searchers for the utopias promised by Robert Owen and Charles Fourier (Philip Foner, American Socialism and Black America, p.4).
Marxists and utopian socialists had fundamentally different approaches to the questions of slavery and racism. The first difference involved the attitude towards Blacks and their involvement in the movement. Robert Owens opposed slavery but was a supporter of emigrationism and excluded Blacks from his own colony, New Hampshire, Indiana. He said that Blacks could be helpers if necessary, but if it were considered useful, they could be prepared and enabled to be associated in communities in Africa (Foner, p.6).
In contrast, the Communist Club of New York invited Blacks to become members. Its constitution required to ¨recognize the complete equality of all persons-no matter whatever color or sex (Phiip Foner and Brewster Chamberlain, Labor Movement in the United States: A History of the American Working Class From Colonial Times to 1890. Westport, CT: Greenwood Port, 1977, p. 6).
In chapter seven of his book, Black Liberation and Socialism, Ahmed Shawki makes it very clear that the attempted integration in the socialist movement by the African-American community did not result in an ideal situation. Many of the organizations claiming to be ¨socialist¨ were dominated by white leaders who still thought of the Black race as an inferior race. At times it was difficult to distinguish between the social class issue on the one hand, and the race issue on the other.
We might ask from a theological standpoint, what is the value of oppressed groups such as African-Americans aligning themselves with socialism? Will a movement that emphasizes the elimination of social class be beneficial to the African-American community?
This writer (yours truly) has a theological commitment to socialism. My commitment to socialism does not, however, emerge, like in the time of Karl Marx, out of an industrial context. Neither does it emerge from the context of a technological society such as the one we live in. My commitment to socialism is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The thrust of the Gospel message is full equality for all humankind independent of class, ethnic/racial issues, or issues of gender. While most socialist movements claim these very same things, the major ingredient missing in them is a God-consciousness which would enable them to view the dysfunction in human relations as the consequence of divine-human rupture.
It behooves us to examine how a Gospel-driven socialism can be more effective in and relative to the Black struggle for liberation. If we affirm and consider Jesus Christ as the ultimate liberator, then all other persons and movements offer us solutions that are half-baked and reformist. We need a type of socialism that gets to the root of the problem.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In the four decades before the Civil War, several communitarian and utopian socialist societies were established in the United States. Utopian socialism found fertile ground in the United States and was the dominant current among socialists until 1850 (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 110). During 1820-1850, the American countryside was liberally dotted with communities established by searchers for the utopias promised by Robert Owen and Charles Fourier (Philip Foner, American Socialism and Black America, p.4).
Marxists and utopian socialists had fundamentally different approaches to the questions of slavery and racism. The first difference involved the attitude towards Blacks and their involvement in the movement. Robert Owens opposed slavery but was a supporter of emigrationism and excluded Blacks from his own colony, New Hampshire, Indiana. He said that Blacks could be helpers if necessary, but if it were considered useful, they could be prepared and enabled to be associated in communities in Africa (Foner, p.6).
In contrast, the Communist Club of New York invited Blacks to become members. Its constitution required to ¨recognize the complete equality of all persons-no matter whatever color or sex (Phiip Foner and Brewster Chamberlain, Labor Movement in the United States: A History of the American Working Class From Colonial Times to 1890. Westport, CT: Greenwood Port, 1977, p. 6).
In chapter seven of his book, Black Liberation and Socialism, Ahmed Shawki makes it very clear that the attempted integration in the socialist movement by the African-American community did not result in an ideal situation. Many of the organizations claiming to be ¨socialist¨ were dominated by white leaders who still thought of the Black race as an inferior race. At times it was difficult to distinguish between the social class issue on the one hand, and the race issue on the other.
We might ask from a theological standpoint, what is the value of oppressed groups such as African-Americans aligning themselves with socialism? Will a movement that emphasizes the elimination of social class be beneficial to the African-American community?
This writer (yours truly) has a theological commitment to socialism. My commitment to socialism does not, however, emerge, like in the time of Karl Marx, out of an industrial context. Neither does it emerge from the context of a technological society such as the one we live in. My commitment to socialism is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The thrust of the Gospel message is full equality for all humankind independent of class, ethnic/racial issues, or issues of gender. While most socialist movements claim these very same things, the major ingredient missing in them is a God-consciousness which would enable them to view the dysfunction in human relations as the consequence of divine-human rupture.
It behooves us to examine how a Gospel-driven socialism can be more effective in and relative to the Black struggle for liberation. If we affirm and consider Jesus Christ as the ultimate liberator, then all other persons and movements offer us solutions that are half-baked and reformist. We need a type of socialism that gets to the root of the problem.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Whose Life Really Matters? Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad in Paris
Once again we are faced with acts of terrorism, where innocent people lose their lives. And along with these acts, we again witness the desire for retaliation. And, of course, as always, we witness the blaming and finger-pointing at the alleged perpetrators, whether imaginary or real.
When we encounter and hear about atrocities such as the one in Paris this last weekend, we become indignant. We ask "Why do these things have to happen?" We become awed, confused, perplexed, and full of rage. No logical or rational explanation that we hear is sufficient to even minimize our anger and desire for vengeance. Our emotions and irrationality blind us to the possibility of other explanations as to the "why" of occurrences such as these.
As in the case of September 11, 2001, we condemn and denounce the immediate perpetrators. Very, very rarely, if ever, do we begin to ponder on the question of "what have we contributed to this situation?" We act as if we were innocent bystanders that have things happen to us out of the clear blue sky with no historical antecedent or precedent. All we want to do is to get back at those that we consider the main culprits. The mere suggestion that we examine ourselves in order to determine if we have contributed in any way will generate anger.
I can't help but ask if Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), were living in Paris, how would they react to these atrocities? If the atrocities had been committed by people who claim the Jewish faith as their own, would we be quick to condemn Judaism as a religion of terror? Or if they had been committed by those claiming to be Christian, would we be quick to say that we must "secure our borders against Christians?" One preacher who also happens to be the son of a famous preacher, had the audacity to advocate for "securing our borders against Muslims." Needless to say, I wrote a note of condemnation for that bigoted and ignorant statement on his part. I even went as far as saying to him that his statement was a disgrace since it does not adequately represent the Christian Gospel, and furthermore, is a disgrace to the legacy of his father.
What can we do to stop terrorism? Some would resort to the quickest and most simple approach, i.e. retaliate, and bomb the hell out of the perpetrators.
I would like to think that what Moses, Jesus, and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) would challenge us to do would be the following:
1. Undergo a sincere introspection of the heart to examine ourselves and determine if we have in any way been guilty of agitating and instigating these types of situations.
2. Put an end to the support of state-sponsored terrorist governments world-wide, especially in the so-called Middle East.
3. Commit ourselves to act in solidarity with those groups and nations who are sincerely seeking peace together with justice.
Please share with us what you think we can do to stop terrorism in the world and achieve a genuine and lasting peace.
In the Name of God the Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
When we encounter and hear about atrocities such as the one in Paris this last weekend, we become indignant. We ask "Why do these things have to happen?" We become awed, confused, perplexed, and full of rage. No logical or rational explanation that we hear is sufficient to even minimize our anger and desire for vengeance. Our emotions and irrationality blind us to the possibility of other explanations as to the "why" of occurrences such as these.
As in the case of September 11, 2001, we condemn and denounce the immediate perpetrators. Very, very rarely, if ever, do we begin to ponder on the question of "what have we contributed to this situation?" We act as if we were innocent bystanders that have things happen to us out of the clear blue sky with no historical antecedent or precedent. All we want to do is to get back at those that we consider the main culprits. The mere suggestion that we examine ourselves in order to determine if we have contributed in any way will generate anger.
I can't help but ask if Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), were living in Paris, how would they react to these atrocities? If the atrocities had been committed by people who claim the Jewish faith as their own, would we be quick to condemn Judaism as a religion of terror? Or if they had been committed by those claiming to be Christian, would we be quick to say that we must "secure our borders against Christians?" One preacher who also happens to be the son of a famous preacher, had the audacity to advocate for "securing our borders against Muslims." Needless to say, I wrote a note of condemnation for that bigoted and ignorant statement on his part. I even went as far as saying to him that his statement was a disgrace since it does not adequately represent the Christian Gospel, and furthermore, is a disgrace to the legacy of his father.
What can we do to stop terrorism? Some would resort to the quickest and most simple approach, i.e. retaliate, and bomb the hell out of the perpetrators.
I would like to think that what Moses, Jesus, and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) would challenge us to do would be the following:
1. Undergo a sincere introspection of the heart to examine ourselves and determine if we have in any way been guilty of agitating and instigating these types of situations.
2. Put an end to the support of state-sponsored terrorist governments world-wide, especially in the so-called Middle East.
3. Commit ourselves to act in solidarity with those groups and nations who are sincerely seeking peace together with justice.
Please share with us what you think we can do to stop terrorism in the world and achieve a genuine and lasting peace.
In the Name of God the Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Saturday, November 14, 2015
This is the Word of the Lord: Thanks be to God!-Symbol. Myth, and the Biblical Revelation
In many churches, i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, whenever a person (lay or ordained) reads a portion of Scripture, that person concludes by saying ¨This is the Word of the Lord.¨ The congregation will usually respond by saying ¨Thanks be to God.¨
Why do we refer to the Bible as ¨the Word of God?¨ There can be many answers to that question. One person can answer ¨Because God wrote it.¨ I would ask ¨Really?¨ Another person might respond by saying that ¨God inspired it.¨ Then the question would be ¨What does ´inspired´ mean?¨ Another response might possibly be ¨God speaks through it.¨ I would then ask ¨Does God speak through any other book or piece of literature, or is the voice of God found only in the Bible?¨
Whatever one´s answers to those questions may be, the fact remains that each of those answers reflect certain assumptions and presuppositions that we all have about the Scriptures. Some people treat the Bible as a book that was written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. Others treat it as a book which was written passively by the individual authors as God controlled them in a mechanical and robotic manner. Others, yet, treat the Bible as if it were written in a cultural and historical vacuum, i.e. without any influence from the surrounding culture of the biblical writers or the historical events taking place at the time of writing.
I would like to pose a different set of questions for our consideration. Avery Dulles, who was a Professor of Theology at Woodstock College had issue with those who believed that the Bible must be purged of mythical and symbolic elements if its message is to be communicated to humanity in our time. But he also had problems with those who said that the Bible has no myth. Dulles defined myth as ¨symbolic narrative which deals with events attributed to superhuman, personalized agencies.¨
A provoking question that would anger many and please others is ¨Does the Bible contain myth?¨ The answer to that question would depend on what is meant by ¨myth.¨ Is Dulles´s definition of myth a correct one, or are there other possible definitions that we can work with?
We might ask if the presence of myth (however defined) in Scripture would diminish the element of divine inspiration. Would the content of myth and symbol lessen the authority and use of Scripture today?
This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. However, I do not believe that divine inspiration means that it is devoid of myth and symbol. At the same time that it is inspired, it is also culturally-conditioned. That in no way erodes the role of God in the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptural witness points to God working in and through culture, and human experience. It also involves divine use of all types of literature, including allegory, legend, myth, and symbol. Because God is sovereign, we cannot limit the means that He/She uses to communicate the divinely intended message.
Please join in dialogue with us as we ponder on the nature and role of Scripture, both in our individual spiritual journey, as well as in the life of the gathered community. Your input will be very helpful.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Why do we refer to the Bible as ¨the Word of God?¨ There can be many answers to that question. One person can answer ¨Because God wrote it.¨ I would ask ¨Really?¨ Another person might respond by saying that ¨God inspired it.¨ Then the question would be ¨What does ´inspired´ mean?¨ Another response might possibly be ¨God speaks through it.¨ I would then ask ¨Does God speak through any other book or piece of literature, or is the voice of God found only in the Bible?¨
Whatever one´s answers to those questions may be, the fact remains that each of those answers reflect certain assumptions and presuppositions that we all have about the Scriptures. Some people treat the Bible as a book that was written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. Others treat it as a book which was written passively by the individual authors as God controlled them in a mechanical and robotic manner. Others, yet, treat the Bible as if it were written in a cultural and historical vacuum, i.e. without any influence from the surrounding culture of the biblical writers or the historical events taking place at the time of writing.
I would like to pose a different set of questions for our consideration. Avery Dulles, who was a Professor of Theology at Woodstock College had issue with those who believed that the Bible must be purged of mythical and symbolic elements if its message is to be communicated to humanity in our time. But he also had problems with those who said that the Bible has no myth. Dulles defined myth as ¨symbolic narrative which deals with events attributed to superhuman, personalized agencies.¨
A provoking question that would anger many and please others is ¨Does the Bible contain myth?¨ The answer to that question would depend on what is meant by ¨myth.¨ Is Dulles´s definition of myth a correct one, or are there other possible definitions that we can work with?
We might ask if the presence of myth (however defined) in Scripture would diminish the element of divine inspiration. Would the content of myth and symbol lessen the authority and use of Scripture today?
This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. However, I do not believe that divine inspiration means that it is devoid of myth and symbol. At the same time that it is inspired, it is also culturally-conditioned. That in no way erodes the role of God in the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptural witness points to God working in and through culture, and human experience. It also involves divine use of all types of literature, including allegory, legend, myth, and symbol. Because God is sovereign, we cannot limit the means that He/She uses to communicate the divinely intended message.
Please join in dialogue with us as we ponder on the nature and role of Scripture, both in our individual spiritual journey, as well as in the life of the gathered community. Your input will be very helpful.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Theology: Church Centered or World Centered?If
For many centuries, the theological enterprise focused on defining doctrine for the benefit of the Church. In other words, theology was concerned with having Christians define their self-identity in terms of what they believed and practiced. For many Christians, theology was a way for the Church to till its own garden. Christians tended to think in terms of theology being "the queen of the sciences," i.e. the source of all truth found in the different branches of human knowledge such as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences. Whatever truth was found in these branches of human knowledge was considered to be derivative from and subservient to theology. It is safe to say that for a long time, the world (at least the Western part of it, i.e. Euro-America) was dominated by the arrogance of theological imperialism.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, there was a paradigm shift. The Church changed its posture. Instead of maintaining the attitude and mindset that society had to learn from the church, the notion that the Church had to learn from and interact with society came into vogue. Theology, instead of addressing issues which were almost exclusively church-related, began to address issues which were society-related. While the early part of the twentieth century witnessed the "Social Gospel," it was in the latter part of the century that theology began to seriously engage with social issues such as classism, sexism, and racism. It came to the point where social issues were interpreted in the light of theological postulates, that theology began to emerge from the experiences of of oppressed and suffering people. Liberation Theology, which emerged in the latter half of the 1960's in Latin America, and subsequently in other parts of the so-called "Third World," began to emphasize that oppression and suffering should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. No longer, was the thinking of its adherents and proponents, that theology should be used to shed light on these realities, but rather, that these realities should be used to shed light on how divine revelation was to be interpreted and understood.
Three questions come to mind as we continue to carry out the theological task in the twenty-first century. They are the following:
1. How open should we be in our theological views? If I may use the analogy of the mosquitoes and the window, I would ask, should we keep the window completely shut, even at the risk of suffocation, so that the mosquitoes (false doctrine and heresy) don't come in, should we have a screen on the windows, so that we can have a degree of fresh air, and still prevent the mosquitoes from coming in, or should we open up the windows without a screen and risk the mosquitoes and other elements to come in, in the name of "open-mindedness?" We need to be constantly wrestling with these options.
2. What socio-economic and socio-political system is our theology aligned with.? Do we subscribe to a theology which blesses and sanctions the existence of oppressive systems in the name of "stability?" Do we continue to allow for the celebration of Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day in our worship services, therefore directly or indirectly sanctioning the continuation of economic and military imperialism? Do we continue to fly our national flag alongside the Christian flag, not realizing that we are promoting an alliance between the Cross and the Sword? Or do we align our theology with a system which is seeking justice for all of its citizens by implementing free education, free health care, and at the very least, subsidized housing?
3. Should our theology be constructed, determined, and defined by the latest social trends? Is doing theology the task of the secular society or of the Church of Jesus Christ? Do we advocate for a "theology of accommodation," so that we can maintain large numbers of people and good finances in the Church? Is our theology determined and defined by the divine initiative of God's self-disclosure in Christ, or should it be socially engineered and constructed?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Nevertheless, as long as we seek to be faithful to Christ and to the message of the Gospel. we need to continue wrestling with them. The task of constructive theology is a never-ending one. We must constantly act and think theologically. There is no escape from this conondrum. I invite you to the continuous adventure of action-reflection.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
In the latter part of the twentieth century, there was a paradigm shift. The Church changed its posture. Instead of maintaining the attitude and mindset that society had to learn from the church, the notion that the Church had to learn from and interact with society came into vogue. Theology, instead of addressing issues which were almost exclusively church-related, began to address issues which were society-related. While the early part of the twentieth century witnessed the "Social Gospel," it was in the latter part of the century that theology began to seriously engage with social issues such as classism, sexism, and racism. It came to the point where social issues were interpreted in the light of theological postulates, that theology began to emerge from the experiences of of oppressed and suffering people. Liberation Theology, which emerged in the latter half of the 1960's in Latin America, and subsequently in other parts of the so-called "Third World," began to emphasize that oppression and suffering should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. No longer, was the thinking of its adherents and proponents, that theology should be used to shed light on these realities, but rather, that these realities should be used to shed light on how divine revelation was to be interpreted and understood.
Three questions come to mind as we continue to carry out the theological task in the twenty-first century. They are the following:
1. How open should we be in our theological views? If I may use the analogy of the mosquitoes and the window, I would ask, should we keep the window completely shut, even at the risk of suffocation, so that the mosquitoes (false doctrine and heresy) don't come in, should we have a screen on the windows, so that we can have a degree of fresh air, and still prevent the mosquitoes from coming in, or should we open up the windows without a screen and risk the mosquitoes and other elements to come in, in the name of "open-mindedness?" We need to be constantly wrestling with these options.
2. What socio-economic and socio-political system is our theology aligned with.? Do we subscribe to a theology which blesses and sanctions the existence of oppressive systems in the name of "stability?" Do we continue to allow for the celebration of Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day in our worship services, therefore directly or indirectly sanctioning the continuation of economic and military imperialism? Do we continue to fly our national flag alongside the Christian flag, not realizing that we are promoting an alliance between the Cross and the Sword? Or do we align our theology with a system which is seeking justice for all of its citizens by implementing free education, free health care, and at the very least, subsidized housing?
3. Should our theology be constructed, determined, and defined by the latest social trends? Is doing theology the task of the secular society or of the Church of Jesus Christ? Do we advocate for a "theology of accommodation," so that we can maintain large numbers of people and good finances in the Church? Is our theology determined and defined by the divine initiative of God's self-disclosure in Christ, or should it be socially engineered and constructed?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Nevertheless, as long as we seek to be faithful to Christ and to the message of the Gospel. we need to continue wrestling with them. The task of constructive theology is a never-ending one. We must constantly act and think theologically. There is no escape from this conondrum. I invite you to the continuous adventure of action-reflection.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective: Racial Paranoia
One of the many complex elements in dealing with the issue of racism is that of racial paranoia. When I speak of racial paranoia, I am addressing the matter of perceived racism as opposed to factual or proven racism. There are two extremes that I would emphasize relative to this.
First and I believe foremost, is the extreme of denial. There are many in our time who believe that institutional, systemic, and structural racism no longer exists. They believe that there may be relics or residue of individual racism, but that racism in terms of systemic or structural character has disappeared. They tend to accuse those who deal with the reality of continued racism of "playing the race card." By making such allegations, they believe that they can exonerate their guilty consciences and pretend that "every thing is okay now." In this manner, they can continue with their "blame the victim" game by saying that people who deal with and respond to racism are just "using that as an excuse to not get off their ass and not get a job, just remaining lazy by blaming the system." This position, I believe, is the epitome of denial and suppression.
At best it is naive and self-delusional, and at worst, it amounts to total dishonesty.
At the other extreme are those who tend to blame every social malady on racism. They attribute every failure and setback in their lives to racial actions, attitudes, and policy. Even when it is more than obvious that factors other than racism are present, they will, indeed, continue to "play the race card." They tend to be suspicious of all members of the oppressing community, and also believe that every Caucasian person is "out to get them." While I, as a black Puerto Rican, continue to affirm and insist that we non-Caucasian people should be cautious and suspicious of Caucasian people who agree with us, and who appear to have our best interests at heart, I do not promote the mentality of racial paranoia which leads us to live our lives as "hypocrite sniffers." As a member of the oppressed community, I know from both biblical and secular history, as well as from personal experience, that there are times, exceptional as they may be, when people from both communities (oppressing and oppressed) need to come together to form both ethical and strategic alliances. I also know from history and personal experience, that there are times when certain individuals of the oppressing community can be trusted more than members of the oppressed community.
John L. Jackson, Jr. says, "Race relations have irrevocably changed in the last, restless half century of our country's history, and this pop-cultural tidbit highlights some of the radical differences between the contemporary reality or race relations and earlier forms of American racism (John L. Jackson, Jr, Racial Paranoia. New York: Basic Civitas, 2008, p. xiv)." The basic question for Jackson would be if he means that racism has disappeared, diminished, or taken on a different form?
How does theology address the issue of racial paranoia? We can only answer that question by asking on the one hand, which socio-economic and political system is our theology aligned with, and on the other hand, how does our theology address the issue of racism? The thrust of both Scripture and theology is to identify, unmask, and denounce racism along with all other social ills. Theology calls for us to get to the root of the issue, rather than dealing with just the symptoms and different manifestations of racism, be they open or subtle. Ethical theology calls for us to confront this issue with honesty and integrity, rather than with just a superficial or "Johnny, don't do that" approach.
Please share with us what you think about how to keep in a balanced tension the reality of racism on the one hand, and the reality of continued racism on the other. Your input will be very helpful to us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
First and I believe foremost, is the extreme of denial. There are many in our time who believe that institutional, systemic, and structural racism no longer exists. They believe that there may be relics or residue of individual racism, but that racism in terms of systemic or structural character has disappeared. They tend to accuse those who deal with the reality of continued racism of "playing the race card." By making such allegations, they believe that they can exonerate their guilty consciences and pretend that "every thing is okay now." In this manner, they can continue with their "blame the victim" game by saying that people who deal with and respond to racism are just "using that as an excuse to not get off their ass and not get a job, just remaining lazy by blaming the system." This position, I believe, is the epitome of denial and suppression.
At best it is naive and self-delusional, and at worst, it amounts to total dishonesty.
At the other extreme are those who tend to blame every social malady on racism. They attribute every failure and setback in their lives to racial actions, attitudes, and policy. Even when it is more than obvious that factors other than racism are present, they will, indeed, continue to "play the race card." They tend to be suspicious of all members of the oppressing community, and also believe that every Caucasian person is "out to get them." While I, as a black Puerto Rican, continue to affirm and insist that we non-Caucasian people should be cautious and suspicious of Caucasian people who agree with us, and who appear to have our best interests at heart, I do not promote the mentality of racial paranoia which leads us to live our lives as "hypocrite sniffers." As a member of the oppressed community, I know from both biblical and secular history, as well as from personal experience, that there are times, exceptional as they may be, when people from both communities (oppressing and oppressed) need to come together to form both ethical and strategic alliances. I also know from history and personal experience, that there are times when certain individuals of the oppressing community can be trusted more than members of the oppressed community.
John L. Jackson, Jr. says, "Race relations have irrevocably changed in the last, restless half century of our country's history, and this pop-cultural tidbit highlights some of the radical differences between the contemporary reality or race relations and earlier forms of American racism (John L. Jackson, Jr, Racial Paranoia. New York: Basic Civitas, 2008, p. xiv)." The basic question for Jackson would be if he means that racism has disappeared, diminished, or taken on a different form?
How does theology address the issue of racial paranoia? We can only answer that question by asking on the one hand, which socio-economic and political system is our theology aligned with, and on the other hand, how does our theology address the issue of racism? The thrust of both Scripture and theology is to identify, unmask, and denounce racism along with all other social ills. Theology calls for us to get to the root of the issue, rather than dealing with just the symptoms and different manifestations of racism, be they open or subtle. Ethical theology calls for us to confront this issue with honesty and integrity, rather than with just a superficial or "Johnny, don't do that" approach.
Please share with us what you think about how to keep in a balanced tension the reality of racism on the one hand, and the reality of continued racism on the other. Your input will be very helpful to us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, October 30, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspecitve: Back to Africa
One of the many complex elements in addressing the issue of racism from a biblical/theological perspective is that of whether justice can be better served for African American people by having them return to their country of origin or remaining in the land in which they were enslaved and subjected to discrimination and all types of oppression by the white power structure in the U.S.A. It is very complex in that it raises the question of whether God's justice is limited to a particular geographical location or is it universal. This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that God's justice is not limited by geographical boundaries, but is operative wherever there is inhumanity, injustice, or any other type of oppression.
The year 1919 was marked by brutal and bloody racial violence, which came to be known as the Red Summer of 1919. From May to September of that year, major race riots broke out in Charleston, Knoxville, Omaha, Washington, Chicago, Longview, Texas, and Phillips County. All told, twenty-five riots took place (William Tuttle, Jr., Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. New York: Atheneum, 1970, p.14).
It was in these conditions that Marcus Garvey built the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) into a mass organization-the largest Black nationalist organization to date at that time. Assessments of Garvey vary considerably. For Black nationalists, Garvey's success is evidence of the viability of nationalism. They see Garvey as the link between as the link between the nineteenth-century nationalists such as Martin Delany, and the nationalists revival of the 1960's. This assessment is shared by left-wing nationalists who are critical of many of Garvey's ideas, but stress his importance in establishing Black organization (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p . 101).
The West Indian historian and critic C. L. R. James expressed this view in the 1980's, reversing his earlier hostility go Garvey: "Garvey was a remarkable man. Before Garvey there was no black movement anywhere. Since Garvey, there has been a continuous Black movement. All of us stand on the shoulders of Marcus Garvey. There is plenty to say against Garvey, but nothing you say against Garvey can ever weaken the things , the positive things that Garvey did (C. L. R. James's 80th Birthday Lectures , eds. Margaret Busby and Darcus Howe. London: Black Rose Press 1984, p. 58)."
Garvey's increased race consciousness was not accompanied by a rejection of the other ideas that he shared with Booker T. Washington, though. Black capitalism and self-help were now combined with the slogan "Back to Africa." Toward that end, the UNIA promoted racial consciousness and established a number of business ventures. The most important of these was the Black Star Line endeavor which Garvey set up in 1919. The Black Star Line drew the savings of thousands of Blacks into a plan to form a fleet of Black-owned cruise ships for transoceanic travel, especially transit to Africa (Stein, the World of Marcus Garvey, p. 63).
The "Back to Africa" mentality is complex. For one, there is the question of what particular country in Africa would African Americans return to? And then there is the question of whether the struggle for justice can be carried out concomitantly in both the African continent and in the African Diaspora in the U.S.A?
As I stated earlier, from a biblical/theological standpoint, God's justice is not limited or confined by geographical considerations. Yes, the struggle must continue to liberate the African continent from the effects of colonization, and continuous exploitation by Euro-America. On the other hand, justice must be served to Africa's children who are scattered abroad in the U.S.A., the Caribbean, and elsewhere. It is not my place to evaluate the merits of returning to Africa, but rather to proclaim that justice is to be meted out wherever Africa's children are found. The Struggle Continues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The year 1919 was marked by brutal and bloody racial violence, which came to be known as the Red Summer of 1919. From May to September of that year, major race riots broke out in Charleston, Knoxville, Omaha, Washington, Chicago, Longview, Texas, and Phillips County. All told, twenty-five riots took place (William Tuttle, Jr., Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. New York: Atheneum, 1970, p.14).
It was in these conditions that Marcus Garvey built the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) into a mass organization-the largest Black nationalist organization to date at that time. Assessments of Garvey vary considerably. For Black nationalists, Garvey's success is evidence of the viability of nationalism. They see Garvey as the link between as the link between the nineteenth-century nationalists such as Martin Delany, and the nationalists revival of the 1960's. This assessment is shared by left-wing nationalists who are critical of many of Garvey's ideas, but stress his importance in establishing Black organization (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p . 101).
The West Indian historian and critic C. L. R. James expressed this view in the 1980's, reversing his earlier hostility go Garvey: "Garvey was a remarkable man. Before Garvey there was no black movement anywhere. Since Garvey, there has been a continuous Black movement. All of us stand on the shoulders of Marcus Garvey. There is plenty to say against Garvey, but nothing you say against Garvey can ever weaken the things , the positive things that Garvey did (C. L. R. James's 80th Birthday Lectures , eds. Margaret Busby and Darcus Howe. London: Black Rose Press 1984, p. 58)."
Garvey's increased race consciousness was not accompanied by a rejection of the other ideas that he shared with Booker T. Washington, though. Black capitalism and self-help were now combined with the slogan "Back to Africa." Toward that end, the UNIA promoted racial consciousness and established a number of business ventures. The most important of these was the Black Star Line endeavor which Garvey set up in 1919. The Black Star Line drew the savings of thousands of Blacks into a plan to form a fleet of Black-owned cruise ships for transoceanic travel, especially transit to Africa (Stein, the World of Marcus Garvey, p. 63).
The "Back to Africa" mentality is complex. For one, there is the question of what particular country in Africa would African Americans return to? And then there is the question of whether the struggle for justice can be carried out concomitantly in both the African continent and in the African Diaspora in the U.S.A?
As I stated earlier, from a biblical/theological standpoint, God's justice is not limited or confined by geographical considerations. Yes, the struggle must continue to liberate the African continent from the effects of colonization, and continuous exploitation by Euro-America. On the other hand, justice must be served to Africa's children who are scattered abroad in the U.S.A., the Caribbean, and elsewhere. It is not my place to evaluate the merits of returning to Africa, but rather to proclaim that justice is to be meted out wherever Africa's children are found. The Struggle Continues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, October 23, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective: Accommodation, Racism, and Resistance
As I've intimated in the last several essays, it is very easy for one to assume that because the institution of slavery has been dismantled, that institutional, structural, and systemic racism are also no longer in existence. It is the purpose of these essays to demonstrate that the notion of the non-existence of slavery is a self-delusional myth. To equate racism exclusively with slavery is to miss the point by disregarding the different manifestations of continued racism, both individual and systemic.
The defeat of Reconstruction and the Populist movement saw the reemergence of two currents within Black politics: accommodation and emigrationism. The growth of both currents was rooted in the disillusionment that set in after the failure of Radical Reconstruction and represented a retreat from the struggle for Black rights in the United States. They both expressed the frustation and and aspirations of the small and embattled Black middle class (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 83).
The most prominent spokesmen for separation in this period were Alexander Crummell and Bishop Henry McNeal Turner. Crummell was born free in 1819. He typified the influence of Victorian civilization on the Black nationalist ideology and gave voice to a common belief that Africans were universally lacking in 'civilization,' which they would have to acquire in order to avoid the fate of the American Indian (Wilson Jeremiah Moses, The Golden Age of Black Nationalism, 1850-1925. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, p. 59). To this end, Crummell spent twenty years, from 1853 to 1873, in Liberia, where he found that "Darkness covers the land.....human sacrifices, and devil-worship is devouring men, women, and little children (Moses, p. 67).
Bishop Henry McNeal Turner did not share Crummell's complete rejection of political struggle. Turner had thrown himself into the struggle for emancipation during the Civil War, and was appointed an army chaplain by President Lincoln in an effort to recruit Black soldiers. In 1868, he was elected to the Georgia state legislature, but when it convened, the first order of business was to disqualify Blacks from office. Denied his seat, Turner made an impassioned speech summing up the disillusionment he shared with thousands of Blacks in the possibility of achieving equality (Shawki, p. 84).
Alfonso Pinkney writes: " Never in the history of the world, has a man been arraigned before a body clothed with legislative, judicial, or executive function, charged with the offence of being a darker hue than his fellow men...Cases may be found where men have been deprived of their rights for crimes or misdemeanors; but it has remained for the State of Georgia, in the very heart of the nineteenth century,to call a man before the bar, and there charge him with an act for which he is no more responsible than for the head which he carries upon his shoulders. We Blacks have pioneered civilization here; we have built up your country, we have worked in your fields, and garnered your harvests, for two hundred and fifty years! We are willing to let the dead past bury its dead; but we asking you now for our Rights. The Black man cannot protect a country if the country doesn't protect him; and if tomorrow, a war should arise, I would not raise a musket to defend a country where my manhood was denied (Alfonso Pinkney, Red, Black, and Green: Black Nationalism in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p.23)."
Following the "Great Migration" of Blacks to Northern cities in the early decades of the twentieth century (when approximately one million or 10 percent of the total Black population of the country, moved from the rural South to the Northern cities), the presence of African Americans as a substantial section of workers in the main U.S. industries was established (Pinkney, p.37). This social transformation of the Black population laid the basis for Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association, the first mass urban-based movement of Blacks, and later, for the rise of industrial unions and socialist and communist parties to which the African American struggle for equal rights was crucial (Shawki, p.98).
As we can see from what has been so far, and will be presented in subsequent essays, the phenomenon of racism continues. It has not disappeared by any stretch of the imagination, and is not likely to disappear any time soon.
The thrust of the Gospel message and of Liberation Theology serve as resources for hope in the midst of the struggle for genuine emancipation. While some may continue to see religion (especially Christianity) as the "opiate of the masses," this writer sees in the Gospel as the most effective mechanism of confronting racism as attitude, ideology, and socio-economic-political reality. The Gospel, rather than putting us to sleep, gives us the impetus to agitate, educate, organize, and mobilize against this demonic force. It is the Gospel which gives us the gumption to continue proclaiming "down and the hell with racism." Archbishop Desmund Tutu has served as a modern day example of what means for the Body of Christ to be immersed in the war against racism. Bishop Henry McNeal Turner is also an example of what it means for Christians to fight against this political and social evil. The Struggle Continues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, October 19, 2015
Racism in A Biblical and Theological Perspective: Reconstruction and Populism
The Civil War destroyed slavery in the South, but it did not immediately establish a new political and economic order in its place. The next three decades witnessed an intense, often violent, political struggle to determine the character of the South. In the end, white supremacy was reestablished, but this was not a foregone conclusion (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 63).
Today it is widely accepted that all whites had in interest in disfranchising the newly freed Black population and that poor whites provided the main impetus for reaction. C. Vann Woodward argues "the escalation of lynching, disfranchisement and proscription reflected concessions to the white lower class" on the part of the upper class (C. Vann Woodward, American Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Dialogue. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1964, p. 239).
Restricting Black rights was a precondition for lower-class winning rights for themselves. The barriers of racial discrimination mounted in direct ratio with the tide of political democracy among whites (Woodward, p. 211). Various left-wing academics share the thrust of this analysis, and therefore draw the inevitable conclusion that racist ideology among the mass of whites was the cause of continued Black oppression (Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race: The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America. New York: Verso, 1997. Reluctant Reformers.)
The political conclusion of such an approach is simple: the majority of whites, if not all whites, have a stake in maintaining racism. The prospects for Black and white unity are therefore slim, if not altogether excluded (Shawki, p. 64).
In the absence of the institution of slavery, on the one hand, and the presence and continuation of different forms and manifestations of white supremacy on the other, we ask then, how do we evaluate this condition from a biblical and theological point of view? While the Scriptures nowhere directly address the issue of racial or ethnic supremacy (depending, of course, on one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture), the thrust of the Gospel is to not only denounce this notion, but also to dismantle any structures or policies resulting from this notion. While in the past, the certain portions of the Bible have been cited to justify and support white supremacy, it does not take a rocket scientist to detect that this hermeneutical approach is a skewed one reflecting the warped minds of those who wish to read white supremacy into the Scriptures.
Are we then, expected to rejoice in the fact that slavery has been abolished while white supremacy continues to be perpetuated? Hell no! Anything that continues to divide people from each other along the lines of class, ethnicity/race, or gender, runs contrary to the grain of Scripture and theology. While historical Western theology has maintained in very insidious ways the notions of white supremacy, Liberation Theology, emerging from the so-called "Third World" countries, deconstructs this lunacy and ethno-centric self-delusion. As long as this notion of white supremacy continues to exist, even if sub-consciously, and unintentionally, we have the theological task to dismantle any biblical hermeneutic which seeks to perpetuate racist attitudes and systems.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Today it is widely accepted that all whites had in interest in disfranchising the newly freed Black population and that poor whites provided the main impetus for reaction. C. Vann Woodward argues "the escalation of lynching, disfranchisement and proscription reflected concessions to the white lower class" on the part of the upper class (C. Vann Woodward, American Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Dialogue. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1964, p. 239).
Restricting Black rights was a precondition for lower-class winning rights for themselves. The barriers of racial discrimination mounted in direct ratio with the tide of political democracy among whites (Woodward, p. 211). Various left-wing academics share the thrust of this analysis, and therefore draw the inevitable conclusion that racist ideology among the mass of whites was the cause of continued Black oppression (Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race: The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America. New York: Verso, 1997. Reluctant Reformers.)
The political conclusion of such an approach is simple: the majority of whites, if not all whites, have a stake in maintaining racism. The prospects for Black and white unity are therefore slim, if not altogether excluded (Shawki, p. 64).
In the absence of the institution of slavery, on the one hand, and the presence and continuation of different forms and manifestations of white supremacy on the other, we ask then, how do we evaluate this condition from a biblical and theological point of view? While the Scriptures nowhere directly address the issue of racial or ethnic supremacy (depending, of course, on one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture), the thrust of the Gospel is to not only denounce this notion, but also to dismantle any structures or policies resulting from this notion. While in the past, the certain portions of the Bible have been cited to justify and support white supremacy, it does not take a rocket scientist to detect that this hermeneutical approach is a skewed one reflecting the warped minds of those who wish to read white supremacy into the Scriptures.
Are we then, expected to rejoice in the fact that slavery has been abolished while white supremacy continues to be perpetuated? Hell no! Anything that continues to divide people from each other along the lines of class, ethnicity/race, or gender, runs contrary to the grain of Scripture and theology. While historical Western theology has maintained in very insidious ways the notions of white supremacy, Liberation Theology, emerging from the so-called "Third World" countries, deconstructs this lunacy and ethno-centric self-delusion. As long as this notion of white supremacy continues to exist, even if sub-consciously, and unintentionally, we have the theological task to dismantle any biblical hermeneutic which seeks to perpetuate racist attitudes and systems.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective-The Civil War
This essay is designed to focus on that major conflict which came as a result of among other things, the issue of slavery. There were issues of economics and social class in this war. The relationship between racism and slavery was very clear. By the time of the Civil War, both issues went hand in hand.
The election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 1860, was greeted with horror by the Southern slaveholders. For the Southern ruling class, a Republican presidency was a "revolution" threatening to "destroy their social system," above all slavery (James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 245).
Rather than submit to Republican rule, they decided to secede from the Union. In February 1861, a convention of slave owners established the Confederate States of America (CSA), and elected a provisional government. The secession of eleven slave states precipitated a crisis that led to the outbreak of war between North and South (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 52).
The Civil War was a titanic four-year struggle that had a profound effect on the United States. Often described as "the first modern war," it completed the bourgeois revolution of 1776. The war abolished slavery and as a continuation of the bourgeois revolution begun during the Revolution/founding period, swept away those obstacles to pure market relations in the North and West, and established the dominance of the cash nexus in social relations, making this perhaps the most purely bourgeois of all countries (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p.70).
The revolutionary nature of the war stemmed from the increasingly irreconcilable co-existence of Southern slave labor and an expanding Northern capitalism based on free wage labor. Karl Marx wrote, "The present struggle between the North and the South after the outbreak of war is nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other (Karl Marx, The Civil War in the United States," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 19. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1984, p. 150)
A cursory reading of American history will lead readers to believe that Lincoln had a moral problem with slavery and that this was the major reason for the Civil War. However, any in-depth and rigorous study will reveal that his real issue was the preservation of the Union, i.e. keeping the country as one, rather than having a divided nation. It will also be apparent to the reader that Lincoln did not believe in full equality between black and white people.
How do we approach the issue of the Civil War from a biblical and theological perspective? Both Scripture and theology seek to get to the root of the issue, i.e. the immorality of social injustice. The Civil War was carried out to maintain intact a social-economic system that thrived on the exploitation of the working class. This economic system, would by its very nature, widen the gap between "the haves and the have nots." Scripture and theology do not seek to appeal to expediency and convenience. Scripture and theology seek to call attention to all human forms of exploitation and injustice. From a biblical and theological standpoint, the Civil War was a "half-baked" measure in dealing with the issue of racism. The war just addressed the symptoms of the problem. Theology seeks to get to the root of the problem. The Civil War was carried out to avoid "rocking the boat." Theology seeks to "sink the boat" and replace it with another viable one. In other words, both Scripture and theology call for a radical overhaul of the economic, social, and political structures that oppress humankind in different ways.
True religion calls not only for the eradication of the system of chattel slavery, but also for the elimination of an oppressive economic, political and social system. May we be moved to respond to the clarion call of the Gospel for radical transformation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to respond to this essay and state your own perspectives.
The election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 1860, was greeted with horror by the Southern slaveholders. For the Southern ruling class, a Republican presidency was a "revolution" threatening to "destroy their social system," above all slavery (James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 245).
Rather than submit to Republican rule, they decided to secede from the Union. In February 1861, a convention of slave owners established the Confederate States of America (CSA), and elected a provisional government. The secession of eleven slave states precipitated a crisis that led to the outbreak of war between North and South (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 52).
The Civil War was a titanic four-year struggle that had a profound effect on the United States. Often described as "the first modern war," it completed the bourgeois revolution of 1776. The war abolished slavery and as a continuation of the bourgeois revolution begun during the Revolution/founding period, swept away those obstacles to pure market relations in the North and West, and established the dominance of the cash nexus in social relations, making this perhaps the most purely bourgeois of all countries (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p.70).
The revolutionary nature of the war stemmed from the increasingly irreconcilable co-existence of Southern slave labor and an expanding Northern capitalism based on free wage labor. Karl Marx wrote, "The present struggle between the North and the South after the outbreak of war is nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other (Karl Marx, The Civil War in the United States," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 19. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1984, p. 150)
A cursory reading of American history will lead readers to believe that Lincoln had a moral problem with slavery and that this was the major reason for the Civil War. However, any in-depth and rigorous study will reveal that his real issue was the preservation of the Union, i.e. keeping the country as one, rather than having a divided nation. It will also be apparent to the reader that Lincoln did not believe in full equality between black and white people.
How do we approach the issue of the Civil War from a biblical and theological perspective? Both Scripture and theology seek to get to the root of the issue, i.e. the immorality of social injustice. The Civil War was carried out to maintain intact a social-economic system that thrived on the exploitation of the working class. This economic system, would by its very nature, widen the gap between "the haves and the have nots." Scripture and theology do not seek to appeal to expediency and convenience. Scripture and theology seek to call attention to all human forms of exploitation and injustice. From a biblical and theological standpoint, the Civil War was a "half-baked" measure in dealing with the issue of racism. The war just addressed the symptoms of the problem. Theology seeks to get to the root of the problem. The Civil War was carried out to avoid "rocking the boat." Theology seeks to "sink the boat" and replace it with another viable one. In other words, both Scripture and theology call for a radical overhaul of the economic, social, and political structures that oppress humankind in different ways.
True religion calls not only for the eradication of the system of chattel slavery, but also for the elimination of an oppressive economic, political and social system. May we be moved to respond to the clarion call of the Gospel for radical transformation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to respond to this essay and state your own perspectives.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
The Voice of God and the Voice of the Church: Are They One and the Same?
One of the various issues which exist in faith communities is the issue of whether the voice of the community (especially the leadership) is the same as the voice of the one they seek to serve and worship, i.e. God. In the Jewish community, the prophetic word was considered the same as "the word of the Lord." The written witness to the prophetic word, i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and the commentaries which came afterwards, i.e. the Talmud and other writings, were also considered to be "the word of God" in written form. In the Islamic (Muslim) community, the oral word of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the subsequent written document, i,e, the Holy Qu'aran, we considered to be the word of Allah speaking to the community.
In the Christian community, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are considered to be "the Word of God" in written form. But a question which arises often time among Christians is whether the Church and its leadership can be considered the oracle of God, i.e. mouthpiece through which the word and will of God are made manifest. That is a very difficult question to answer, since different churches have different views and practices concerning that. The Catholic Church believes itself with its leadership (magisterium) to be the "depository" of divine revelation. They also believe that when its main leader, the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, that he is speaking infallibly. They believe that the Pope is the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church believes that God speaks through the Scriptures and the Traditions from which the Scriptures emerged. The Protestant churches believe that God speaks primarily, if not exclusively through the Scriptures.
There is some difficulty with the Protestant position. While most, of not all, Protestant churches believe that the Bible is the primary or exclusive source of faith and practice, they differ with each other as to the interpretation and meaning of "what the Bible says." They also differ with each other as to the correct policy of interpretation regarding leadership, style of government, and policy.
If we believe that the existing leadership in our churches is "placed by God," do we not then, have a moral obligation and responsibility to "follow the leader?" If the leadership of the Church is divinely appointed, should we not take their word to be "the word of the Lord"?
In an individualistically oriented society such as the one we live in (USA), it is very difficult to equate the voice of the Church with the voice of God. We are given to so many divergent views and perspectives. Many people have the attitude that "I believe in God but not in the Church." Many people disassociate themselves from "organized religion," because they believe that it is corrupt. They prefer to go the route of having an individual "pipeline" to heaven. In essence, this position opens up the door for "do your thing, do what you like to do, I can't tell you who to sock it to." Such persons believe that "organized religion," twists and corrupts God's intentions for humanity.
This writer humbly and respectfully submits that while there may be corruption and danger in "organized religion," there is as much danger in individualism. Each person believes and practices that which is "right" in their own eyes. They hold on to the view of "let a thousand flowers bloom." The biggest danger is when they have the attitude of "everybody thinks they're right, but I KNOW they're wrong.
I also humbly and respectfully reject the notion of "I believe in the Bible, but not in the Church." This position is contradictory in that the Bible was written by the Church, both Jewish and Christian. To set aside the voice of God which comes to us through the Scriptures, the Traditions, and the Church, and replace it with our own individual "voices" that we each hear, is to open up the doors for individualized and privatistic religion.
This type of "lone ranger" spirituality lends itself to arrogance and presumptuousness.
Please share with us your view as to whether the voice of God and the voice of the Church are one and the same, or are they two different voices.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In the Christian community, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are considered to be "the Word of God" in written form. But a question which arises often time among Christians is whether the Church and its leadership can be considered the oracle of God, i.e. mouthpiece through which the word and will of God are made manifest. That is a very difficult question to answer, since different churches have different views and practices concerning that. The Catholic Church believes itself with its leadership (magisterium) to be the "depository" of divine revelation. They also believe that when its main leader, the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, that he is speaking infallibly. They believe that the Pope is the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church believes that God speaks through the Scriptures and the Traditions from which the Scriptures emerged. The Protestant churches believe that God speaks primarily, if not exclusively through the Scriptures.
There is some difficulty with the Protestant position. While most, of not all, Protestant churches believe that the Bible is the primary or exclusive source of faith and practice, they differ with each other as to the interpretation and meaning of "what the Bible says." They also differ with each other as to the correct policy of interpretation regarding leadership, style of government, and policy.
If we believe that the existing leadership in our churches is "placed by God," do we not then, have a moral obligation and responsibility to "follow the leader?" If the leadership of the Church is divinely appointed, should we not take their word to be "the word of the Lord"?
In an individualistically oriented society such as the one we live in (USA), it is very difficult to equate the voice of the Church with the voice of God. We are given to so many divergent views and perspectives. Many people have the attitude that "I believe in God but not in the Church." Many people disassociate themselves from "organized religion," because they believe that it is corrupt. They prefer to go the route of having an individual "pipeline" to heaven. In essence, this position opens up the door for "do your thing, do what you like to do, I can't tell you who to sock it to." Such persons believe that "organized religion," twists and corrupts God's intentions for humanity.
This writer humbly and respectfully submits that while there may be corruption and danger in "organized religion," there is as much danger in individualism. Each person believes and practices that which is "right" in their own eyes. They hold on to the view of "let a thousand flowers bloom." The biggest danger is when they have the attitude of "everybody thinks they're right, but I KNOW they're wrong.
I also humbly and respectfully reject the notion of "I believe in the Bible, but not in the Church." This position is contradictory in that the Bible was written by the Church, both Jewish and Christian. To set aside the voice of God which comes to us through the Scriptures, the Traditions, and the Church, and replace it with our own individual "voices" that we each hear, is to open up the doors for individualized and privatistic religion.
This type of "lone ranger" spirituality lends itself to arrogance and presumptuousness.
Please share with us your view as to whether the voice of God and the voice of the Church are one and the same, or are they two different voices.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective- Abolitionism
In this essay, I would like to address the issue of the abolition of the institution of chattel slavery in relation to the attempt of abolishing and totally eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs. On the surface, the issue of reducing or eliminating racism seems like wishful thinking. One can then ask if eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs is a prerequisite for eliminating racist structures and systems, or is it the other way around?
One can argue that history has shown us that racist structures have to be eliminated in order to eradicate the racist attitudes and beliefs. Many of those who believe this will point to the elimination of the institution of slavery as evidence. However, the mere fact that institutional, structural, and systemic racism remain intact, is a witness to the fallacy of this naive myth.
The three decades leading to the Civil War saw the birth and growth of a mass social movement for the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement became a significant force in U.S. politics; it involved tens of thousands of active members, and mobilized and influenced even greater numbers. The abolitionist movement remains one of the most important movements in this country (Ahmed Shawki: Black Liberation and Socialism, p.37).
The key features of this movement are the following: its explosive growth from a marginal movement to one involving tens of thousands; its political diversity as illustrated in the debates and competing approaches within the movement; and its points of intersection and divergence within the currents of Black separatism and radicalism both before and after the Civil War (Shawki, p. 37).
In its early years, the abolitionist movement was marginalized, ridiculed, and attacked. As Michael Goldfield notes: " At first, abolitionists were denounced throughout the country, especially in New England. They were stoned, had their meetings broken up, were arrested, and were threatened to death (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p. 70)."
Herbert Atheker argues: "The most avid opponents of of abolitionism were the rich-slave owners and their lackeys, the merchants, and their servitors, the dominant figures in politics, the press, the churches, and the schools (Herbert Atheker, Abolitionism, A Revolutionary Movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989, p.41)."
As I stated earlier, my purpose in covering abolitionism in this essay is to link it with the quest for the eradication of racism. Racism takes on different forms, i.e. individual attitudes, collective structures and systems, social policies, etc.
Can racism be abolished? This writer believes that it can, but that it is a long historical process which requires a massive movement of people who are committed to overhaul racist structures and systems. As a Christian minister and theologian, I can easily fall back on the notion that a personal encounter with Jesus the Christ will eliminate racism. However, the history of Christianity does not demonstrate that. The first century Church had its own problems with ethnic discrimination as demonstrated by the issue of the Gentile widows of the Church not being as well provided for as the Jewish widows of the Church. The Apostle Peter, who followed Jesus around for three years, and was one of the main, if not the main leader of the Church in its inception, had to be shown a vision by God in order to enable him to come to grips with his own negative attitude towards and stereotypes of the Gentiles.
I believe that we can start by acknowledging that there is racism within the Church itself, both in individual attitudes, and in our corporate ecclesiastical policies. How many people "of color" are included in the top leadership of the predominantly Caucasian middle-class denominations and individual congregations? How many theological institutions reflect a significant number of African-American and Hispanic members of their faculties? How much of the theological curriculum reflects the needs and concerns of the community "of color?" Why is that 11 A.M. on Sunday mornings is still the most segregated hour in America?
The abolition of racism requires both a political and a theological will. As stated before, it also requires a massive movement of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are committed to the task of overhauling racist structures and systems. This task requires going over and beyond rhetorical noise and "bla, bla, bla." It requires more than cliches and slogans. It requires much more than settling for a smile from a white person to a non-white person. It requires doing away with platitudes and paternalistic condescension. We need to go over and beyond singing "Jesus Loves the Little Children." This massive movement of people needs to say "hell no" in no uncertain terms to racism. The Church is called to repent of its own racism, and to enter the struggle for the total elimination of racism in all its forms.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to share your own comments
One can argue that history has shown us that racist structures have to be eliminated in order to eradicate the racist attitudes and beliefs. Many of those who believe this will point to the elimination of the institution of slavery as evidence. However, the mere fact that institutional, structural, and systemic racism remain intact, is a witness to the fallacy of this naive myth.
The three decades leading to the Civil War saw the birth and growth of a mass social movement for the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement became a significant force in U.S. politics; it involved tens of thousands of active members, and mobilized and influenced even greater numbers. The abolitionist movement remains one of the most important movements in this country (Ahmed Shawki: Black Liberation and Socialism, p.37).
The key features of this movement are the following: its explosive growth from a marginal movement to one involving tens of thousands; its political diversity as illustrated in the debates and competing approaches within the movement; and its points of intersection and divergence within the currents of Black separatism and radicalism both before and after the Civil War (Shawki, p. 37).
In its early years, the abolitionist movement was marginalized, ridiculed, and attacked. As Michael Goldfield notes: " At first, abolitionists were denounced throughout the country, especially in New England. They were stoned, had their meetings broken up, were arrested, and were threatened to death (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p. 70)."
Herbert Atheker argues: "The most avid opponents of of abolitionism were the rich-slave owners and their lackeys, the merchants, and their servitors, the dominant figures in politics, the press, the churches, and the schools (Herbert Atheker, Abolitionism, A Revolutionary Movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989, p.41)."
As I stated earlier, my purpose in covering abolitionism in this essay is to link it with the quest for the eradication of racism. Racism takes on different forms, i.e. individual attitudes, collective structures and systems, social policies, etc.
Can racism be abolished? This writer believes that it can, but that it is a long historical process which requires a massive movement of people who are committed to overhaul racist structures and systems. As a Christian minister and theologian, I can easily fall back on the notion that a personal encounter with Jesus the Christ will eliminate racism. However, the history of Christianity does not demonstrate that. The first century Church had its own problems with ethnic discrimination as demonstrated by the issue of the Gentile widows of the Church not being as well provided for as the Jewish widows of the Church. The Apostle Peter, who followed Jesus around for three years, and was one of the main, if not the main leader of the Church in its inception, had to be shown a vision by God in order to enable him to come to grips with his own negative attitude towards and stereotypes of the Gentiles.
I believe that we can start by acknowledging that there is racism within the Church itself, both in individual attitudes, and in our corporate ecclesiastical policies. How many people "of color" are included in the top leadership of the predominantly Caucasian middle-class denominations and individual congregations? How many theological institutions reflect a significant number of African-American and Hispanic members of their faculties? How much of the theological curriculum reflects the needs and concerns of the community "of color?" Why is that 11 A.M. on Sunday mornings is still the most segregated hour in America?
The abolition of racism requires both a political and a theological will. As stated before, it also requires a massive movement of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are committed to the task of overhauling racist structures and systems. This task requires going over and beyond rhetorical noise and "bla, bla, bla." It requires more than cliches and slogans. It requires much more than settling for a smile from a white person to a non-white person. It requires doing away with platitudes and paternalistic condescension. We need to go over and beyond singing "Jesus Loves the Little Children." This massive movement of people needs to say "hell no" in no uncertain terms to racism. The Church is called to repent of its own racism, and to enter the struggle for the total elimination of racism in all its forms.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to share your own comments
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Framework-Slavery
One of the many manifestations of racism is that of slavery. As I mentioned in an earlier essay, racism can be defined as the attitude or belief that one ethnic group or race is inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to others. Those who believe this also believe that because of their supposed "superiority" they have the God-given right to relegate the supposed "inferior" groups to a lower social class status, including, but not limited to that of slavery.
In this essay, I will focus on slavery as a manifestation in the U.S.A. Some may object to this because to them "slavery is a thing of the past," and "institutional slavery no longer exists." Others will object because they don't like to be reminded that there is a discrepancy between the claim to freedom on the one hand, and the fact that many of those who were slaves, fought for those freedoms which we now enjoy. One writer referred to slavery as the "peculiar institution."
The labor of Blacks, forced to come to the New World as slaves, was essential to the economic development not only of the new colonies, whether in the Caribbean, Latin America, or North America, but also the major powers of the Old World. But slavery did not come innocent of ideological trappings. A historically distinct ideology designed to justify and maintain the oppression of the slaves developed with the rise of the Atlantic slave trade (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006, p.18).
Racism and racial oppression have been features of everyday life for Blacks in the United States for more than 350 years. But the persistence of racism is not inevitable, and racism, certainly in its modern form, has not always existed. Far from being the unavoidable result of interaction between different peoples, racism and racial oppression emerged in Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism. Ancient and feudal societies before capitalism were able to do without this form of oppression (Shawki, p.18).
Specifically, racism emerged in Western Europe and the New World as a consequence of the slave trade, as the ideological justification for slavery. Prejudice against strangers (xenophobia) and distinctions between "barbarian" and "civilized" existed, but did not take the form of modern racism (Shawki, p.18).
Northern American Indians whom European settlers first encountered had a conception of "outsider," i.e. non-members of the band, tribe, or nation. But the fact that it carried no racial connotation is shown not only by the practice of adoption of Indian captives of other nations into their tribe to replace lost loved ones, but also of the adoption of captured white Europeans as full-fledged members of the tribe (James Axell, White Indians of Colonial America. Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1979, p.8).
The question for us would be did racism lead to slavery or did slavery lead to racial attitudes of superiority? There have been arguments on both sides of this question. This writer does note support either one. This writer believes that both racism and the attendant institution of slavery are rooted in the divine-human rupture and also in the human-human rupture. The attitude of superiority on the basis of both race and social class is generated by a denial of all humankind being made in the image and likeness of God. While my position might seen crude and elementary to some, I humbly submit it for consideration and dialogue. Please feel free to submit your own comments, ideas, and opinions on this position or on the previous two positions described. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
In this essay, I will focus on slavery as a manifestation in the U.S.A. Some may object to this because to them "slavery is a thing of the past," and "institutional slavery no longer exists." Others will object because they don't like to be reminded that there is a discrepancy between the claim to freedom on the one hand, and the fact that many of those who were slaves, fought for those freedoms which we now enjoy. One writer referred to slavery as the "peculiar institution."
The labor of Blacks, forced to come to the New World as slaves, was essential to the economic development not only of the new colonies, whether in the Caribbean, Latin America, or North America, but also the major powers of the Old World. But slavery did not come innocent of ideological trappings. A historically distinct ideology designed to justify and maintain the oppression of the slaves developed with the rise of the Atlantic slave trade (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006, p.18).
Racism and racial oppression have been features of everyday life for Blacks in the United States for more than 350 years. But the persistence of racism is not inevitable, and racism, certainly in its modern form, has not always existed. Far from being the unavoidable result of interaction between different peoples, racism and racial oppression emerged in Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism. Ancient and feudal societies before capitalism were able to do without this form of oppression (Shawki, p.18).
Specifically, racism emerged in Western Europe and the New World as a consequence of the slave trade, as the ideological justification for slavery. Prejudice against strangers (xenophobia) and distinctions between "barbarian" and "civilized" existed, but did not take the form of modern racism (Shawki, p.18).
Northern American Indians whom European settlers first encountered had a conception of "outsider," i.e. non-members of the band, tribe, or nation. But the fact that it carried no racial connotation is shown not only by the practice of adoption of Indian captives of other nations into their tribe to replace lost loved ones, but also of the adoption of captured white Europeans as full-fledged members of the tribe (James Axell, White Indians of Colonial America. Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1979, p.8).
The question for us would be did racism lead to slavery or did slavery lead to racial attitudes of superiority? There have been arguments on both sides of this question. This writer does note support either one. This writer believes that both racism and the attendant institution of slavery are rooted in the divine-human rupture and also in the human-human rupture. The attitude of superiority on the basis of both race and social class is generated by a denial of all humankind being made in the image and likeness of God. While my position might seen crude and elementary to some, I humbly submit it for consideration and dialogue. Please feel free to submit your own comments, ideas, and opinions on this position or on the previous two positions described. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective- The Origins of Racism
In many of the classes that I have taught in the past (especially those of a historical nature), one of the things that I focus on is "Como fue que comenzo el bochinche (how did the gossip begin)?" I think that in order for us to address any vital issue that affects human relationships, that it is necessary to put them in a historical perspective. We ask questions of when, why, and how certain issues began. We might even ask who were the "key players" in the origins of the issue.
In the next several essays, I will address the historical origins of racism. The first of these historically-focused essays will be theological in nature, i.e. it will focus on a biblical-theological frame of reference. Some may object to this approach because they believe that biblical-theological history does not resonate with secular accounts of history in that it is culturally conditioned and biased. They subscribe to the notion that there is a differentiation between "history" as such, on the one hand, and on the other, "interpreted history." To these objections, I respond that all history is culturally conditioned and biased. There is no such thing as "objective and pure history." History is always written and told from the social standpoint of the person who is writing it. Every history is interpreted history, in that the meaning of it is assumed right from the beginning by the person who is narrating the events of the past.
A perfect example of what I am sayings is that when I was in seminary, the Church History professor had the audacity to say that in the Middle Ages there was nothing significant happening relative to Church history outside of Europe. I pointedly asked the professor if nothing was going on, or if it was that Church history was written for the most part, from the ethno-centric standpoint of the European Church historians. He responded and said to me "I wouldn't put that crassly." Well, crassly or not, I humbly and respectfully submit that historians write from an ethno-centric standpoint, even without realizing it, and in many cases, tend to arrogantly assume that they are rendering an objective and neutral history, devoid of bias and cultural presuppositions. To this I say "absolutely not."
I submit that racism began with the Fall. In other words, I believe that when sin first entered the world, racism, classism, sexism, and all the other "isms" crept in. Whether one believes that the biblical account of the Fall is a literal historical event, or a myth, or a legend, the point remains that from a theological standpoint, sin brought about a rupture in human relationships. No only was there a disruption between God and humankind, but there was also a disruption between humans. The man began to lord it over the woman, the rulers began to lord it over the ruled, social classes (castes, if you will) emerged, and eventually, people of lighter complexion of skin began to rule over people with darker complexion of skin. We see examples of the latter in India, where for many centuries, people of darker skin were at the bottom of the social "barrel."
Some may argue that economics gave way to racism, while others argue that racism generated an economic system that resulted in the emergence of "lower" and "higher" social classes. The argument is similar to the argument as to which came first between the chicken and the egg. In this case, the writer says neither. What came first was sin, i.e humankind's decision to live independently of God and of God-given standards.
If we fail to take seriously that nature of sin, we miss the point as to "how the gossip began." I invite and challenge you the reader to consider taking a theological approach to history. In this manner, the issue of the origins of social maladies like racism might take on a different meaning. We will be, in that case, looking at history from the standpoint of God's history. This is a golden opportunity to shift our lenses through which we view historical events.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
In the next several essays, I will address the historical origins of racism. The first of these historically-focused essays will be theological in nature, i.e. it will focus on a biblical-theological frame of reference. Some may object to this approach because they believe that biblical-theological history does not resonate with secular accounts of history in that it is culturally conditioned and biased. They subscribe to the notion that there is a differentiation between "history" as such, on the one hand, and on the other, "interpreted history." To these objections, I respond that all history is culturally conditioned and biased. There is no such thing as "objective and pure history." History is always written and told from the social standpoint of the person who is writing it. Every history is interpreted history, in that the meaning of it is assumed right from the beginning by the person who is narrating the events of the past.
A perfect example of what I am sayings is that when I was in seminary, the Church History professor had the audacity to say that in the Middle Ages there was nothing significant happening relative to Church history outside of Europe. I pointedly asked the professor if nothing was going on, or if it was that Church history was written for the most part, from the ethno-centric standpoint of the European Church historians. He responded and said to me "I wouldn't put that crassly." Well, crassly or not, I humbly and respectfully submit that historians write from an ethno-centric standpoint, even without realizing it, and in many cases, tend to arrogantly assume that they are rendering an objective and neutral history, devoid of bias and cultural presuppositions. To this I say "absolutely not."
I submit that racism began with the Fall. In other words, I believe that when sin first entered the world, racism, classism, sexism, and all the other "isms" crept in. Whether one believes that the biblical account of the Fall is a literal historical event, or a myth, or a legend, the point remains that from a theological standpoint, sin brought about a rupture in human relationships. No only was there a disruption between God and humankind, but there was also a disruption between humans. The man began to lord it over the woman, the rulers began to lord it over the ruled, social classes (castes, if you will) emerged, and eventually, people of lighter complexion of skin began to rule over people with darker complexion of skin. We see examples of the latter in India, where for many centuries, people of darker skin were at the bottom of the social "barrel."
Some may argue that economics gave way to racism, while others argue that racism generated an economic system that resulted in the emergence of "lower" and "higher" social classes. The argument is similar to the argument as to which came first between the chicken and the egg. In this case, the writer says neither. What came first was sin, i.e humankind's decision to live independently of God and of God-given standards.
If we fail to take seriously that nature of sin, we miss the point as to "how the gossip began." I invite and challenge you the reader to consider taking a theological approach to history. In this manner, the issue of the origins of social maladies like racism might take on a different meaning. We will be, in that case, looking at history from the standpoint of God's history. This is a golden opportunity to shift our lenses through which we view historical events.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective-Manifrestations of Racism
As I stated in the first essay, racism takes on many forms. In some instances, racism manifests itself in blatant and outward manners. In other instances, it takes on a more subtle character. The latter is somewhat more dangerous in that it becomes difficult to identify. There are conscious and unconscious forms of racism. Subsequently, there are both intentional and unintentional elements in racism,
One expression which is often used is "counter-racism," or "racism in reverse." This term is used to describe the attitudes of people who are members of ethnic-racial groups that have been discriminated and mistreated on the basis of ethnicity and race. These people are said to be "racist" against those who have oppressed them. They might even express hatred against their oppressors, and even do and say things which call for their annihilation.
Since economic, military, social, and political power usually accompanies racism, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of "racism in reverse." There may be cases, for example, where African Americans and Hispanics may hate Caucasian people for the way they have been brutalized and mistreated. And there just may be the extreme cases of African American and Hispanic people believing that they are inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to Caucasian people. However, since African Americans and Hispanics have not enjoyed the military, social, and political power that accompanies racism, it is almost moot to talk about "counter racism." So-called "minority groups" do not have the power base from which to enact and implement policies and structures of institutional, systemic, and structural racism.
In either case, what has been said before stands, i.e. that attitudes and actions of racism go totally against the biblical and theological grain of full equality. The notion of ethnic and racial superiority contradict the notion that all are creatures of God, made in the image and likeness of God, and subsequently entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.
In subsequent essays, I will be dealing with racism in a historical perspective, and then with the ways in which racism has had an impact on human relations world-wide. In the meantime, feel free to comment on this essay, or on the two preceding it. Your input is very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmna
One expression which is often used is "counter-racism," or "racism in reverse." This term is used to describe the attitudes of people who are members of ethnic-racial groups that have been discriminated and mistreated on the basis of ethnicity and race. These people are said to be "racist" against those who have oppressed them. They might even express hatred against their oppressors, and even do and say things which call for their annihilation.
Since economic, military, social, and political power usually accompanies racism, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of "racism in reverse." There may be cases, for example, where African Americans and Hispanics may hate Caucasian people for the way they have been brutalized and mistreated. And there just may be the extreme cases of African American and Hispanic people believing that they are inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to Caucasian people. However, since African Americans and Hispanics have not enjoyed the military, social, and political power that accompanies racism, it is almost moot to talk about "counter racism." So-called "minority groups" do not have the power base from which to enact and implement policies and structures of institutional, systemic, and structural racism.
In either case, what has been said before stands, i.e. that attitudes and actions of racism go totally against the biblical and theological grain of full equality. The notion of ethnic and racial superiority contradict the notion that all are creatures of God, made in the image and likeness of God, and subsequently entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.
In subsequent essays, I will be dealing with racism in a historical perspective, and then with the ways in which racism has had an impact on human relations world-wide. In the meantime, feel free to comment on this essay, or on the two preceding it. Your input is very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmna
Monday, September 14, 2015
Racism in Biblical and Theological Perspective- A General Overview
For the purposes of this discussion on racism within a theological framework, I will define the term racism as the "belief in the inherent intellectual, moral, and spiritual superiority" of a race or ethnic group. This belief and attitude carries with it the notion that all other racial and ethnic groups are innately inferior, and therefore, should be relegated to second-class status in all human relations.
Racism goes against the grain of biblical theology. The Scriptures are very clear in indicating that all humankind is a direct creation by God. To affirm that one race or ethnic group is superior to the other would be tantamount to saying that God didn't know what He/She was doing at the time of creation. It would also be another indication that God has preferences for ethnic and racial groups. The hymn "Jesus love the little children, all the children of the world," while carrying a slight note of paternalism, points to the thrust of the biblical message of the equality of all. In a very general sense, we are all sisters and brothers by virtue of being created by God. Unless we believe in a "multiple" creation by God at the beginning, we all stem from one set of parents. That would also make us all sisters and brothers.
While the Scriptures do speak about the notion of "God's chosen people (Israel and the Church)," and while there is mention of believers as a "peculiar people," the biblical notion of being "chosen" has been distorted, misunderstood, twisted, and warped. The biblical concept of being "chosen" has absolutely nothing to do with God having preference for an ethnic or racial group per se, but rather with God having "chosen" certain people to carry out the liberating mission of God in the world. In subsequent essays, I will be talking about God's "preferential option for the poor and oppressed of the world," but this has absolutely nothing to do with God having "favorites," so to speak. This series of essays rests on the foundation that no ethnic or racial group is inferior or superior to others. Full equality is assumed throughout these essays. Please feel free to comment and share your opinion and perspective.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Racism goes against the grain of biblical theology. The Scriptures are very clear in indicating that all humankind is a direct creation by God. To affirm that one race or ethnic group is superior to the other would be tantamount to saying that God didn't know what He/She was doing at the time of creation. It would also be another indication that God has preferences for ethnic and racial groups. The hymn "Jesus love the little children, all the children of the world," while carrying a slight note of paternalism, points to the thrust of the biblical message of the equality of all. In a very general sense, we are all sisters and brothers by virtue of being created by God. Unless we believe in a "multiple" creation by God at the beginning, we all stem from one set of parents. That would also make us all sisters and brothers.
While the Scriptures do speak about the notion of "God's chosen people (Israel and the Church)," and while there is mention of believers as a "peculiar people," the biblical notion of being "chosen" has been distorted, misunderstood, twisted, and warped. The biblical concept of being "chosen" has absolutely nothing to do with God having preference for an ethnic or racial group per se, but rather with God having "chosen" certain people to carry out the liberating mission of God in the world. In subsequent essays, I will be talking about God's "preferential option for the poor and oppressed of the world," but this has absolutely nothing to do with God having "favorites," so to speak. This series of essays rests on the foundation that no ethnic or racial group is inferior or superior to others. Full equality is assumed throughout these essays. Please feel free to comment and share your opinion and perspective.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, September 11, 2015
Racism in Biblical and Theological Perspective
This next series of essays will be dedicated to the issue of racism. I realize that it is a very uncomfortable subject for many of us, to even talk about. For some of us, it is uncomfortable to talk about because it reminds us and makes us come to grips with the reality that racism is ingrained in our psyche, whether consciously or sub-consciously. For others of us, it is uncomfortable because we tend to think that racism no longer exists. When we are confronted with the reality of its continued existence, our naivete and innocence are exposed and deconstructed. For others of us, the discomfort comes from the fact that it is a divisive issue. My focus on racism will be from a biblical and theological standpoint.
Let me begin my saying that racism is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as humankind itself. It takes on different forms, and manifests itself in a variety of ways. It exists in individuals and in social institutions and systems, including, but not limited to, communities of faith. In the Church, the Bible has been used and misused to justify racism. Even the first-century Church experienced episodes of ethnic and racial discrimination. In the book of Acts we have two such incidents. One was where the Gentile (Greek) members of the Church were complaining that their widows were not being as well taken care of or provided for as were the Jewish widows in the Church. The other episode had to do with the Apostle Peter being shown a vision by God concerning his view that Gentiles were "unclean."
The Church, as an institution of society, has mirrored and reflected the same racist attitudes and tendencies as the society itself. One would think that the Church would devote itself, in light of the message of the Gospel, to work for the eradication of racism, both individual and systemic. What we have seen throughout history, is that the Church has been, to a certain extent, a harbinger of racism.
I invite you, the reader, to explore this issue with us and to contribute your views and perspectives with us. Your comments will be a great contribution in helping us ameliorate this social ill from the standpoint of the reign of God in Christ. Please feel free to comment on this, or on any of the ensuing essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Let me begin my saying that racism is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as humankind itself. It takes on different forms, and manifests itself in a variety of ways. It exists in individuals and in social institutions and systems, including, but not limited to, communities of faith. In the Church, the Bible has been used and misused to justify racism. Even the first-century Church experienced episodes of ethnic and racial discrimination. In the book of Acts we have two such incidents. One was where the Gentile (Greek) members of the Church were complaining that their widows were not being as well taken care of or provided for as were the Jewish widows in the Church. The other episode had to do with the Apostle Peter being shown a vision by God concerning his view that Gentiles were "unclean."
The Church, as an institution of society, has mirrored and reflected the same racist attitudes and tendencies as the society itself. One would think that the Church would devote itself, in light of the message of the Gospel, to work for the eradication of racism, both individual and systemic. What we have seen throughout history, is that the Church has been, to a certain extent, a harbinger of racism.
I invite you, the reader, to explore this issue with us and to contribute your views and perspectives with us. Your comments will be a great contribution in helping us ameliorate this social ill from the standpoint of the reign of God in Christ. Please feel free to comment on this, or on any of the ensuing essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Eleven: The Social Location- The Finale.
This particular approach to biblical interpretation is a very complex one. It calls into question and deconstructs the supposedly "objective" way of interpreting the Bible. It demonstrates that there is no pure "objectivity" in biblical interpretation. Any claim to "objectivity" and "universality" is a farce.
There are basically three social locations from which people interpret and apply the biblical message. They are the following.
1. Class- People of a particularly "superior" social class will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their domination and control of the "lower" classes. They will find and quote those Scriptures which appear to support the notion that their socio-economic condition is a "blessing" of God that has not been given to the "lower" classes because of their "laziness and indolence." On the other hand, people of the supposedly "lower" social-economic groups will see in the Scriptures (especially the prophets and the Gospel), a message that God is on the side of the oppressed, poor, and socially marginalized. They see passages in the Bible which speak about God establishing solidarity with the downtrodden and social outcasts.
2. Gender-Historically speaking, men have interpreted and quoted the Bible in such a way as to justify male control and male domination. They will quote those Scripture passages which speak about women being "silent" and "submissive" to the man. Women, on the other hand, will see in the biblical message, a communication that in Christ, God has torn down the barriers of gender. They will quote those passages in Scripture which support female roles of leadership in the home and in the Church.
3. Ethnicity/Race- People of certain ethnic and/or racial groups will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their holding positions of authority and power over other ethnic and racial groups. They will quote passage after passage that appears to convey the message that God favors one group over the other. On the other hand, people of those ethnic and racial groups which have been relegated to "inferior" status, see in the Bible a message that God favors them and will help them overthrow and dethrone those who exert power over them. They see in the Bible a message of "liberation" which promises them to be "delivered" from the yoke of of oppression.
What is the right interpretation of the Bible? Who has it? This writer sincerely hopes that if nothing else, the readers of these essays will see that no particular biblical interpretation is purely "objective," or "universally valid and correct." Each interpretation has truth to it. Each hermeneutical approach has its limits. Each interpretation is culturally biased and conditioned. I respectfully submit this series of essays to you in the hope that it would have provided for the readers an exposure to various hermeneutical approaches. Please feel free to comment and give your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
There are basically three social locations from which people interpret and apply the biblical message. They are the following.
1. Class- People of a particularly "superior" social class will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their domination and control of the "lower" classes. They will find and quote those Scriptures which appear to support the notion that their socio-economic condition is a "blessing" of God that has not been given to the "lower" classes because of their "laziness and indolence." On the other hand, people of the supposedly "lower" social-economic groups will see in the Scriptures (especially the prophets and the Gospel), a message that God is on the side of the oppressed, poor, and socially marginalized. They see passages in the Bible which speak about God establishing solidarity with the downtrodden and social outcasts.
2. Gender-Historically speaking, men have interpreted and quoted the Bible in such a way as to justify male control and male domination. They will quote those Scripture passages which speak about women being "silent" and "submissive" to the man. Women, on the other hand, will see in the biblical message, a communication that in Christ, God has torn down the barriers of gender. They will quote those passages in Scripture which support female roles of leadership in the home and in the Church.
3. Ethnicity/Race- People of certain ethnic and/or racial groups will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their holding positions of authority and power over other ethnic and racial groups. They will quote passage after passage that appears to convey the message that God favors one group over the other. On the other hand, people of those ethnic and racial groups which have been relegated to "inferior" status, see in the Bible a message that God favors them and will help them overthrow and dethrone those who exert power over them. They see in the Bible a message of "liberation" which promises them to be "delivered" from the yoke of of oppression.
What is the right interpretation of the Bible? Who has it? This writer sincerely hopes that if nothing else, the readers of these essays will see that no particular biblical interpretation is purely "objective," or "universally valid and correct." Each interpretation has truth to it. Each hermeneutical approach has its limits. Each interpretation is culturally biased and conditioned. I respectfully submit this series of essays to you in the hope that it would have provided for the readers an exposure to various hermeneutical approaches. Please feel free to comment and give your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Ten: The Cultural Context
There is a tendency for many, if not most, readers of Scripture to read the Bible without asking questions about or paying attention to the issue of its cultural background. The tendency is to read the Bible superficially, and totally disregard and ignore the issues of the context from which it emerges. Many readers treat the Bible as if it were written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. They also treat it as if it were written in a cultural vacuum. The attitude tends to be "Since this is the Word of God," we can bypass all this 'razzle dazzle,' and just continue to read. We don't need to know about culture. We just need to know what God said. The Bible says so, end of story." I often time quote the Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover." Really? Hmm! Is this the way we do things relative to Scripture?
I humbly and respectfully submit that this is a careless and irresponsible approach to biblical understanding. Because it is careless and irresponsible, it tends to result in distortions, misapplication, and misunderstanding of all types. I also submit that precisely because the Bible is a witness to the Word, we are called to be careful in the way we read and apply it.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge cultural elements in Scripture. Neither does it take a special type of intellect or scholarship for one to know that the Bible, like any other literary document, emerges from a particular cultural context, and that much of what it "says," reflects that cultural context.
There are many people that do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the cultural context of Scripture. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is that they are allergic to rigorous study of any kind. They simply "don't want to do all that work." The second reason is that they fear that a rigorous contextual study of Scripture will result in their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions being exposed for their weaknesses and called into question. They "can't have that." It is much easier for them to hold on to their assumptions, and not to have them challenged or questioned. I remember hearing the story about one dear Christian sister who said "If the Bible tells me that Jonah swallowed the fish, I believe it." Well, bless her heart! That is a perfect example of people who are sincere, but as our evangelical sisters and brothers would say "sincerely wrong." There are many readers of Scripture who are well-intended and well-meaning, but unfortunately, travel down the wrong path.
The bulk of the Bible emerges from an agricultural context. In this context, human relations were not what they are now. For example in that context, the woman was considered the property of the man. In that cultural context, marriages were arranged. Dare we propose that we should retain those cultural paradigms simply because "the Bible says so?"
The challenge for us is to discern and explore how a book that emerges from a particular cultural environment speaks to those of us who are living in a technological society. I am not proposing or even remotely implying that "God changes," or that "the Word of God changes," but rather, that the way Scripture spoke to the people of the time when it was first written, is not necessarily the way it speaks to us today.
I invite you, the reader, to join with us in exploring the relevancy of understanding the Bible in our modern cultural context. Please feel free to comment on these issues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I humbly and respectfully submit that this is a careless and irresponsible approach to biblical understanding. Because it is careless and irresponsible, it tends to result in distortions, misapplication, and misunderstanding of all types. I also submit that precisely because the Bible is a witness to the Word, we are called to be careful in the way we read and apply it.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge cultural elements in Scripture. Neither does it take a special type of intellect or scholarship for one to know that the Bible, like any other literary document, emerges from a particular cultural context, and that much of what it "says," reflects that cultural context.
There are many people that do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the cultural context of Scripture. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is that they are allergic to rigorous study of any kind. They simply "don't want to do all that work." The second reason is that they fear that a rigorous contextual study of Scripture will result in their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions being exposed for their weaknesses and called into question. They "can't have that." It is much easier for them to hold on to their assumptions, and not to have them challenged or questioned. I remember hearing the story about one dear Christian sister who said "If the Bible tells me that Jonah swallowed the fish, I believe it." Well, bless her heart! That is a perfect example of people who are sincere, but as our evangelical sisters and brothers would say "sincerely wrong." There are many readers of Scripture who are well-intended and well-meaning, but unfortunately, travel down the wrong path.
The bulk of the Bible emerges from an agricultural context. In this context, human relations were not what they are now. For example in that context, the woman was considered the property of the man. In that cultural context, marriages were arranged. Dare we propose that we should retain those cultural paradigms simply because "the Bible says so?"
The challenge for us is to discern and explore how a book that emerges from a particular cultural environment speaks to those of us who are living in a technological society. I am not proposing or even remotely implying that "God changes," or that "the Word of God changes," but rather, that the way Scripture spoke to the people of the time when it was first written, is not necessarily the way it speaks to us today.
I invite you, the reader, to join with us in exploring the relevancy of understanding the Bible in our modern cultural context. Please feel free to comment on these issues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, September 7, 2015
Biblical Theology: Top Down or Bottom Up?
One of the many issues that I have struggled with since my seminary days, and since I became engaged in ministry on a professional basis, was whether biblical theology should be done from the "bottom up" or from the "top down?" Coming out of a Pentecostal background where little or no formal training was required for ordination to the Gospel ministry, I was surrounded by people who believed that the only thing required for effective ministry was for one to be called by God. As I completed my studies at a Bible institute (the minimum required training for many Pentecostal churches), and then went on to purse college and graduate-level theological education, I would constantly hear that "much study is affliction of the flesh," and that advanced education would erode the spirituality of the candidate for ministry. After having undergone advanced training, I almost got caught up in thinking that only thoroughly trained persons would qualify for ministry and to do biblical theology. However, during my training, I was exposed to Liberation Theology, a way of doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of oppressed and socially marginalized people. My training led me to be exposed that theology can be done by professionally trained "experts" who possess all types of academic and professional degrees, but that by and large, the majority of them work out their theology independently of suffering people. This type of theology is usually done from the comfort of an office in an academic institution or a library. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, emerges from the struggle of people in the so-called Third World, and of Slavetown, U.S.A. who are making every attempt to "make ends meet," and to survive with dignity.
Having been exposed to theology from both socio-economic standpoints, I continue to struggle with the question of whether is it "top down," or "bottom up?" My training and professional experience in the fields of ministry, higher education, and social work press me to believe that it is "top down." But my work and solidarity with people of limited education, and people who for the most part are engaged in menial type jobs as defined by society, and by people who struggle with limited income and inferior housing conditions, etc. lead me to believe that biblical theology should be "bottom up." While I am truly grateful for the degree of formal education that I have in the fields of religion and theology (by the grace of God), I am also grateful for the opportunity to have worked with people from whom I have learned a lot in terms of humility as well as true spirituality of dependence on God. As I prepare to teach an introductory course in theology at our church this week, I remember having taught theology in certificate-level programs at various seminaries, where the students for the most part, have been either lay folks or ordained ministers whose theological training was very limited. I also remember facilitating programs of theological studies within the prison system with the residents, some of whom have gone on to advanced studies and into the profession of the ministry upon their release.
In closing, I would invite you to accept the challenge of imagining agricultural, industrial, and blue-collar workers doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from their social location. Then from there, find a way to bring together those who do it from the standpoint of comfort with those whose theological reflections emerge from their existential reality of suffering and struggle.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Having been exposed to theology from both socio-economic standpoints, I continue to struggle with the question of whether is it "top down," or "bottom up?" My training and professional experience in the fields of ministry, higher education, and social work press me to believe that it is "top down." But my work and solidarity with people of limited education, and people who for the most part are engaged in menial type jobs as defined by society, and by people who struggle with limited income and inferior housing conditions, etc. lead me to believe that biblical theology should be "bottom up." While I am truly grateful for the degree of formal education that I have in the fields of religion and theology (by the grace of God), I am also grateful for the opportunity to have worked with people from whom I have learned a lot in terms of humility as well as true spirituality of dependence on God. As I prepare to teach an introductory course in theology at our church this week, I remember having taught theology in certificate-level programs at various seminaries, where the students for the most part, have been either lay folks or ordained ministers whose theological training was very limited. I also remember facilitating programs of theological studies within the prison system with the residents, some of whom have gone on to advanced studies and into the profession of the ministry upon their release.
In closing, I would invite you to accept the challenge of imagining agricultural, industrial, and blue-collar workers doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from their social location. Then from there, find a way to bring together those who do it from the standpoint of comfort with those whose theological reflections emerge from their existential reality of suffering and struggle.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Nine:Eliciting Meanings
This principle entails elements of previous principles, yet retains its own distinctiveness. The principle states that "no meaning should be elicited from Scriptures other than that which a fair and honest interpretation yields (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1)." By this I mean that the reader of Scripture should make use of all the tools which one has available in attempting to determine what the correct interpretation of a passage or particular book of the Bible might be. To elicit an interpretation which is not found even implicitly in Scripture, is to distort the original intentions of the writers of Scripture. If possible, one should make use of the original languages (Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew) in which the Bible was written. In this way, it is possible to come closer to the meaning which the writers sought to give (Carmona, p.35).
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Deutero-Isaiah-What do you Think?
In a previous essay, I had spoken about the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory that reflects multiple authorship of the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) In this essay, I would like to speak about the view that the book of the prophet Isaiah was written by more than one person. This alleged second author is also referred to as Isaiah because he allegedly wanted to remain faithful to the theology of the first Isaiah.
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Eight-Contradictions
This particular principle of biblical interpretation challenges us to take a serious look at those parts of Scripture that appear to be in contrast or in contradiction with other parts of the Bible. It is a question of making every attempt to reconcile all those seemingly contradictory passages or statements.
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Revisiting the Documentary Hypothesis
For many centuries, both the Jewish and Christian communities subscribed to the belief that the first five books of the Bible (known to many of us as the Pentateuch), i.e. Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, were written by Moses, the leader that God raised to take the Hebrew people out of bondage in Egypt, and eventually form the nation of Israel. They were known in both communities as "the five books of Moses," or as "the Law of Moses." This assumption was held for a long time and then came under attack in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Certain biblical scholars and theologians who took a literary approach to Scripture, i.e. treating the Bible as any other form of literature, discarded that notion and replaced it with a theory that is known as the "Documentary Hypothesis." Of the various people that began to subscribe to the new theory, were two men, Karl Heinrich Graf, and Julius Wellhausen. Eventually, the theory became known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory.
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Seven: The Unity of Scripture
This next step in biblical interpretation challenges us to see the Bible as a whole, in addition to being familiar with its individual parts. There are certain assumptions that one can question in this principle. However, there are certain things that cannot be denied when one reads the Bible in its entirety.
This principle states that "The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and purpose (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane, P.A.: n.p., n.d.,p.1) By this affirmation, I am saying that the Bible is not the mere product of the human mind. The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of the Scriptures. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. Unless one is dismissing the Bible merely as a literary document, one should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers were expressing the mind of God in their writings. If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing (Carmona, p. 34).
I invite you, the reader to challenge the assumptions of the inspiration and underlying unity of Scripture. If you can provide reasons for not working with those set of assumptions, then we have grounds for a great dialogue. Please contribute your "two cents."
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This principle states that "The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and purpose (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane, P.A.: n.p., n.d.,p.1) By this affirmation, I am saying that the Bible is not the mere product of the human mind. The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of the Scriptures. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. Unless one is dismissing the Bible merely as a literary document, one should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers were expressing the mind of God in their writings. If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing (Carmona, p. 34).
I invite you, the reader to challenge the assumptions of the inspiration and underlying unity of Scripture. If you can provide reasons for not working with those set of assumptions, then we have grounds for a great dialogue. Please contribute your "two cents."
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)