Dr. John Renard informs us that Confucious was born around 551 B.C. and died in 470 B.C. This would make him a contemporary of the Buddha. His name is a Latinized form of Kong Fu Zi. Tradition informs us that his mother Yen Zheng Zai had prayed on Mount Ni that she would have a child. Confucious' father, Shu Liang He died when the child was three years old, and his mother raised him under difficult circumstances. Confucious married when he was nineteen, and his unhappy marriage ended with the death of his wife, and then later on, his son also died. At twenty-two, he began the first of several jobs working for the state of Lu. Four years later, he went to the Zhou dynasty's imperial city of Lu to study royal ceremony and seek a government position. Tradition says that it was there that he met an aged man by the name of Lao Zi. There are traditional accounts of that meeting, in which Lao Zi took Confucious to task for wasting effort on formal study and reliance on ethical absolutes. Confucious pursued his own path. He went into a thirteen-year self-imposed exile, wandering in and out of nine provinces. He returned home at the age of sixty-eight, and there he spent his last five years studying and editing the Classics. (Renard, p. 419)
"Confucianism" refers to the system of social, ethical, and religious beliefs and practices associated with Confucious. The term does not imply the worship of Confucious as a supreme or central deity, but it does acknowledge his foundational and pivotal role. (Renard, p. 420).
The sacred texts of Confucianism are:
The Five Classics ( Wu Jing), which include the Classic of Change, the Classic of History, the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of Rites, and the Annals of Spring and Autumn. There was a lost Classic (the Classic of Music) which would have constituted a sixth Classic. There is a tradition that Confucious himself had compiled the material from a larger collection of over three thousand pieces.
The accuracy of this is questionable. For further details on the Classics, the reader is referred to John Renard's book, the Handy Religion Answer Book.
Confucianism has never formulated a specific creedal statement to which all members are expected to confess their allegiance. A century or two ago, Confucianism would be understood in terms of the "Mandate of Heaven," i.e. the notion that Heaven rules all things through a "mandate" made known to a "Son of Heaven" called the emperor. The emperor in turn governs all earthly affairs by enacting that mandate, whose hallmark is justice and equity. It is the emperor's duty to make timely and appropriate offerings to Heaven and Earth to insure the coordination of all cosmic events for the benefit of humankind. Confucious, as one of the Sages (person of wisdom), represents a revered tradition of practical wisdom to which a sincere emperor subscribes. All good subjects too, will acknowledge the Sage and those of his stature, and will venerate them along with their own ancestors. All this, they might add, fits into the larger picture of the ultimate harmony represented by the balance of all things under the power of the Dao, which is manifest in Heaven and Earth (Renard, p. 430).
Unlike many great theologians who have constructed their system of thought by beginning with the existence of some divine reality and working their way down, Confucious was interested primarily in the ethical implications of traditional teachings that he had inherited. He apparently thought of Heaven as the ultimate moral authority or principle. Heaven makes its "will" known to, and through an upright sovereign. What Heaven discloses is, in turn, the Dao. Confucious thought of the Dao in terms of two fundamental ethical components, responsibility or loyalty, and reciprocity. (Renard, p. 431).
Confucianism does not deny the possibility of miracles or events beyond the ordinary. It merely suggests that people who are genuinely attentive to life as it unfolds have more than enough to occupy them. In Confucianism, when relationships and the cosmos are as they ought to be, these are considered the great wonders. (Renard, p. 432).
According to a prevailing classical Chinese view of human nature, people are naturally capable of choosing either good or evil. A central concept in Confucian teaching is that each human being has the innate capacity for moral improvement. A disciple of Confucious, Meng Zi, took his Master's teaching a step further, for he was convinced that human beings were essentially good and inclined to ethical betterment. Confucian tradition has no emphasis on notions like salvation or redemption. It does not talk of savior or redeemer figures, but of moral leaders who teach by example (Renard, p. 434).
Confucious did not focus on life after death as though it were the ultimate standard against which to measure the success of life on earth. With the majority of his fellow Chinese, the Teacher shared thee conviction that biological death did not signal a definitive end to life. Death did not mean annihilation and loss in some great void beyond the grave. Confucious clearly believed in some form of spiritual survival, and in the ongoing presence of those who have departed this life (Renard, p. 438).
Now that you, the reader, have been exposed to the some of the basic concepts of Confucianism, I challenge you to consider responding to the following questions:
1. What similarities do you find between Confucianism and Christianity?
2. What differences do you find between the two?
3. Are there elements of Confucianism that you as a Christian can embrace and affirm?
4. Do you as a Christian believe that Christ is present in some way in the Confucian community?
Please share with us your perspectives on these four challenges. Your contributions will be considered very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, January 30, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
How do Hispanic Americans do Theology?
The word "Theology" has different connotations. Technically it means "a study about God." Others would definite it as "a discourse about God." In recent times, it has been thought of as seeking to articulate and understand the faith, or as someone would express it "faith seeking understanding."
Since this writer believes, as was stated by a professor of mine in seminary that "all theology is tentative," I tend to think of theology as faith seeking understanding. In other words, to me, the task of the theological enterprise is to "make sense" out of our faith.
So the questions is, then, how do people called "Hispanic" or "Latino" in the United States go about seeking understanding of the faith? My response to that is that there is no one way of doing theology from a Hispanic perspective. Like every other ethnic/racial group in the U.S.A, Hispanic people resort to a variety of ways of doing theology. I will briefly list three for the purposes of this essay.
1. Liturgy/worship.
Because worship is so important in the lives of Hispanic believers, there are many Hispanics who base their theology on the words found in the liturgy or worship of the Church. Many of our Hispanic sisters and brothers are very passionate regarding worship, because for them, worship enables them to participate in the events recorded in biblical history, and especially those events which speak of God's liberating actions in history. For them, worship puts them in the very presence of God, and that experience, then, becomes the starting point for understanding the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church.
2. Academic Scholarship
In the Latino community, there are those who have sought to articulate and understand theology via attendance at institutions of higher education, i.e. colleges, universities, and seminaries. Like people in other ethnic/racial communities, we have those who prefer to formalize their knowledge through rigorous research, study, and writing. They engage in formal study of the biblical languages, church history, comparative religions, systematic theology, and studies which focus on the practice of the profession of the ministry.
3. Existential Reality
The Hispanic community in the U.S.A. deals with a variety of issues which explain its existence here, and also the issues that have a negative impact on their lives in this country. Among them we can mention the following:
A. Genocide of the indigenous people of Central American South America, and the Caribbean.
B. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade which resulted in people coming to this part of the world to continue the labor which was carried out by the indigenous people of these areas.
C. Colonization and land-grabbing from the original natives of the Americas (Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc.).
D. Immigration- As a result of colonization, land-grabbing, and unjust economic policies imposed on our countries, many people have been forced to come to the U.S.A. to recover a portion of that which was taken from them. I refer the reader to Eduardo Galeano's book "Open Veins of Latin America."
E. Economic and military support given to brutal and dictatorial governments in Latin America by the U.S.A. has also contributed to the migration to this country. Ironically enough, this support is given to governments which deny their citizens the same democratic rights which we enjoy in this country, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, all in the name of "preventing the spread of communism."
F. Being at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Hispanics have been known to have the lowest paying jobs and along with the African American community, living in the most deplorable housing conditions in the U.S.A. They also suffer from the dysfunction of the so-called "educational" system of the public schools. The reader is referred to Paulo Freire's book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed."
G. Political underrepresentation- While there are some Hispanics who have been elected to political offices, the interests of the Hispanic community are of minor concern to politicians, except at election time when they seek the Hispanic vote.
These points were not intended to be a "laundry list" of the negative ills which affect the Hispanic community in the U.S.A., nor mere whining and moaning, nor a "pity party." The purpose of mentioning these issues was to point out that for many Hispanics in the U.S.A., these negative economic, political, and social conditions, are the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In other words, their understanding and view of God is more oriented towards reflecting on how do these conditions help us to understand and more fully experience the grace and presence of God in the midst of communal suffering?
In essence, this type of theology is not one which is done from the comfort of the academic ivory towers, but rather from the experience of suffering. It is a "bottom-up," rather than a "top-down" theology. It is a theology which is not handed down by the "experts," but rather a theology which emerges from the day to day experience of suffering and survival. It is a theology which addresses the question of "how to be faithful to God in the process of getting the cheese off the truck."
Is this way of doing theology as valid as academic and liturgical theology? This writer believes that there is room for all three approaches. However, because true theology begins in encountering God in liberating and salvific acts, academic and liturgical theology are subordinate to theology which emerges from the grass roots. I know that many of us in the West feel uncomfortable with that affirmation, but nevertheless, this writer has the need to be faithful to the historical ways in which God has been revealed to humankind in liberating action. Liberation Theology did not begin, as many would affirm in Latin America through the Catholic Church in the 1960's. Liberation Theology
began when God said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have come down to deliver them." May the same God who delivered the Hebrews from bondage in oppression in Egypt, deliver the Hispanic community in the U.S.A from the bondage of classism, racism, and sexism.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to comment.
Since this writer believes, as was stated by a professor of mine in seminary that "all theology is tentative," I tend to think of theology as faith seeking understanding. In other words, to me, the task of the theological enterprise is to "make sense" out of our faith.
So the questions is, then, how do people called "Hispanic" or "Latino" in the United States go about seeking understanding of the faith? My response to that is that there is no one way of doing theology from a Hispanic perspective. Like every other ethnic/racial group in the U.S.A, Hispanic people resort to a variety of ways of doing theology. I will briefly list three for the purposes of this essay.
1. Liturgy/worship.
Because worship is so important in the lives of Hispanic believers, there are many Hispanics who base their theology on the words found in the liturgy or worship of the Church. Many of our Hispanic sisters and brothers are very passionate regarding worship, because for them, worship enables them to participate in the events recorded in biblical history, and especially those events which speak of God's liberating actions in history. For them, worship puts them in the very presence of God, and that experience, then, becomes the starting point for understanding the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church.
2. Academic Scholarship
In the Latino community, there are those who have sought to articulate and understand theology via attendance at institutions of higher education, i.e. colleges, universities, and seminaries. Like people in other ethnic/racial communities, we have those who prefer to formalize their knowledge through rigorous research, study, and writing. They engage in formal study of the biblical languages, church history, comparative religions, systematic theology, and studies which focus on the practice of the profession of the ministry.
3. Existential Reality
The Hispanic community in the U.S.A. deals with a variety of issues which explain its existence here, and also the issues that have a negative impact on their lives in this country. Among them we can mention the following:
A. Genocide of the indigenous people of Central American South America, and the Caribbean.
B. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade which resulted in people coming to this part of the world to continue the labor which was carried out by the indigenous people of these areas.
C. Colonization and land-grabbing from the original natives of the Americas (Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc.).
D. Immigration- As a result of colonization, land-grabbing, and unjust economic policies imposed on our countries, many people have been forced to come to the U.S.A. to recover a portion of that which was taken from them. I refer the reader to Eduardo Galeano's book "Open Veins of Latin America."
E. Economic and military support given to brutal and dictatorial governments in Latin America by the U.S.A. has also contributed to the migration to this country. Ironically enough, this support is given to governments which deny their citizens the same democratic rights which we enjoy in this country, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, all in the name of "preventing the spread of communism."
F. Being at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Hispanics have been known to have the lowest paying jobs and along with the African American community, living in the most deplorable housing conditions in the U.S.A. They also suffer from the dysfunction of the so-called "educational" system of the public schools. The reader is referred to Paulo Freire's book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed."
G. Political underrepresentation- While there are some Hispanics who have been elected to political offices, the interests of the Hispanic community are of minor concern to politicians, except at election time when they seek the Hispanic vote.
These points were not intended to be a "laundry list" of the negative ills which affect the Hispanic community in the U.S.A., nor mere whining and moaning, nor a "pity party." The purpose of mentioning these issues was to point out that for many Hispanics in the U.S.A., these negative economic, political, and social conditions, are the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In other words, their understanding and view of God is more oriented towards reflecting on how do these conditions help us to understand and more fully experience the grace and presence of God in the midst of communal suffering?
In essence, this type of theology is not one which is done from the comfort of the academic ivory towers, but rather from the experience of suffering. It is a "bottom-up," rather than a "top-down" theology. It is a theology which is not handed down by the "experts," but rather a theology which emerges from the day to day experience of suffering and survival. It is a theology which addresses the question of "how to be faithful to God in the process of getting the cheese off the truck."
Is this way of doing theology as valid as academic and liturgical theology? This writer believes that there is room for all three approaches. However, because true theology begins in encountering God in liberating and salvific acts, academic and liturgical theology are subordinate to theology which emerges from the grass roots. I know that many of us in the West feel uncomfortable with that affirmation, but nevertheless, this writer has the need to be faithful to the historical ways in which God has been revealed to humankind in liberating action. Liberation Theology did not begin, as many would affirm in Latin America through the Catholic Church in the 1960's. Liberation Theology
began when God said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have come down to deliver them." May the same God who delivered the Hebrews from bondage in oppression in Egypt, deliver the Hispanic community in the U.S.A from the bondage of classism, racism, and sexism.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to comment.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Charlie Hebdo
Well, once again, we see certain people in the Muslim world going up in arms because of the darts they believe the magazine is throwing at their faith. The owners and editors of the magazine, and political entities in the Western world, are defending the contents of the magazine in the name of "freedom of speech." The owners of the magazine now are going as far as saying that they only make fun of religion when religion becomes "entangled with politics." We see, in a sense, a resurrection of the dynamics of the time when the leader of Iran (Ayatolla Ruhollah Khomeini) declared a death sentence of Solomon Rushdie for his writing and publication of "The Satanic Verses." Certain points need to be emphasized here. They are:
1. The actions taken in France are not approved by the Muslim religion, or for that matter, the Muslim world as a whole. What certain people did in the name of Islam, is not tantamount, by any stretch of the imagination, to a Muslim-sponsored activity. The mere fact that certain Muslim leaders quickly condemned these actions is a clear indication that the Muslim religion, in and of itself, is not a "terrorist religion," as some may want to caricature and paint it.
2. The owners and editors are either totally naïve or totally dishonest when they say that the only time that they ridicule religion is when religion becomes "entangled in politics." Just exactly who the hell do they think they are kidding? Politics and religion have been entangled throughout human history almost from the very beginning. Whether in the form of a theocracy (a society based on divine law, such as in ancient Israel), or a secularly-oriented government giving tacit approval of and/or support certain religious practices, politics and religion have always in one way or the other walked "hand in hand." When Portugal and Spain carried out their colonizing activities in the Americas during the sixteenth century, the cross and the sword were integrated. The Crowns would send their respective missionaries to pacify the indigenous people so that when the soldiers arrived, they would meet with little resistance, because the missionaries would take great pains to inculcate in their minds that "the powers that be are of God," and that it was the will of God that they submit to the imperializing powers and their particular religious institution (the Church) on penalty of annihilation and death. The same thing would happen later on when England would establish its colonies in the Americas and the Caribbean. So again I raise the question, just exactly who in the hell do the managers of Charlie Hebdo think they kidding?
3. Freedom of speech and incendiary, inflammatory speech are not one and the same. It is one thing to exercise democratic right to express one's views or perspectives on any given issue. It is another thing entirely different to use that right in an irresponsible manner, especially when it comes to things such as religious sensitivity. Am I saying that the radical Muslims were correct in they way that they reacted? Absolutely not! But we must understand, that with human nature the way it is, that people will respond correctly or incorrectly to agitation and ridicule. A perfect example of this is in my culture, , i.e. Hispanic culture, it is considered quasi-blasphemy for one to mention a person's mother in a negative way. In our culture, one's mother is considered sacred, and in many respects, the most sacred thing after God. In the African American culture, many years ago, if someone said to a person "Your momma," the end result would definitely be armed aggression.
En fin, this writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the democratic right of freedom of speech. But as I said before, that freedom should be used responsibly and respectfully. It should not be used to sow the seeds of agitation and contempt. And since we do not live in a world built on ethics per se, what else can we expect when people utilize incendiary and inflammatory manners of speaking? Let us then, as civilized, decent, and intelligent people measure our words before we speak. I do not say that we should speak or not speak on the basis of potential consequences, but rather on the basis of what is ethically correct and conducive to harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. The actions taken in France are not approved by the Muslim religion, or for that matter, the Muslim world as a whole. What certain people did in the name of Islam, is not tantamount, by any stretch of the imagination, to a Muslim-sponsored activity. The mere fact that certain Muslim leaders quickly condemned these actions is a clear indication that the Muslim religion, in and of itself, is not a "terrorist religion," as some may want to caricature and paint it.
2. The owners and editors are either totally naïve or totally dishonest when they say that the only time that they ridicule religion is when religion becomes "entangled in politics." Just exactly who the hell do they think they are kidding? Politics and religion have been entangled throughout human history almost from the very beginning. Whether in the form of a theocracy (a society based on divine law, such as in ancient Israel), or a secularly-oriented government giving tacit approval of and/or support certain religious practices, politics and religion have always in one way or the other walked "hand in hand." When Portugal and Spain carried out their colonizing activities in the Americas during the sixteenth century, the cross and the sword were integrated. The Crowns would send their respective missionaries to pacify the indigenous people so that when the soldiers arrived, they would meet with little resistance, because the missionaries would take great pains to inculcate in their minds that "the powers that be are of God," and that it was the will of God that they submit to the imperializing powers and their particular religious institution (the Church) on penalty of annihilation and death. The same thing would happen later on when England would establish its colonies in the Americas and the Caribbean. So again I raise the question, just exactly who in the hell do the managers of Charlie Hebdo think they kidding?
3. Freedom of speech and incendiary, inflammatory speech are not one and the same. It is one thing to exercise democratic right to express one's views or perspectives on any given issue. It is another thing entirely different to use that right in an irresponsible manner, especially when it comes to things such as religious sensitivity. Am I saying that the radical Muslims were correct in they way that they reacted? Absolutely not! But we must understand, that with human nature the way it is, that people will respond correctly or incorrectly to agitation and ridicule. A perfect example of this is in my culture, , i.e. Hispanic culture, it is considered quasi-blasphemy for one to mention a person's mother in a negative way. In our culture, one's mother is considered sacred, and in many respects, the most sacred thing after God. In the African American culture, many years ago, if someone said to a person "Your momma," the end result would definitely be armed aggression.
En fin, this writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the democratic right of freedom of speech. But as I said before, that freedom should be used responsibly and respectfully. It should not be used to sow the seeds of agitation and contempt. And since we do not live in a world built on ethics per se, what else can we expect when people utilize incendiary and inflammatory manners of speaking? Let us then, as civilized, decent, and intelligent people measure our words before we speak. I do not say that we should speak or not speak on the basis of potential consequences, but rather on the basis of what is ethically correct and conducive to harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Why Do I have to go to Church?
I'm sure that many of you have heard the story of a young 35 year old man who one Sunday morning was arguing with his mother. She had woken him up early in the morning, and telling him that he needed to get ready to go to church. He tossed, turned, and argued. The mother insisted that he get up and get ready. He did not want to go to church. He asked her, "Oh Mom, why must I go to church?" She answered and said to him "First of all, because it's Sunday, and second of all, because you're the Pastor."
Humor aside, does it surprise you to hear that a person who is supposed to lead by example would be struggling to go to church? The person who is supposed to lead worship and preach is arguing with his mother about church attendance? Strange, isn't it?
Now, let me draw your attention to this syndrome which has become somewhat pervasive even in Christian circles. There are many people who claim to be Christian, but yet, for whatever reason, just don't feel like getting out of their bed early on a Sunday morning to go to church. They feel that they have worked hard enough all week, and that they are entitled to "sleep in" at least one morning during the week. They think of church attendance as a burden, or they approach it with a sense of obligation. Others, believe, and rightly so, that they don't have to attend church to worship, because they can worship anywhere, whether it be in their home, in their garden, or under a tree in the forest. There are others who have been caught up with the "electronic church," i.e. they can listen to worship services with Gospel proclamation by watching a television program or hear a worship service on the radio. Or they can open up a devotional book while still in bed, read it, say a little prayer, and that is the extent of their worship for the day.
I remember some years ago, when my son went to Netherlands to study for his master's degree in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam. Then he stayed there until he completed his Ph.D. in the same field. One afternoon he called his mother and I to say hello. I asked him, "did you attend church this morning?" He said to me "Yes I did, I went to Bedside Baptist Church." I, of course, got the hint right away. It is amazing, how many people attend Bedside Baptist, Pajama Temple, and St. Mattress Cathedral.
So now, to the question which I'm sure many of you have struggled with, "why do I have to go to church?" Well, believe it or not, this pastor (yours truly) has very good news for you. You don't have to go to church. You don't have to be in the company of those Christians whom you consider hypocritical and phony. You don't have to put on a show of any type to demonstrate that you are a Christian or a good person. You can stay in bed as long as you want. You can be absent from church as long as you want. In fact, you don't even have to be a member of a church. None of these things are a prerequisite for one to have a relationship with God. None of these thing will help you accumulate brownie points for the hereafter. None of these thing will determine your eternal destiny. None of these things determine whether you are a true believer or not.
Why, then, go to church? I can answer from my own personal experience. And I can add to that experience a confirmation which I received last Sunday from a Presbyterian minister who came to our church to preach and teach. In both his lesson and his sermon, he emphasized the grace of God.
He elucidated from Scripture how the grace of God frees us up to want to serve God voluntarily, and not out of obligation. The grace of God moves us (does not force us) to want to be in the company of like-minded people to fellowship, learn from each other, listen together to the Word of God, and together respond to God's grace by returning into the world to share the Good News, and how our faith in Jesus has transformed us in such a way, that we want to be with each other naturally. I can say on the basis of my own personal experience that church attendance is something that I have always desired since my teenage years. I have always wanted to be in corporate worship. I have always considered it a delight to be in church. Yes, I can easily stay home at Bedside Baptist, or some other type of set up, but I don't want to. I want to be with my sisters and brothers praising God, singing praises, listening to the sermon, coming to the Table of the Lord during Holy Communion, and en fin, being with my church family. I love every minute of it. Personally, I will fight tooth and nail with anyone who attempts to block or prevent me from doing this. I love the Lord, and I also love God's people, with whom I wish to be on a continual basis.
What should you do then? I would say that you should stay home and not come to church unless God's grace has transformed you in such a way that you want to be there. Be there because you want to. Come, not because you must, but because you may. Come, not because you are strong, but because you are broken. Come, not because you are righteous, but because your are penitent. The Lord invites to His table and to His fellowship in church, all those who love Him and want to be there with the rest of His people.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment and share your perspectives on this.
Humor aside, does it surprise you to hear that a person who is supposed to lead by example would be struggling to go to church? The person who is supposed to lead worship and preach is arguing with his mother about church attendance? Strange, isn't it?
Now, let me draw your attention to this syndrome which has become somewhat pervasive even in Christian circles. There are many people who claim to be Christian, but yet, for whatever reason, just don't feel like getting out of their bed early on a Sunday morning to go to church. They feel that they have worked hard enough all week, and that they are entitled to "sleep in" at least one morning during the week. They think of church attendance as a burden, or they approach it with a sense of obligation. Others, believe, and rightly so, that they don't have to attend church to worship, because they can worship anywhere, whether it be in their home, in their garden, or under a tree in the forest. There are others who have been caught up with the "electronic church," i.e. they can listen to worship services with Gospel proclamation by watching a television program or hear a worship service on the radio. Or they can open up a devotional book while still in bed, read it, say a little prayer, and that is the extent of their worship for the day.
I remember some years ago, when my son went to Netherlands to study for his master's degree in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam. Then he stayed there until he completed his Ph.D. in the same field. One afternoon he called his mother and I to say hello. I asked him, "did you attend church this morning?" He said to me "Yes I did, I went to Bedside Baptist Church." I, of course, got the hint right away. It is amazing, how many people attend Bedside Baptist, Pajama Temple, and St. Mattress Cathedral.
So now, to the question which I'm sure many of you have struggled with, "why do I have to go to church?" Well, believe it or not, this pastor (yours truly) has very good news for you. You don't have to go to church. You don't have to be in the company of those Christians whom you consider hypocritical and phony. You don't have to put on a show of any type to demonstrate that you are a Christian or a good person. You can stay in bed as long as you want. You can be absent from church as long as you want. In fact, you don't even have to be a member of a church. None of these things are a prerequisite for one to have a relationship with God. None of these thing will help you accumulate brownie points for the hereafter. None of these thing will determine your eternal destiny. None of these things determine whether you are a true believer or not.
Why, then, go to church? I can answer from my own personal experience. And I can add to that experience a confirmation which I received last Sunday from a Presbyterian minister who came to our church to preach and teach. In both his lesson and his sermon, he emphasized the grace of God.
He elucidated from Scripture how the grace of God frees us up to want to serve God voluntarily, and not out of obligation. The grace of God moves us (does not force us) to want to be in the company of like-minded people to fellowship, learn from each other, listen together to the Word of God, and together respond to God's grace by returning into the world to share the Good News, and how our faith in Jesus has transformed us in such a way, that we want to be with each other naturally. I can say on the basis of my own personal experience that church attendance is something that I have always desired since my teenage years. I have always wanted to be in corporate worship. I have always considered it a delight to be in church. Yes, I can easily stay home at Bedside Baptist, or some other type of set up, but I don't want to. I want to be with my sisters and brothers praising God, singing praises, listening to the sermon, coming to the Table of the Lord during Holy Communion, and en fin, being with my church family. I love every minute of it. Personally, I will fight tooth and nail with anyone who attempts to block or prevent me from doing this. I love the Lord, and I also love God's people, with whom I wish to be on a continual basis.
What should you do then? I would say that you should stay home and not come to church unless God's grace has transformed you in such a way that you want to be there. Be there because you want to. Come, not because you must, but because you may. Come, not because you are strong, but because you are broken. Come, not because you are righteous, but because your are penitent. The Lord invites to His table and to His fellowship in church, all those who love Him and want to be there with the rest of His people.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment and share your perspectives on this.
Friday, January 16, 2015
A Christain View of World Religions-Shinto
The word "Shinto" derives from two Chinese words- shen, which means "deity," and dao, which means "way." In Japanese it reads as "Kami no michi," which means "the path of the "Kami," or "the way of the Gods." For centuries, Japanese people have acknowledged the sacred presence and power numinous beings called "kami" which is translated as "high or superior beings" (John Renard, The Handy Religion Answer Book (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2002), p. 479. Shinto is as old as Japan itself, in the same way that Hinduism is as old as India. At its core, the way of the Kami enshrines profound insights into the sacred character of all created nature. Shinto calls people to a deep awareness of the divine presence suffusing all things, to the challenge of personal and corporate responsibility for the stewardship of the world that is home, to unending gratitude for all that is good, and to a willingness to seek purification and forgiveness for humanly inevitable but avoidable lapses. (Renard, p. 479).
Unlike many other major religious traditions, Shinto had neither a founder nor a single foundational figure who represents concrete historical origins. Subsequently, it is difficult to say when Shinto began as an organized religion.
It appears that there are elements of Shinto dating back to at least the eighth century A.D. It appears to run concurrently with Hinduism in terms of chronological time.
There are two sacred texts in Shinto. They are The Records of Ancient Matters (Kojiki), dating back to 712 A.D. This text , composed by Yasumoro, deals with the events that begin with the creation of the Japanese islands and continuing down to 628 A.D. The other text is Chronicles of Japan, written about 720 A.D., also recounts the recounts the ancient cosmogonic myth, but in less detailed fashion. (Renard, p. 480). This book is called Nihongi and Nihon Shoki in Japanese.
There are no central creeds as such in Shinto, but their beliefs can be summarized as follows:
1. Belief that all sacredness surrounds us.
2. Sacredness pervades all things, including ourselves.
3. The all-suffusing divine presence is ultimately benevolent and meant to assure well-being and happiness for all who acknowledge it and strive to live in harmony with it.
Regarding the ultimate spiritual reality (God), Kami is the most important term in Shinto theology. Its general meaning is "high or superior being, and it can be applied to a host of spiritual presences and powers. Every kami is said to emanate its own distinctive divine energy or force. (Renard, p. 489).
There are other details about Shinto that I could touch on in this essay. But in order to avoid lengthy details, I will limit myself to the above mentioned beliefs. You the reader, are now invited to compare your own beliefs with those of Shinto as stated above. Tell us if there is anything in Shinto belief that reminds you of your own. Also, tell us if you think that anything in Shinto can be affirmed and embraced by Christians.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Unlike many other major religious traditions, Shinto had neither a founder nor a single foundational figure who represents concrete historical origins. Subsequently, it is difficult to say when Shinto began as an organized religion.
It appears that there are elements of Shinto dating back to at least the eighth century A.D. It appears to run concurrently with Hinduism in terms of chronological time.
There are two sacred texts in Shinto. They are The Records of Ancient Matters (Kojiki), dating back to 712 A.D. This text , composed by Yasumoro, deals with the events that begin with the creation of the Japanese islands and continuing down to 628 A.D. The other text is Chronicles of Japan, written about 720 A.D., also recounts the recounts the ancient cosmogonic myth, but in less detailed fashion. (Renard, p. 480). This book is called Nihongi and Nihon Shoki in Japanese.
There are no central creeds as such in Shinto, but their beliefs can be summarized as follows:
1. Belief that all sacredness surrounds us.
2. Sacredness pervades all things, including ourselves.
3. The all-suffusing divine presence is ultimately benevolent and meant to assure well-being and happiness for all who acknowledge it and strive to live in harmony with it.
Regarding the ultimate spiritual reality (God), Kami is the most important term in Shinto theology. Its general meaning is "high or superior being, and it can be applied to a host of spiritual presences and powers. Every kami is said to emanate its own distinctive divine energy or force. (Renard, p. 489).
There are other details about Shinto that I could touch on in this essay. But in order to avoid lengthy details, I will limit myself to the above mentioned beliefs. You the reader, are now invited to compare your own beliefs with those of Shinto as stated above. Tell us if there is anything in Shinto belief that reminds you of your own. Also, tell us if you think that anything in Shinto can be affirmed and embraced by Christians.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
What does it mean to be a Christian?
We are informed in the book of Acts 11:26 that the followers of Jesus were called "Christians for the first time." Prior to that, they were referred to as "believers" or those of "the way." So now, I invite you, the reader to ponder on the meaning of the term "Christian."
Some have thrown this term around haphazardly, not even bothering to reflect on the reason why it came to be used in the first place. They also ignore the implication of the term, since it carries a lot of responsibility in terms of living out the life of a believer in Jesus the Christ.
Some have defined the term "Christian" in its most basic sense, i.e. one who believes in Christ. Others have defined it in terms of being affiliated with their particular church or brand of Christianity. So far example, one person would say that being a Christian means to be Protestant of a conservative or evangelical persuasion. Another person would use the term "Christian" to mean one who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the Eastern Orthodox churches. I heard of a case in which a certain person was asked if she was a Christian, to which she responded "No, I'm Pentecostal." I've also heard ex-Catholics saying "I used to be Catholic, and now I'm Christian." For these persons, the term "Christian" is used to identify those are affiliated with their particular faith community, or at the very least, the doctrinal stance of that community.
In the church that I grew up in Staten Island, New York, a "Christian" was one who "accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior" of her/his life, and then subsequently began to refrain from certain things such as dancing, drinking, mixed bathing, and smoking. In addition to that, there were certain dress and personal appearance codes that the "Christian" was expected to adhere to. Examples of this would be that women were not to cut or trim their hair, wear slacks, or use excessive jewelry (anything other than a clock or a watch). Men were expected not to have a beard or long hair. Attendance at the theater was a "no-no," because it was considered "the seat of the ungodly." Mixed bathing and dancing were prohibited because it was believed that this type of blending would result in the arousal of sexual passions leading to sexual immorality. In retrospect, I tend to think that a lot these rules were really rooted in certain "hang ups' that people had regarding their own sexuality. It is very true that the Scriptures were used to support these codes and rules, but an honest and thorough examination of those Scripture passages will demonstrate and reveal that the writers of Scripture were not even thinking of these things when they wrote. It was really a case of reading those passages through the prism of the cultural baggage of the reader.
So we go back then to the question of what does it mean to be a Christian? The early followers of Jesus were referred to as "Christians" not only because they had put their trust in Jesus, but also because they followed and promoted His teachings. Early Christianity was not an organized religion. It was more of a movement of people who had experienced God's liberating act through Jesus of Nazareth, and who in turn promoted and spread the movement. There is no indication whatsoever in the New Testament that their Christianity was defined by the codes that have been described above. As a matter of fact, we have no indication whatsoever in the New Testament that these codes even existed in the early Church. The first followers of Jesus were called "Christians" because they followed Jesus's example of meeting the needs of the community in which they lived.
One cannot claim to be a "Christian" if he/she is not committed to the task of God's liberating, redemptive, and salvific activity in the world. We cannot isolate or shelter ourselves from the world of pain and suffering and still consider ourselves "Christians." We cannot see Jesus if we do not seem him in the eyes of the homeless, the hungry, the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, the person who in financial desperation resorts to committing crime, the alcoholic, the drug addict, the derelict, the undocumented immigrants, etc. Have we seen Jesus today? If we have not been in solidarity with this sector of humanity, we have not seen Jesus and cannot afford to in all good conscience bear the name "Christian." We might refrain as many non-Christians do from cursing,drinking, and smoking, but if we have not seen Jesus in the eyes of broken humanity we've missed the boat.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment
Sunday, January 11, 2015
A Christian View of World Religions- Buddhism
Buddhism started in the sixth century B. C. and like its parent religion Hinduism, emerged and developed in the soil of India. While many people tend to associate it with countries like China, Japan, the Koreas and other Asian nations, this is due to its widespread acceptance and growth in these countries. Gautama Siddhartha, later on to be known as the Budhha (the Enlightened one) was born around 563 B.C. He was born into affluence and opulency, but later on in his life, he rejected all the royalty that he was born into, abandoned his wife and son, all for the sake of his spiritual journey, pursuing the ultimate meaning of life and the destiny of humans. ( John Renard, the Handy Religion Answer Book. Visible Ink Press, 2002, p. 305)
The sacred text of the Buddhist religion is known as the Pali Canon, which was a collection of other texts known as the Tripitaka (the three baskets). The three sub-texts were the following: The Vinaya Pitaka which contained the rules of monastic discipline, the Sutra Pitaka which gathered Buddha's speeches, the Abhidarma Pitaka which included seven lengthy theoretical interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. (Renard, p. 309)
The three major strands of Buddhism are the following:
1. Therevada Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism is built around the notion that the Buddha was a human being who taught by example. The historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was the last of many non-human reincarnations of he Buddha-to-be.
2. Mahayana Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism emphasizes that Gautama Siddhartha was one of many manifestations of enlightment capable of saving those who ask for help.
3. Vajrayana Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism consists of a number of schools and lineages that blended Mahayana concepts with the esoteric interpretations of Hinduism's Tantric schools. It has also blended with popular traditions. (Renard, p. 309-310)
There is another aspect of Buddhism which is not as dogmatic as the other three branches of the Buddhist faith known as Zen Buddhism. Some consider this as a philosophical type of Buddhism which is practiced by adherents of other religions, including the Christian faith.
The major doctrines of Buddhism are:
1. The Four Noble Truths-
a. Life is difficult
b. All hardship and suffering comes from inappropriate attachment or grasping.
c. To avoid suffering, avoid inappropriate craving
d. To stop inappropriate craving, follow the Eightfold Noble Path (Renard, p. 317)
2. The Eightful Noble Path is: Eat what you need and use whatever is necessary for a modest style of living. The eight elements in the classical formulation of the standards for such a life are divided into three large categories: wisdom, ethics, and concentration. Achieving wisdom requires proper belief in the form of deep understanding of the Four Noble Truths and proper intent, which means that one performs all acts out of compassion rather than out of self motives. The next three steps on the Path involve ethics. Proper speech means avoiding all evils of the tongue. Proper action, expressed negatively, means refraining from inappropriate sexual relationships, killing and stealing. And proper livelihood calls for the avoidance of occupations that cause harm such dealing in slavery or weapons. Training in concentration also has a triple foundation. Proper effort means perfect balance in one's attitude toward work. Proper attentiveness flows from deep reflection on the Four Noble Truths. And proper absorption, a lofty goal, means the ability to be genuinely content in equilibrium between pursuing goals and running from fears. Everything depends on carefully measured responses. That does not necessarily mean the death of spontaneity. It also means a habit of discipline and keen awareness of one's personal motivations. (Renard, p. 317)
I invite you, the reader to review the teachings of Buddhism, and to determine which, if any of these teachings can be both affirmed and embraced by Christian believers. Do you see Jesus (the Cosmic Christ) present in any of these beliefs and teachings? Do you see the Buddha as a Christ-like figure, and maybe another Christophany (manifestation of Christ)? Your comments and input into this discussion are very valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The sacred text of the Buddhist religion is known as the Pali Canon, which was a collection of other texts known as the Tripitaka (the three baskets). The three sub-texts were the following: The Vinaya Pitaka which contained the rules of monastic discipline, the Sutra Pitaka which gathered Buddha's speeches, the Abhidarma Pitaka which included seven lengthy theoretical interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. (Renard, p. 309)
The three major strands of Buddhism are the following:
1. Therevada Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism is built around the notion that the Buddha was a human being who taught by example. The historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was the last of many non-human reincarnations of he Buddha-to-be.
2. Mahayana Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism emphasizes that Gautama Siddhartha was one of many manifestations of enlightment capable of saving those who ask for help.
3. Vajrayana Buddhism- This brand of Buddhism consists of a number of schools and lineages that blended Mahayana concepts with the esoteric interpretations of Hinduism's Tantric schools. It has also blended with popular traditions. (Renard, p. 309-310)
There is another aspect of Buddhism which is not as dogmatic as the other three branches of the Buddhist faith known as Zen Buddhism. Some consider this as a philosophical type of Buddhism which is practiced by adherents of other religions, including the Christian faith.
The major doctrines of Buddhism are:
1. The Four Noble Truths-
a. Life is difficult
b. All hardship and suffering comes from inappropriate attachment or grasping.
c. To avoid suffering, avoid inappropriate craving
d. To stop inappropriate craving, follow the Eightfold Noble Path (Renard, p. 317)
2. The Eightful Noble Path is: Eat what you need and use whatever is necessary for a modest style of living. The eight elements in the classical formulation of the standards for such a life are divided into three large categories: wisdom, ethics, and concentration. Achieving wisdom requires proper belief in the form of deep understanding of the Four Noble Truths and proper intent, which means that one performs all acts out of compassion rather than out of self motives. The next three steps on the Path involve ethics. Proper speech means avoiding all evils of the tongue. Proper action, expressed negatively, means refraining from inappropriate sexual relationships, killing and stealing. And proper livelihood calls for the avoidance of occupations that cause harm such dealing in slavery or weapons. Training in concentration also has a triple foundation. Proper effort means perfect balance in one's attitude toward work. Proper attentiveness flows from deep reflection on the Four Noble Truths. And proper absorption, a lofty goal, means the ability to be genuinely content in equilibrium between pursuing goals and running from fears. Everything depends on carefully measured responses. That does not necessarily mean the death of spontaneity. It also means a habit of discipline and keen awareness of one's personal motivations. (Renard, p. 317)
I invite you, the reader to review the teachings of Buddhism, and to determine which, if any of these teachings can be both affirmed and embraced by Christian believers. Do you see Jesus (the Cosmic Christ) present in any of these beliefs and teachings? Do you see the Buddha as a Christ-like figure, and maybe another Christophany (manifestation of Christ)? Your comments and input into this discussion are very valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, January 5, 2015
A Christian View of World Religions- Hinduism
As I mentioned in my last essay, these next several essays will focus on the great religions of the world. My approach to this subject will be the following:
1. Antiquity- I will begin with the world's most ancient organized religions.
2. Founders- I will, where applicable, talk about the "key players" in the emergence of the particular belief systems.
3. History- I will make mention of the approximate time period in which these communities of faith emerged, and developed.
4. Central beliefs- I will cover in summary, the major theological contents of each faith community.
5. Comparative Religions- I will focus on the major differences and major similarities between the Christian faith and the other major world religions.
I invite you the reader to:
1. Avoid to the highest degree possible, the tendency to evaluate these religions on the basis of your own. For example, don't invalidate the contents of Hinduism or any other religion on the basis of a difference or discrepancy with your own sacred book, i.e. the Bible. As I had mentioned earlier, each community of faith has its own sacred text. The truths or untruths of the religious claims of other faith communities are not contingent on "what the Bible says," anymore than the truths and untruths of "what the Bible says" being contingent on "what the Qu'aran or any other sacred book says."
2. Share with us what in the contents of these religions may or may not be affirmed and embraced from a Christian standpoint. Also, tell us how you think some of these beliefs and practices may be incorporated into Christian belief and practice.
While there are a great many books that cover the topic of comparative religions, for the purposes of these essays, I will be using the book "The Handy Religion Answer Book by Dr. John Renard. Dr. Renard is a Christian who has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, and has taught courses on Islam and other non-Christian religions
Hinduism is one of the oldest (perhaps the oldest) existing organized religions of humankind. It can be traced back to at least 4000 B.C.E. or B.C. depending on the historical approach one prefers. Dr. Renard informs us that some scholars push the origins back as much as three or four thousand years before that, which would take us to 8000 or 7000 B.C. Hinduism does not trace its origin to a specific individual teacher or foundational figure.
The major texts of Hinduism are the Vedas, and the Upanishads, which like the Bible and other sacred texts, developed over a period of many centuries. These two texts provide insight into the major beliefs and practices of Hinduism.
Hinduism does not have a central creed per se, but a thread of major themes runs through the fabric of the greater Hinduism.
Hinduism believes in a cosmic law known as Dharma. That law manifests itself on the level of individual beings as a potentially endless cycle of birth and rebirth. Hindus also believe in Karma, the notion that all actions have spiritual consequences. They all believe in the concept of Moksha (liberation). Hinduism emphasizes that there are ways of ridding one's action of all ulterior motive and progressing toward the ultimate goal of liberation from the endless cycle of rebirths.
Doctrines and dogmas are not that important for Hindus. As Dr. Renard points out, most Hindus have a great flexibility with respect to the content of their faith.
On the surface, Hinduism appears to be a polytheistic religion, i.e. one which stresses a belief in many gods. However, many Hindus will affirm that they believe in one God, one transcendent spiritual reality, who is manifested in a variety of ways. This position is not a far cry from that of Christian theology which claims that there is only one God who is manifested in the triune relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in the doctrine that some Christians in the early centuries adhered to about God being one entity who played three different roles at different times in human history.
Hindus believe that there are many names for God including Vishnu and Shiva. They also believe that these various names conform to the various existing forms of God.
The above-mentioned beliefs are not an exhaustive list of Hindu belief and practice. They give us a general idea of what Hinduism is about. I now invite you to comment on this system of beliefs, keeping in mind, that we are to judge each system of belief on its own merits, and not on the basis of the contents of our faith. Have fun and we look forward to hearing from you. Your contributions will be considered important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Antiquity- I will begin with the world's most ancient organized religions.
2. Founders- I will, where applicable, talk about the "key players" in the emergence of the particular belief systems.
3. History- I will make mention of the approximate time period in which these communities of faith emerged, and developed.
4. Central beliefs- I will cover in summary, the major theological contents of each faith community.
5. Comparative Religions- I will focus on the major differences and major similarities between the Christian faith and the other major world religions.
I invite you the reader to:
1. Avoid to the highest degree possible, the tendency to evaluate these religions on the basis of your own. For example, don't invalidate the contents of Hinduism or any other religion on the basis of a difference or discrepancy with your own sacred book, i.e. the Bible. As I had mentioned earlier, each community of faith has its own sacred text. The truths or untruths of the religious claims of other faith communities are not contingent on "what the Bible says," anymore than the truths and untruths of "what the Bible says" being contingent on "what the Qu'aran or any other sacred book says."
2. Share with us what in the contents of these religions may or may not be affirmed and embraced from a Christian standpoint. Also, tell us how you think some of these beliefs and practices may be incorporated into Christian belief and practice.
While there are a great many books that cover the topic of comparative religions, for the purposes of these essays, I will be using the book "The Handy Religion Answer Book by Dr. John Renard. Dr. Renard is a Christian who has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, and has taught courses on Islam and other non-Christian religions
Hinduism is one of the oldest (perhaps the oldest) existing organized religions of humankind. It can be traced back to at least 4000 B.C.E. or B.C. depending on the historical approach one prefers. Dr. Renard informs us that some scholars push the origins back as much as three or four thousand years before that, which would take us to 8000 or 7000 B.C. Hinduism does not trace its origin to a specific individual teacher or foundational figure.
The major texts of Hinduism are the Vedas, and the Upanishads, which like the Bible and other sacred texts, developed over a period of many centuries. These two texts provide insight into the major beliefs and practices of Hinduism.
Hinduism does not have a central creed per se, but a thread of major themes runs through the fabric of the greater Hinduism.
Hinduism believes in a cosmic law known as Dharma. That law manifests itself on the level of individual beings as a potentially endless cycle of birth and rebirth. Hindus also believe in Karma, the notion that all actions have spiritual consequences. They all believe in the concept of Moksha (liberation). Hinduism emphasizes that there are ways of ridding one's action of all ulterior motive and progressing toward the ultimate goal of liberation from the endless cycle of rebirths.
Doctrines and dogmas are not that important for Hindus. As Dr. Renard points out, most Hindus have a great flexibility with respect to the content of their faith.
On the surface, Hinduism appears to be a polytheistic religion, i.e. one which stresses a belief in many gods. However, many Hindus will affirm that they believe in one God, one transcendent spiritual reality, who is manifested in a variety of ways. This position is not a far cry from that of Christian theology which claims that there is only one God who is manifested in the triune relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in the doctrine that some Christians in the early centuries adhered to about God being one entity who played three different roles at different times in human history.
Hindus believe that there are many names for God including Vishnu and Shiva. They also believe that these various names conform to the various existing forms of God.
The above-mentioned beliefs are not an exhaustive list of Hindu belief and practice. They give us a general idea of what Hinduism is about. I now invite you to comment on this system of beliefs, keeping in mind, that we are to judge each system of belief on its own merits, and not on the basis of the contents of our faith. Have fun and we look forward to hearing from you. Your contributions will be considered important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, January 2, 2015
On Christian Bias
One of the many divisive issues that exist in the world is that of religious bias. The contents of belief in every faith community reflect bias. We cannot escape bias, because in our limited human condition, we all have assumptions and presuppositions which in turn generate the set of beliefs that we adhere to. Regardless of our religious affiliation or lack thereof, we are all a product of our environment, and therefore, think and act according the way in which our cultural and social environment has influenced us. Furthermore, we are finite and limited in our thinking, and incapable of mastering the totality of truth.
The Christian faith is no exception to the above-mentioned rule. As Christians we have our own view of other world religions as well as that of groups other than our own who claim to be Christian. Not only do we tend to assume that non-Christian religions are false, but we also tend to operate on the assumption that faith communities other than our own are preaching either a half-baked Gospel at best or are totally false at worst.
The mere fact that we Christians, to a large extent have the attitude that "everybody believes they're right, but I know they're wrong," in itself reflects how biased and prejudiced we are. We absolutize our beliefs by thinking that those who do not believe as we do, are doomed to eternal condemnation and separation from God. In the process of doing this, we arrogantly elevate ourselves to the position of God, and get so entrenched in our mental boxes that we find it hard to extricate ourselves from those boxes, and we believe that if we abandon that box, that we are in effect, abandoning God. We equate our mindset with the mindset of God, and tend to think that the way we see things is exactly the way that God sees things.
A perfect example of Christian bias is our insistence that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to God except through Him. That belief, of course, is based on a literal and verbatim interpretation of His own words "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." Well, Jesus did say those words according to the Gospel writers, but then we are faced with the question of what was the meaning of those words? We find a reference in the book of Acts that there is no other name under Heaven given unto humans whereby we must be saved. Then we find statements that Jesus is the only mediator between God and humankind. We interpret those statements literally without bothering to ask if there are other possible meanings to those passages.
These next several essays are written with the purpose of stimulating analytical and critical thinking about the way we might on the one hand maintain our Christ-centered approach to God, and on the other hand, allow our thinking to be broad enough to be open to a more "Cosmic" Christ who is not only the Christ of Christian believers, but also the Christ who is manifested in the different human belief systems of the world.
This writer (yours truly) is a Christian believer, minister, and theologian who believes strongly in the sovereignty of God, who reveals Godself the way in which God wants. Naturally, my own bias will lead me to understand God through the framework of the Christian faith which operates on God's self-disclosure to humankind through Jesus of Nazareth. However, I believe that God's self-disclosure and other actions go over and beyond my biased understanding of that divine revelation.
These essays will focus on the major religions of the world. I will compare both the differences and the similarities between them and our own Christian faith. In the meantime, in preparation for these essays, I invite you the reader to share with us your views concerning the possibility or non-possibility that Jesus the Christ might be present in belief systems other than our own.
As a word of caution, I would like to exhort you not to fall into the temptation of validating or invalidating the claims of other faith groups on the basis of our sacred book, the Bible. Each faith has its own sacred text and therefore a more impartial evaluation of these faith groups can be possible only to the extent that we allow the other claims and the other sacred texts to speak for themselves. In other words, we are to judge the truth or non-truths of other religious belief systems on their own merits, and not on our own biased presupposition that the Bible as a literary text, is the ultimate source of truth. I invite you to adventure, I invite you to open-mindedness, and I invite you to the quest for objectivity. Please tell us, in advance, where you stand on these possibilities.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The Christian faith is no exception to the above-mentioned rule. As Christians we have our own view of other world religions as well as that of groups other than our own who claim to be Christian. Not only do we tend to assume that non-Christian religions are false, but we also tend to operate on the assumption that faith communities other than our own are preaching either a half-baked Gospel at best or are totally false at worst.
The mere fact that we Christians, to a large extent have the attitude that "everybody believes they're right, but I know they're wrong," in itself reflects how biased and prejudiced we are. We absolutize our beliefs by thinking that those who do not believe as we do, are doomed to eternal condemnation and separation from God. In the process of doing this, we arrogantly elevate ourselves to the position of God, and get so entrenched in our mental boxes that we find it hard to extricate ourselves from those boxes, and we believe that if we abandon that box, that we are in effect, abandoning God. We equate our mindset with the mindset of God, and tend to think that the way we see things is exactly the way that God sees things.
A perfect example of Christian bias is our insistence that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to God except through Him. That belief, of course, is based on a literal and verbatim interpretation of His own words "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." Well, Jesus did say those words according to the Gospel writers, but then we are faced with the question of what was the meaning of those words? We find a reference in the book of Acts that there is no other name under Heaven given unto humans whereby we must be saved. Then we find statements that Jesus is the only mediator between God and humankind. We interpret those statements literally without bothering to ask if there are other possible meanings to those passages.
These next several essays are written with the purpose of stimulating analytical and critical thinking about the way we might on the one hand maintain our Christ-centered approach to God, and on the other hand, allow our thinking to be broad enough to be open to a more "Cosmic" Christ who is not only the Christ of Christian believers, but also the Christ who is manifested in the different human belief systems of the world.
This writer (yours truly) is a Christian believer, minister, and theologian who believes strongly in the sovereignty of God, who reveals Godself the way in which God wants. Naturally, my own bias will lead me to understand God through the framework of the Christian faith which operates on God's self-disclosure to humankind through Jesus of Nazareth. However, I believe that God's self-disclosure and other actions go over and beyond my biased understanding of that divine revelation.
These essays will focus on the major religions of the world. I will compare both the differences and the similarities between them and our own Christian faith. In the meantime, in preparation for these essays, I invite you the reader to share with us your views concerning the possibility or non-possibility that Jesus the Christ might be present in belief systems other than our own.
As a word of caution, I would like to exhort you not to fall into the temptation of validating or invalidating the claims of other faith groups on the basis of our sacred book, the Bible. Each faith has its own sacred text and therefore a more impartial evaluation of these faith groups can be possible only to the extent that we allow the other claims and the other sacred texts to speak for themselves. In other words, we are to judge the truth or non-truths of other religious belief systems on their own merits, and not on our own biased presupposition that the Bible as a literary text, is the ultimate source of truth. I invite you to adventure, I invite you to open-mindedness, and I invite you to the quest for objectivity. Please tell us, in advance, where you stand on these possibilities.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)