The first of several schools of thought (theological perspectives and positions) that we will consider in this essay is that of orthodoxy. The word orthodoxy comes from two Greek words, "orthos," which means appropriate, correct, or right, and "doxy" which means doctrine or teaching. In essence, orthodoxy is the summation of those doctrines and teachings which have been adhered to by the majority of Christians throughout the twenty-one centuries of the Church's existence. In saying this, I will qualify by it adding that it is thought that the majority of Christians have held to these views since no official census or survey has been taken as far as I know, to determine what the average man or woman sitting in the pews actually believes. In many instances, we will find members affiliated with certain churches or denominations that have an official doctrinal or theological position, who nevertheless are at variance with or have some modified disagreement with the position of their particular church or denomination. In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Horden defines orthodox theology as that form of Christianity which won the support of the overwhelming majority of Christians, and which is expressed by most of the official proclamations or creeds of Christian groups.
One of the things that we will discover is that even within the various schools of thought, there is a lot of diversity on different issues. By this I mean that not all Christians who subscribe to "orthodox" doctrine think exactly alike on all doctrinal issues. The focus of this essay will be on those doctrines and teachings that Christians who consider to be "orthodox," have in common.
It is safe to say that since the beginning of Church history, the Church as a whole, has affirmed and held on to the following positions.
1. Jesus as the incarnate Deity- The early Church believed in and proclaimed that Jesus was the God-human. They believed that in Jesus, God had taken on a body of flesh, and become humanized.
This, of course, presented a problem for the Roman Empire, who believed that the Caesar was the ultimate authority, and felt threatened by the Church's affirmation that Jesus the Christ was the final authority for the world. This affirmation and belief had political implications, which led the Empire to launch persecutions against the Church.
2. Jesus the Risen Lord- The Church strongly affirmed its position that after being in the tomb for three days, Jesus arose from the dead. The Apostle's Creed, a doctrinal statement written around the second or third century affirms that "the third day He arose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty." Anyone who even thought of denying the resurrection could not be considered a member of the Church.
3. Salvation by faith and grace- The Christian faith grew out of Judaism. In post-Babylonian Judaism, there was an emphasis by certain groups on having a right relationship with God on the basis of certain rules and regulations. These rules and regulations stressed that one could have a relationship with God by complying with these rules and by what was called later on "works righteousness." Even in early Christianity, there were certain groups who had these "legalistic" tendencies. The leaders of the Church (especially Paul the Apostle) emphasized an anti-legalistic approach to Christianity and instead believed that we are "saved," not by good works or even religiosity, but rather by God's grace revealed in Jesus. The concept of grace which emerged was that of unmerited favor, i.e. that humans could in and of themselves do nothing to earn "brownie points," with God, and that it was all God's initiative to bring us into a loving divine-human relationship.
4. The Trinity- While the concept of a triune God was not fully developed until the fourth century, the early Christians believed that there was a distinction as to person between God and Jesus, and between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This distinction was not one of nature or substance, but one of separate individuals sharing the same nature. In other words, the early Church believed that the Father was not Jesus, and that Jesus was not the Holy Spirit. But they did affirm, especially through the Nicene Creed, after 325 A.D. that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate individuals sharing the same divine nature and attributes.
5. The Second Coming- The early Church believed that Jesus was returning to Earth at the end of history to set up His earthly reign. According to this view, all human rule would come to an end and be replaced by divine rule forever. This was really an extension of the Church's belief that evil would ultimately be vanquished and that good would rein in its place.
In later times, especially after the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, different views emerged as to what was considered to be sound doctrine, and what people were expected to adhere to and believe in order to be qualified to join the Church. Most of the Church believed in the five points mentioned above, though with some variation. Subsequently, the Church was torn asunder by some insisting on certain doctrines being considered "orthodox," and others insisting that their particular doctrinal stance was the true "orthodoxy."
In the twentieth century, we find that there was variation of view among Christians who believed in "orthodoxy." In other words, "orthodoxy," as understood was not monolithic. Orthodoxy came to divided into the following two camps:
1. Fundamentalist- The fundamentalists were those who in addition to believing in the five points mentioned above, also believed that for one to be considered a Christian, he/she should also accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus and the miracle stories of the New Testament, especially those stores which we find in the Gospel accounts. They also required for church membership and for ordination into the ministry that people believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. "Fundamentalism" gets its name from the idea that there was a minimal core of "fundamental" doctrines that one must believe and adhere to in order to be considered a Christian. If one even had any questions about any of the "fundamentals" of the faith, that person's spirituality and relationship with God was called into question. Fundamentalism stresses to a large extent a literal and verbatim reading of the Bible without taking into consideration the cultural and historical context of "what the Bible says." It is characterized by the "quick to verse" approach to Scripture, and also by using the Bible to "proof text." Fundamentalism has been known to be hostile to the historical-critical approach to the Bible which requires one to deal with the issues of the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), the authorship of the individual books of the Bible, the intended audience of the biblical writers, the reason or reasons for writing, the style of writing employed by the biblical authors, the literary genre of each book of the Bible, the sources of information that the biblical writers utilized for writing their books, and whether or not the biblical writers engaged in editing or revising their written materials. Fundamentalism leaves no room whatsoever for the element of legend or myth in Scripture. The attitude is "the Bible says so, therefore it must be so." The notion of the divine inspiration of the Bible leans more towards a mechanical view, i.e. that the Holy Spirit dictated the word of Scripture to the writers, or, that at the very least, that the writers of Scripture were passive recipients of the divine message, without taking into consideration their cultural-social environment or their personality and style of writing.
2. Conservative (Evangelical) Like their fundamentalist sisters and brothers, conservative Christians believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible. However, when they affirm the "inerrancy" of the Bible, they make it clear that they are only referring to the original autographs and not to the subsequent manuscripts and translations which were written and submitted much later on to the Church. Furthermore, conservative Christians believe that the Holy Spirit made use of the writer's culture, language, personality, and style of writing in order to communicating the divine word. More so than their fundamentalist sisters and brothers, they are more prone to engage in the study of the biblical languages, history, philosophy, and all of the natural and social sciences. They are also more open to utilizing the historical-critical approach to the Bible, as well as the approach of "lower" or textual criticism, which involves comparing the existing manuscripts in order to make a determination as to which ones most accurately reflect what the original autographs said. Conservative Christians believe, for the most part, in the same basic doctrines that fundamentalist Christians adhere to with some variation. However, they are not as rigid as fundamentalists are in requiring that Christians submit to the series of doctrines mentioned previously, though they do tend to be suspicious of those who do not adhere to them. Some conservative Christians leave some room for the possibility of legend and myth in Scripture, without giving up their belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. Conservative Christians can be embraced by liberals for their willingness to engage in scholarship, and also be embraced by fundamentalists for their acceptance of the "fundamental" doctrines of the Bible. However, conservative Christians might be considered border-line "heretical" by fundamentalists for their ready willingness to engage in biblical scholarship and taking the risk of abandoning "the faith which was once delivered to the saints." On the other hand, conservatives can be considered "semi-obscurantists" by their liberal sisters and brothers for not allowing their scholarship to take them "out of the box" of fundamentalist darkness and ignorance, as reflected in their unwillingness to abandon the basic "orthodox" doctrines. Some may say that conservative Christianity is an "informed and scholarly" orthodoxy, as opposed to fundamentalism which is considered to be a "dogmatic," and "narrow-minded" definition of Scripture and the Christian tradition.
I now invite you the reader to do the following:
1. Determine which of the two schools (if any) of orthodoxy you most identify with and why.
2. Ask yourself if a person, in your opinion, can be considered a Christian and in a right relationship with God if he/she does not subscribe to any of the two forms of orthodoxy.
3. Share with us whether or not you believe that "orthodoxy" (correct doctrine) is important at the end of the day, and why or why not.
Your input is important and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
What is Theology?
Part of evaluating theological points of view and trends is to ask the question, "Just exactly what is theology?" Is it a hobby? Is it "mental gymnastics?" Is it what leading African American theologian James Cone called "intellectual masturbation?" Just exactly what is it?
The word theology comes from two Greek words, "theos," which means God, and "logy" which means study or discourse of. Since no one can study God in the strictest sense, I will, for the purposes of this essay define theology as "a discourse about God."
I will begin by saying that all of us are theologians. One does not need to have a degree in religion or theology to be a theologian. Anyone who engages in any type of discourse about God is a theologian. Anyone who tries to make sense of the Bible or any other piece of religious literature is a theologian. Even the decision not to engage in theological discourse is a theological decision. We all engage in theology on a regular basis by either deciding to engage in or refrain from theological discussion. In a strict sense, even agnostics and atheists are theologians. They have decided to either doubt or outright deny the existence of God. Those are, by default, theological decisions. We cannot escape theology altogether, as we are constantly faced with the decision to engage with it or ignore it.
We all base our theology on something or someone that we consider to be the final authority or the final word. That authority, whether it be the authority of sacred literature, or the authority of a person considered to be delegated by God, is considered to be normative for living and practice. In Christian theology, the following are considered to be the sources from which we derive our theology (beliefs and practices).
1. The Bible- Some Christian individuals and churches resort to a verbatim reading of Scripture, simply regurgitating "what the Bible says." This approach can be easily described what a good friend of mine refers to as the "quick to verse approach," i.e. the tendency to cite Scripture verses and passages without taking into consideration the cultural and literary background of those passages. Those who resort to this approach usually have the attitude of the "the Bible says so, end of story." Other Christians utilize the historical-critical approach to Scripture, in which they confront questions of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, style, literary genre, and sources of information. Those Christians who resort to this method still to consider the Bible normative for theology and doctrine, but with some modification and qualification. They, by and large, do not consider it a necessary postulate to resort to a literalist reading of the Bible in order to establish doctrine, or to, even for that matter, consider the Bible to be a sacred piece of literature.
2. Tradition- Tradition plays a large role in Christian theology. Some Christians (Protestant) believe that tradition is secondary to Scripture, because to them, the Bible is the primary and final authority for faith and practice. Other Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) believe that tradition is on a par with Scripture, especially because tradition (the customs and practices of the church) were already in place long before the Bible was written. They believe tradition gave birth to the Bible and that in fact, the Bible itself is a tradition. This writer (yours truly) is inclined to be aligned with the Catholic and Orthodox position. However, my Protestant bias leads me support the notion that for a teaching to be valid, it must somehow be rooted in biblical revelation, properly understood and interpreted. When I say "properly understood and interpreted," I mean being in sync with the intention of the writers of Scripture, i.e uphold what they intended to teach.
3. Experience- As Christians, both individually and collectively speaking, we have experiences that color the way we think and do theology. Some of us interpret our experiences in light of Scripture, and tradition, while others of us interpret the Scriptures and the traditions in the light of our experiences. There is a "give and take" in this approach.
4. Branches of human knowledge- In the last two or three centuries, religious scholars have come to acknowledge and recognize the need for believers to be aware of fields of knowledge and study other than that of religion. We cannot, they have correctly taught us, understand the Bible and religion as a whole, unless we are in conversation with fields like history, culture, languages, philosophy, psychology, and other subjects. If we ignore these other dimensions of knowledge, we will end up with a very enclosed view of Scripture and religion. Furthermore, the tendency will be to take a defensive position when confronted with objective data from other fields of study.
5. Hearsay and Rumors- Many Christians do not have a well-thought out theology. They prefer, instead, to base their beliefs and practices on what "Joe Blow (Pancho Pasteles)" and "Mary Jane (Chencha Pandereta)" taught them. Others, base their theology on rumors that they have heard in the market-place and/or the barber shop. This type of theology is usually emotional in nature, because it reflects a blind swallowing of everything that they have heard, without bothering to examine "if these things are so." This approach does not require the rigorous task of examination and research, but rather, the simple "two and two is four" approach. In this approach, people let those who they consider to be "experts" think for them, and tell them what to and what not to believe.
I now invite you, the reader to comment on this essay, as we prepare to delve into looking at various theological schools of thought. Feel free to raise any type of question or make any type of comment that you think is appropriate to this introduction to theology. Your comments are considered to helpful and important to this discourse.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
A Christian View of World Religions- Judaism
This will be the last essay in a series on world religions. Subsequently, I will be submitting essays on different schools of theology in Christianity, dealing with the challenges and questions posed for us by each one.
For Christians to understand the theology of their own faith. they must first deal with Judaism, which is in reality, the parent faith of Christianity. Many Christians make the mistake of interpreting Jewish theology in the light of Christian theology, when in actuality, it should be the other way around. Christians are guilty of "Christianizing" the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) instead of using them as a foundation for understanding the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
A word of caution is necessary at this point. We must distinguish between Judaism as defined in biblical religion from modern-day Jewry and the State of Israel. Judaism in biblical religion refers to the religion practiced by the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were the recipients of the promises made to them by Yahweh. The Hebrews (later on known as Jews) in Egypt, were part of this genealogical lineage. They came to compose the nation of Israel. Modern-day Israel is a political entity created by the Western powers of Great Britain and the United States in 1948, and has absolutely nothing to do with biblical Israel. In a very real sense, modern-day Israel is part and parcel of the Euro-American white power structure that through economic and military power exerts its powers over the countries of the Third World, maintaining them in a state of economic and political subjugation. Christians often make the mistake of blending and equating the two, and subsequently, end up supporting state-sponsored terrorism against the Arab nations of the world, especially the Palestinians who had been living in the land for centuries, and were uprooted by the actions of Euro-America.
In a very general sense, we can say that the religion known as Judaism began when Yahweh God spoke to Abraham and told him to leave the land and home of his ancestors in exchange for a land that God was going to be leading him too which would be "flowing with milk and honey." Abraham received the promise that God would make a great nation out of him and of his descendants. The promise was passed on to his Isaac, and to his grandson Jacob, later on, to be known as Israel.
In a more restricted sense, Judaism began when Yahweh spoke to Moses, a Hebrew, living with his fellow compatriots in Egypt, the majority of whom were slaves. God spoke to Moses and told him "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them from their agony, anguish, bondage, misery, oppression, and suffering." Judaism and its subsequent theological reflections, emerged from the context of a people brutalized and enslaved. Their experience in the house of bondage gave way to a theology (discourse about God) whose central motif came to be that of liberation and redemption. It is considered by some scholars that all this took place around 1300 B.C.
The main Scriptures of Judaism are the Torah (Law), the Prophets, and the Writings, all compiled into a major volume known to Christians as the Old Testament. These Scriptures contain, civil, ethical, legal, moral, and spiritual codes that define the relationship of the people to God and to one another. The Scriptures, then, are the written foundation which reflect the historical liberating acts of God, and which in turn establish the foundation for Jewish theological reflection. One may ask why the Christian version of the Old Testament has a larger number of books than the Jewish version? The answer to that is that many books of the Old Testament in the Jewish tradition, have been condensed and combined into single volumes. So though, all of the books of the Jewish collection are identical to the books in the Christian collection, we end up with a different number, i.e. 24 for the Jewish canon and 39 for the Christian canon.
In addition to their sacred Scriptures, Judaism also makes use of two large bodies of literature known as Talmud and Midrash (interpretation). After the Babylonian Exile, the Jews, as a result of their exposure to another cultural environment, found it necessary to interpret their sacred scriptures in the light of their new situation. Subsequently, they developed the Mishnah and the Gemara, which were two separate strands of commentary, and which later on were combined in one big volume known as the Talmud. Jewish theology, to large extent, is built on the Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament. In some respects, the Talmud is considered to be on a par with Scripture relative to authoritative and normative guidelines for godly living. In his time, Jesus, a Jew, had difficulties with some parties in Jewish leadership because of their tendency to interpret the Scriptures via the Talmud and in many respects, imposing Talmudic interpretations on the people, as if the Talmud had been written in heaven and thrown down to earth.
The central teachings of Judaism are found in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) which spell out the relationship of the people to God and to one another. In summary, the focus of the Law is on loving and serving God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind, and loving one's neighbor as oneself.
There are presently three major branches in Judaism. They are:
1. Orthodox Jews- Orthodox Judaism emphasizes the direct, verbatim revelation of the Torah to Moses. In a sense, Orthodox Jews believe that God wrote the Torah and gave it to Moses.
2. Conservative Jews- Conservative Jews belief in retaining the Orthodox emphasis on Scripture as normative, on the one hand, and on the other, they make allowances for adaptation to modern needs such as driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath. They also allow for women to exercise roles of leadership by becoming rabbis, a practice prohibited in Orthodox Judaism.
3. Reform Jews- John Renard informs us that Reform Judaism began as a result of many German Jews of the early 1800's beginning to feel that the tradition-bound approach of Orthodox Judaism was losing touch with life in rapidly changing societies. Reform theology in Judaism considers the Scriptures to be divinely inspired rather than directly revealed verbatim, and that it is subject to the interpretation of each individual.
There is a school of thought in Judaism known as Reconstructionism. Reconstructionist Jews tend to reorient Jewish belief from its generally other-worldly focus, and giving more attention to the"here and now."
One final point that I would like to make here, is that many Old Testament scholars (Christian and Jewish) find the element of possible borrowing from pre-existing religions. For example, the Babylonian account of Creation and the Flood, which is said to have been written at least five hundred years before the book of Genesis, carries much similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events. Did the writer of Genesis possibly borrow from the Babylonian account? Scholars also point out that prior to the Babylonian Exile, the Hebrew/Jewish people did not have a doctrine of angels and demons in their theology, and that they probably picked up these beliefs when they were in Babylon under the rule of the Persians (modern-day Iran). If Jewish theology is to a certain extent a "borrowed" theology, what does that say about Christian theology basing itself on Jewish theology?
Is it possible that Christian theology is not original and unique, and that itself is the product of previously transmitted religious ideology through Judaism and other religions?
Questions for reflection and comment:
1. In your opinion, what similarities exist between Judaism and Christianity?
2. Can those similarities be affirmed and embraced by Christians and incorporated into Christian theology?
3. Is Christ present in Judaism?
Feel free to comment on this essay by either answering the above questions or by generating comments, ideas, and perspectives of your own.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
For Christians to understand the theology of their own faith. they must first deal with Judaism, which is in reality, the parent faith of Christianity. Many Christians make the mistake of interpreting Jewish theology in the light of Christian theology, when in actuality, it should be the other way around. Christians are guilty of "Christianizing" the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) instead of using them as a foundation for understanding the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
A word of caution is necessary at this point. We must distinguish between Judaism as defined in biblical religion from modern-day Jewry and the State of Israel. Judaism in biblical religion refers to the religion practiced by the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were the recipients of the promises made to them by Yahweh. The Hebrews (later on known as Jews) in Egypt, were part of this genealogical lineage. They came to compose the nation of Israel. Modern-day Israel is a political entity created by the Western powers of Great Britain and the United States in 1948, and has absolutely nothing to do with biblical Israel. In a very real sense, modern-day Israel is part and parcel of the Euro-American white power structure that through economic and military power exerts its powers over the countries of the Third World, maintaining them in a state of economic and political subjugation. Christians often make the mistake of blending and equating the two, and subsequently, end up supporting state-sponsored terrorism against the Arab nations of the world, especially the Palestinians who had been living in the land for centuries, and were uprooted by the actions of Euro-America.
In a very general sense, we can say that the religion known as Judaism began when Yahweh God spoke to Abraham and told him to leave the land and home of his ancestors in exchange for a land that God was going to be leading him too which would be "flowing with milk and honey." Abraham received the promise that God would make a great nation out of him and of his descendants. The promise was passed on to his Isaac, and to his grandson Jacob, later on, to be known as Israel.
In a more restricted sense, Judaism began when Yahweh spoke to Moses, a Hebrew, living with his fellow compatriots in Egypt, the majority of whom were slaves. God spoke to Moses and told him "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them from their agony, anguish, bondage, misery, oppression, and suffering." Judaism and its subsequent theological reflections, emerged from the context of a people brutalized and enslaved. Their experience in the house of bondage gave way to a theology (discourse about God) whose central motif came to be that of liberation and redemption. It is considered by some scholars that all this took place around 1300 B.C.
The main Scriptures of Judaism are the Torah (Law), the Prophets, and the Writings, all compiled into a major volume known to Christians as the Old Testament. These Scriptures contain, civil, ethical, legal, moral, and spiritual codes that define the relationship of the people to God and to one another. The Scriptures, then, are the written foundation which reflect the historical liberating acts of God, and which in turn establish the foundation for Jewish theological reflection. One may ask why the Christian version of the Old Testament has a larger number of books than the Jewish version? The answer to that is that many books of the Old Testament in the Jewish tradition, have been condensed and combined into single volumes. So though, all of the books of the Jewish collection are identical to the books in the Christian collection, we end up with a different number, i.e. 24 for the Jewish canon and 39 for the Christian canon.
In addition to their sacred Scriptures, Judaism also makes use of two large bodies of literature known as Talmud and Midrash (interpretation). After the Babylonian Exile, the Jews, as a result of their exposure to another cultural environment, found it necessary to interpret their sacred scriptures in the light of their new situation. Subsequently, they developed the Mishnah and the Gemara, which were two separate strands of commentary, and which later on were combined in one big volume known as the Talmud. Jewish theology, to large extent, is built on the Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament. In some respects, the Talmud is considered to be on a par with Scripture relative to authoritative and normative guidelines for godly living. In his time, Jesus, a Jew, had difficulties with some parties in Jewish leadership because of their tendency to interpret the Scriptures via the Talmud and in many respects, imposing Talmudic interpretations on the people, as if the Talmud had been written in heaven and thrown down to earth.
The central teachings of Judaism are found in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) which spell out the relationship of the people to God and to one another. In summary, the focus of the Law is on loving and serving God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind, and loving one's neighbor as oneself.
There are presently three major branches in Judaism. They are:
1. Orthodox Jews- Orthodox Judaism emphasizes the direct, verbatim revelation of the Torah to Moses. In a sense, Orthodox Jews believe that God wrote the Torah and gave it to Moses.
2. Conservative Jews- Conservative Jews belief in retaining the Orthodox emphasis on Scripture as normative, on the one hand, and on the other, they make allowances for adaptation to modern needs such as driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath. They also allow for women to exercise roles of leadership by becoming rabbis, a practice prohibited in Orthodox Judaism.
3. Reform Jews- John Renard informs us that Reform Judaism began as a result of many German Jews of the early 1800's beginning to feel that the tradition-bound approach of Orthodox Judaism was losing touch with life in rapidly changing societies. Reform theology in Judaism considers the Scriptures to be divinely inspired rather than directly revealed verbatim, and that it is subject to the interpretation of each individual.
There is a school of thought in Judaism known as Reconstructionism. Reconstructionist Jews tend to reorient Jewish belief from its generally other-worldly focus, and giving more attention to the"here and now."
One final point that I would like to make here, is that many Old Testament scholars (Christian and Jewish) find the element of possible borrowing from pre-existing religions. For example, the Babylonian account of Creation and the Flood, which is said to have been written at least five hundred years before the book of Genesis, carries much similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events. Did the writer of Genesis possibly borrow from the Babylonian account? Scholars also point out that prior to the Babylonian Exile, the Hebrew/Jewish people did not have a doctrine of angels and demons in their theology, and that they probably picked up these beliefs when they were in Babylon under the rule of the Persians (modern-day Iran). If Jewish theology is to a certain extent a "borrowed" theology, what does that say about Christian theology basing itself on Jewish theology?
Is it possible that Christian theology is not original and unique, and that itself is the product of previously transmitted religious ideology through Judaism and other religions?
Questions for reflection and comment:
1. In your opinion, what similarities exist between Judaism and Christianity?
2. Can those similarities be affirmed and embraced by Christians and incorporated into Christian theology?
3. Is Christ present in Judaism?
Feel free to comment on this essay by either answering the above questions or by generating comments, ideas, and perspectives of your own.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, February 21, 2015
The Non-Importance of Theology
As a foundation for subsequent essays on the different viewpoints in Christian theology, I would like to begin by addressing the attitude among many Christians that theology and doctrine are not important for the Christian life. Many Christians (and I'm sure many adherents in other faith communities as well) believe that theology and doctrine are non-relevant to the Christian experience. There are those who believe that theology does not really define who is and who is not a Christian. There are various reasons why some Christians do not see the importance of theology at all. The reasons listed below are not exhaustive, by any stretch of the imagination, but it does point to some general attitudes of the average person sitting in the pew on Sunday morning or whatever other day of the week the congregation has decided to gather for fellowship and worship:
1. Lack of time- The attitude is that their time is so consumed and taken up by other priorities, i.e survival ("getting the cheese off the truck"), working, spending time with the family and friends, working, playing, vacation, etc.
2. Lack of interest- The mindset here is that theology is a "hobby" which only elicits the interest of people who have "nothing better to do" with their time.
3. Perceived irrelevance of theology- There are those who believe that theological pursuits are irrelevant to life issues such as crime, environmental issues, mental and physical illness, terrorism, war, etc. There are, in fact, those who believe that theological pursuits are an attempt to escape the realities of life by engaging in platitudes and ivory tower speculation.
4. The syndrome of delegation- There are many ( I suspect the vast majority of people sitting in the pew) who prefer not to think for themselves, and in fact, not to think at all. They prefer to let the "experts" think for them and tell them what to believe and what not to believe. They prefer for others to give them the "correct" answers rather than seek out the answers themselves. They delegate this responsibility to others because they "don't want to do all that work."
5. The syndrome of insecurity- There are those who are already convinced that what they believe is true, and that no matter what facts fly in their face, they are determined not to question the basis of their pre-conceived notions, or the assumptions behind those notions. They are afraid that if they engage in the study of theology, that their pre-conceived notions may be shattered, and their beliefs may be proven wrong. Some of them are afraid that if they abandon their beliefs and ideas, that they will be guilty of deviating from the "faith which was once delivered to the saints," and they will then, in effect, be turning their backs on God with the consequence that God will relegate them to eternal condemnation, and most specifically, to "roasting and toasting in hell forever and ever." They are, in essence afraid of God, and dare not question God, or the doctrines that God supposedly established and laid down. They believe that "right doctrine" is a prerequisite for a relationship with God.
As I said, these reasons do not constitute an exhaustive list for people not wanting to engage in theology, but they do point to some wide-spread attitudes and dispositions among many Christians.
Prior to my brief summary coverage of different schools (perspectives and viewpoints) of theological persuasions, I will invite you to determine for yourself if you fit in any of these categories, and if so which ones. Please share where you stand on these issues. Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Lack of time- The attitude is that their time is so consumed and taken up by other priorities, i.e survival ("getting the cheese off the truck"), working, spending time with the family and friends, working, playing, vacation, etc.
2. Lack of interest- The mindset here is that theology is a "hobby" which only elicits the interest of people who have "nothing better to do" with their time.
3. Perceived irrelevance of theology- There are those who believe that theological pursuits are irrelevant to life issues such as crime, environmental issues, mental and physical illness, terrorism, war, etc. There are, in fact, those who believe that theological pursuits are an attempt to escape the realities of life by engaging in platitudes and ivory tower speculation.
4. The syndrome of delegation- There are many ( I suspect the vast majority of people sitting in the pew) who prefer not to think for themselves, and in fact, not to think at all. They prefer to let the "experts" think for them and tell them what to believe and what not to believe. They prefer for others to give them the "correct" answers rather than seek out the answers themselves. They delegate this responsibility to others because they "don't want to do all that work."
5. The syndrome of insecurity- There are those who are already convinced that what they believe is true, and that no matter what facts fly in their face, they are determined not to question the basis of their pre-conceived notions, or the assumptions behind those notions. They are afraid that if they engage in the study of theology, that their pre-conceived notions may be shattered, and their beliefs may be proven wrong. Some of them are afraid that if they abandon their beliefs and ideas, that they will be guilty of deviating from the "faith which was once delivered to the saints," and they will then, in effect, be turning their backs on God with the consequence that God will relegate them to eternal condemnation, and most specifically, to "roasting and toasting in hell forever and ever." They are, in essence afraid of God, and dare not question God, or the doctrines that God supposedly established and laid down. They believe that "right doctrine" is a prerequisite for a relationship with God.
As I said, these reasons do not constitute an exhaustive list for people not wanting to engage in theology, but they do point to some wide-spread attitudes and dispositions among many Christians.
Prior to my brief summary coverage of different schools (perspectives and viewpoints) of theological persuasions, I will invite you to determine for yourself if you fit in any of these categories, and if so which ones. Please share where you stand on these issues. Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, February 20, 2015
A Christian View of World Religions- Islam
In recent years, the Islamic (Muslim) faith has been one the most, if not the most, maligned and demonized religions. The major reasons for this have been the events of 9/11/01 with the bombing
of the Twin Towers in New York City, and in recent times the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, and also the recent activities of the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). These and other groups, such as Al Qaeda, that have committed atrocities in the name of the Muslim faith, have been referred to as "Radical Islam" and in essence, have been the groups that have been scapegoated to give the Islamic faith a bad reputation. Because of their activities, many of which have been in retaliation for the support of state-sponsored terrorism by the Western powers of Euro-America, many people (including religious and political leaders) have concluded that Islam is "terrorist" religion. They fail to see the distinction between what the religion itself teaches, on the one hand, and on the other, what people do, including committing atrocities in the name of religion. Much of this criticism come from people who claim to be "Christian," and who at the same time overlook the atrocities that have been committed in history in the name of the Christian faith.
The purpose of this essay is not to defend Islam or any other religion, but rather to give an exposition as to what the historical origins and teachings of the Islamic faith are, and to give an opportunity for non-Muslims (especially Christians) to evaluate the Islamic faith on its own terms. I hope and trust that you, the reader, will take an open-minded approach to this presentation, and then arrive at your own conclusions. Once again, I would advise evaluating this religion on the basis of your own. In this case (especially for Christians), I would caution against judging the Islamic faith on the basis of our own sacred Scripture, i.e. the Bible and let the faith speak for itself.
1. Historical Origins- Islam, as a religion, can be considered to have begun around the year 610 when Muhammad, who was born around 570, claimed to have received a series of revelations given to him by Allah (the Arabic word for God, and the equivalent of the Hebrew word Elohim, mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Muhammad understood these revelations to mean that God was calling him to be a prophet to bring God's message to the people of Arabia, many of whom were immersed in practices of idolatry. Muhammad believed that God was charging him with delivering a message that would set straight misinterpretations of earlier revelations that God had given through the prophets (including Jesus) to both Jews and Christians. The Judaeo-Christian roots of Islam are very evident here.
John Renard, a Christian scholar of comparative religions, and a specialist in Islam, informs us that for approximately 23 years, the prophet Muhammad continued to preach the word God had spoken to him. Central to the message was the notion of "surrender". The word "surrender" in Arabic is "Islam," from which we get the name of the Islamic faith, and the Arabic word "Muslim" means one who surrenders. The main thrust of the Islamic faith, then was to surrender to God and to God's laws. Because Muhammad was preaching this unpopular message to his fellow compatriots in Mecca, he experienced persecution and had to flee to Medina. Eventually, he returned to Mecca, where he had originally received the revelations given to him by God through the angel Jibril (Arabic for Gabriel).
Mecca then became the geographical center of the Islamic faith.
2. Sacred Scriptures- In the same manner that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is considered to be the divinely inspired book of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the Qu'aran (Koran) is considered the divinely inspired and authoritative book of the Islamic faith. Muslims believe that it is normative for faith and practice.
3. Muhammad is considered to be the final prophet of God to the human race, following in the footsteps of other prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Subsequently, the written revelation given to Muhammad by God, goes over and beyond all previously written revelations. The Holy Qu'aran, then, is considered to be superior to the Torah and the New Testament. It should be noted that Islam does not deny the divine inspiration of the Bible. Muslims believe that the Bible has been tampered with, and that therefore, God inspired the Qu'aran as a corrective to the "corrupted" texts of the Bible.
4. Doctrines of Islam- For an individual to convert to Islam, he/she would have to affirm and be committed to the following doctrinal positions (Five Pillars of Islam):
a. I confess that there is only one God and that Muhammad is his messenger. This commitment of faith is called the Shahada, which means confession or witnessing. It would be the equivalent of a Christian saying "I believe in one God, and that Jesus is his messenger."
b. Ritual prayer (Salat) five times daily, at dawn, noon, afternoon, evening, and nightfall.
c. Giving of alms to the poor (Zakat)
d. Fasting from dawn until sunset during the holy month of Ramadan
e. Making the pilgrimage (haaj), if physically and financially able, to the holy city of Mecca at least once during one's lifetime.
5. Major groups in Islam
a. Sunni- Sunni Muslims constitute approximately 90% of the world's Muslims. They believe that their brand of Islam is the true one since they follow the Sunnah (the traditions handed down by the prophet Muhammad).
b. Shi"ites- Shi"ite Muslims believe that a leader in the Muslim community should be designated by his predecessor and belong to the family of the Prophet
c. Sufis- Sufis are a group of Muslims (almost monastic) who believe in detaching themselves from whatever may distract them from serving and worshiping God. They are said to engage in meditation and prayer on a continuous basis, and to be involved in mysticism.
d. Nation of Islam-This group of Muslims emerged under the leadership of Elijah Poole (later on known as the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, and presently being led by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. They believe that the ancestors of African Americans had been Muslims. Until recent years, they have kept themselves separate from mainstream Islam, believing in God has a special place for black people because the Scriptures (both Bible and Qu'aran) emphasize that God would choose the oppressed and suffering of this world. They believe that black people world-wide fit these two descriptions more than any one else in the world, and therefore, the Nation of Islam theology is a type of "Liberation Theology" which emphasizes oppression and suffering as the starting points of scriptural interpretation and theological reflection.
The questions for you, the readers are the following:
1. Do you see any similarity between Christian doctrine and Islamic teachings?
2. If so, can we then affirm and embrace these similarities?
3. In your opinion, is Christ present in the Islamic community in any way?
4. If so, can we then embrace Muslims as "sisters and brothers" in the faith?
Please feel free to comment on this essay and on any of the four questions that have been raised.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, February 15, 2015
A Christian View of World Religions- Native American Spirituality
There are some difficulties in writing about Native American religion or spirituality because of the variations that exist among the various Native American clans and tribes. In addition to the issue of these variations, the role of the oral traditions in Native American communities make it difficult to say with precision when exactly their religion or religions began. In this brief essay, I will write a summary of Native American spirituality relative to history and beliefs, and then leave it up to you the reader to evaluate it from a Christian standpoint.
1. Native American religion is pre-Christian and pre-Columbian. The people that we refer to as Native American or "Indian" lived in this land thousands of years before the Christian religion was initiated by Jesus and his immediate followers. It has existed in various forms, i.e, animistic (the idea that all objects have a life force in them), monotheistic (the belief that there is only one God), and polytheistic (the idea that there are many Gods or that there are many manifestations of the one God).
There are appears to be a general belief in the "Great Spirit" who is the creator of everything, including human beings.
When Columbus invaded (not "discovered") the Americas, the indigenous people of the land had their own religious practices. The Europeans and Euro-Americans made every effort to suppress and obliterate Native American spirituality and religious practices. There was some resistance on the part of the indigenous people, and others eventually syncretized their beliefs with colonial Christianity. Some of them took the attitude of "if you can't beat them, join them," albeit, by retaining elements of their original belief systems.
2. Native American spirituality does not make a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual. There is little, if any, evidence of differentiation between the natural and the supernatural. In Native American spirituality, they are intertwined.
3. Native American religion emphasizes the sacredness of the earth and the environment, including the waters. This emphasis is based on the belief that anything created by God is sacred, and therefore to be cared for and duly administered (theological ecology and stewardship).
4. Native American religion emphasizes the brotherhood/sisterhood of all humans. Very rarely do we find in Native American spirituality the distinction of people on the basis of social class. There is a strong emphasis on equality while at the same time defining the specific social functions and roles of each individual within the family, clan, or tribe.
5. The economic outlook of Native American spirituality is more of a "socialistic" one, i.e. the notion of communal or social ownership of the means of production and survival. There is very little, if any, any indication of "obtain what you can regardless of what or at whose expense."
6. While there are leaders in Native American religious practice, one does not find the highly structured order that we find in other faith groups. The notion of leadership is simplified, and therefore, the "politics of religion" are modified.
7. One would be hard-pressed to encounter an elaborate and sophisticated doctrinal or theological system. Native Americans are more oriented towards orthopraxis (correct living and practice) than they are towards orthodoxy (correct belief and doctrine). Survival in the midst of natural calamities and economic reality does not provide the luxury of engaging in extensive theological debates.
I end by once again referring to questions that I have posed before. You as a Christian are invited to consider the following questions and answer them for yourself, and at the same time, share your perspectives with us for dialogue. The questions are the following:
1. Do you see any similarities between Christianity and Native American beliefs and practices? If so, do you think that we as Christians can affirm and embrace these similar beliefs and practices?
2. Since Native American religion is pre-Christian, is there any possibility that Christianity itself may have borrowed some of its beliefs and practices from the indigenous people of the Americas and elsewhere?
3. Is it possible that Native American spirituality, more so than the spirituality of Western Christianity, is more in sync with biblical spirituality?
4. Is Jesus in some way that we cannot fully understand present in Native American beliefs, practices, and spirituality?
Feel free to give you comments on this essay and your response to the questions that I have posed.
Your contributions are important and welcome.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Native American religion is pre-Christian and pre-Columbian. The people that we refer to as Native American or "Indian" lived in this land thousands of years before the Christian religion was initiated by Jesus and his immediate followers. It has existed in various forms, i.e, animistic (the idea that all objects have a life force in them), monotheistic (the belief that there is only one God), and polytheistic (the idea that there are many Gods or that there are many manifestations of the one God).
There are appears to be a general belief in the "Great Spirit" who is the creator of everything, including human beings.
When Columbus invaded (not "discovered") the Americas, the indigenous people of the land had their own religious practices. The Europeans and Euro-Americans made every effort to suppress and obliterate Native American spirituality and religious practices. There was some resistance on the part of the indigenous people, and others eventually syncretized their beliefs with colonial Christianity. Some of them took the attitude of "if you can't beat them, join them," albeit, by retaining elements of their original belief systems.
2. Native American spirituality does not make a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual. There is little, if any, evidence of differentiation between the natural and the supernatural. In Native American spirituality, they are intertwined.
3. Native American religion emphasizes the sacredness of the earth and the environment, including the waters. This emphasis is based on the belief that anything created by God is sacred, and therefore to be cared for and duly administered (theological ecology and stewardship).
4. Native American religion emphasizes the brotherhood/sisterhood of all humans. Very rarely do we find in Native American spirituality the distinction of people on the basis of social class. There is a strong emphasis on equality while at the same time defining the specific social functions and roles of each individual within the family, clan, or tribe.
5. The economic outlook of Native American spirituality is more of a "socialistic" one, i.e. the notion of communal or social ownership of the means of production and survival. There is very little, if any, any indication of "obtain what you can regardless of what or at whose expense."
6. While there are leaders in Native American religious practice, one does not find the highly structured order that we find in other faith groups. The notion of leadership is simplified, and therefore, the "politics of religion" are modified.
7. One would be hard-pressed to encounter an elaborate and sophisticated doctrinal or theological system. Native Americans are more oriented towards orthopraxis (correct living and practice) than they are towards orthodoxy (correct belief and doctrine). Survival in the midst of natural calamities and economic reality does not provide the luxury of engaging in extensive theological debates.
I end by once again referring to questions that I have posed before. You as a Christian are invited to consider the following questions and answer them for yourself, and at the same time, share your perspectives with us for dialogue. The questions are the following:
1. Do you see any similarities between Christianity and Native American beliefs and practices? If so, do you think that we as Christians can affirm and embrace these similar beliefs and practices?
2. Since Native American religion is pre-Christian, is there any possibility that Christianity itself may have borrowed some of its beliefs and practices from the indigenous people of the Americas and elsewhere?
3. Is it possible that Native American spirituality, more so than the spirituality of Western Christianity, is more in sync with biblical spirituality?
4. Is Jesus in some way that we cannot fully understand present in Native American beliefs, practices, and spirituality?
Feel free to give you comments on this essay and your response to the questions that I have posed.
Your contributions are important and welcome.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
The Presence of Christ in Non-Christian Religions
In continuation of the topic of a Christian view of world religions, and before moving on to the next essay, which will focus on Native American spirituality, I would like to at this point interject some points of clarification regarding this important topic. In that spirit, I would:
1. Reiterate that in considering religions other than the Christian faith, we should not determine the truth or non-truth of their beliefs on the basis of our beliefs. In other words, we should not say that the beliefs and teachings of a particular religious system are false because they are not in harmony with or do not conform to what we as Christians believe and practice. To do this would be a demonstration of gross arrogance on our part as Christians, and also, a manifestation of religious imperialism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that our system of belief is the closest approximation to God's truth, but at the same time, we should acknowledge the right of other faith communities to believe that very same thing. When we fail to acknowledge the rights of other groups to have that same position, we are in essence suppressing those groups. Examples of this would be the move to return to restoring prayers in the public school system, and at the same time emphasizing that those prayers should only be to the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, celebration of Christmas in the public school system and other places in society, but criticizing the public display of the celebrations of other faith groups on the false assumption that America was "built on Christian principles."
2. We should remember that whatever our particular belief is as Christians, that we do not have a monopoly on God's truth. We only have a very limited, incomplete, partial, and tentative understanding of truth. None of us has the totality of truth in our pocket.
3. Whatever degree of truth we have is colored and influenced by our cultural and social environment. Even when we say that what we believe and practice is based on "what the Bible says," we should remember that our understanding of "what the Bible says" is generated by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to our affiliation with certain faith groups, all of which claim to base themselves on "what the Bible says," but yet have different understandings of "what the Bible says." And each faith group tends to believe that their understanding of "what the Bible says," is the absolute, correct, and only way of interpreting and understanding the message of the Bible.
4. Subsequently, we should ask ourselves the following questions:
a. Are there beliefs, practices, and teachings in non-Christian religions that are similar to ours and that subsequently we can affirm and embrace?
b. If some of these beliefs, practices, and teachings are similar to ours, can we then leave room for the possibility that there are truths that are not original with the Christian faith, but that in fact may have been borrowed from pre-Christian religions?
c. Can we as Christians continue to believe that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life," leading to God, but at the same time believe that Jesus is present in some way in the non-Christian faith groups? In other words, is it possible that non-Christian faith groups have experienced Christophanies (manifestations of Christ) in their own community? Can we believe that Jesus the Christ is too great to be exclusively limited to those communities which call themselves Christian?
In closing, I will say that this writer (yours truly) believes in the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who transcends all belief systems, and who is in some way present in all. However, some of you may have a different perspective on this issue, and if you do, I would invite you to share your particular viewpoints on this for our consideration and discussion. Please feel free to say what you honestly and sincerely believe regarding this topic. It would help us all to learn from each other.
And now to the Cosmic Christ who sits on the throne of God, and who is God's agent of liberation and redemption, be glory, honor, and power, forevermore. Amen!
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Reiterate that in considering religions other than the Christian faith, we should not determine the truth or non-truth of their beliefs on the basis of our beliefs. In other words, we should not say that the beliefs and teachings of a particular religious system are false because they are not in harmony with or do not conform to what we as Christians believe and practice. To do this would be a demonstration of gross arrogance on our part as Christians, and also, a manifestation of religious imperialism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that our system of belief is the closest approximation to God's truth, but at the same time, we should acknowledge the right of other faith communities to believe that very same thing. When we fail to acknowledge the rights of other groups to have that same position, we are in essence suppressing those groups. Examples of this would be the move to return to restoring prayers in the public school system, and at the same time emphasizing that those prayers should only be to the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, celebration of Christmas in the public school system and other places in society, but criticizing the public display of the celebrations of other faith groups on the false assumption that America was "built on Christian principles."
2. We should remember that whatever our particular belief is as Christians, that we do not have a monopoly on God's truth. We only have a very limited, incomplete, partial, and tentative understanding of truth. None of us has the totality of truth in our pocket.
3. Whatever degree of truth we have is colored and influenced by our cultural and social environment. Even when we say that what we believe and practice is based on "what the Bible says," we should remember that our understanding of "what the Bible says" is generated by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to our affiliation with certain faith groups, all of which claim to base themselves on "what the Bible says," but yet have different understandings of "what the Bible says." And each faith group tends to believe that their understanding of "what the Bible says," is the absolute, correct, and only way of interpreting and understanding the message of the Bible.
4. Subsequently, we should ask ourselves the following questions:
a. Are there beliefs, practices, and teachings in non-Christian religions that are similar to ours and that subsequently we can affirm and embrace?
b. If some of these beliefs, practices, and teachings are similar to ours, can we then leave room for the possibility that there are truths that are not original with the Christian faith, but that in fact may have been borrowed from pre-Christian religions?
c. Can we as Christians continue to believe that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life," leading to God, but at the same time believe that Jesus is present in some way in the non-Christian faith groups? In other words, is it possible that non-Christian faith groups have experienced Christophanies (manifestations of Christ) in their own community? Can we believe that Jesus the Christ is too great to be exclusively limited to those communities which call themselves Christian?
In closing, I will say that this writer (yours truly) believes in the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who transcends all belief systems, and who is in some way present in all. However, some of you may have a different perspective on this issue, and if you do, I would invite you to share your particular viewpoints on this for our consideration and discussion. Please feel free to say what you honestly and sincerely believe regarding this topic. It would help us all to learn from each other.
And now to the Cosmic Christ who sits on the throne of God, and who is God's agent of liberation and redemption, be glory, honor, and power, forevermore. Amen!
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Jesus of Faith and Jesus of History
This essay is written with a two-fold intention:
1. To pay tribute to Dr. Marcus Borg, a well-known New Testament scholar who passed away January 21st. Dr. Borg was a member of the Jesus Seminar, which was a school of thought (some say a movement) which focused on the writings of the New Testament and on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Borg, along with other members of the Jesus Seminar authored and co-authored books and other writings which focused on the historicity of Jesus, and on whether the contents of the New Testament were literal or legendary and mythological.
2. To have us consider the following questions:
a. Do faith and scholarship cancel each other out?
b. Can one be a man or woman of faith while engaged in scholarship?
c. Does one have to take the contents and message of the New Testament literally in order to be considered a Christian or individual of faith?
d. Does allowing room for the possibility of legend and myth in the New Testament, mean that one is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater?"
This writer (yours truly) a simple follower of Jesus, like Marcus Borg was, an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, and small scale theologian, following in the footsteps of scholars like Dr. Borg, and who has wrestled with these questions for many years. At the end of the day, Dr. Borg was considered a man of deep faith, though his theological positions were not always the ones held to by conventional Christianity. Though it was only in the last two years, that I had become acquainted with Dr. Borg and the Jesus Seminar, I had wrestled with the issues that he had brought up along with those who had preceded him with the quest for the historical Jesus for many years.
The so-called "Liberal" school of theology has affirmed that we must make a distinction between the Jesus who is the product of the Church's faith on the one hand, and the Jesus who lived in history like all other human beings on the other. On the basis of the Gospel writings and its ancient traditions, the Church has always affirmed that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, i.e. God in human form. This affirmation has cost the church ridicule, scorn, and even at some points in its history, political persecution, especially from governments that believe that their authority is threatened. On the other hand, the so-called "liberals" (I say so-called, because they are not really liberal in the true sense of the word), on the basis of "historical research," examination and classification of literary genre, and accommodation to society's standards of establishing truth, insist that we must consider Jesus strictly in terms of his humanity, and not attribute to him characteristics which are not real such as divine origins. These two polar positions have caused divisions and sub-divisions within the Christian community. As a result of the tension between the two, some Christians have retreated into a defensive and entrenched position about the meaning of what it means to be "saved," and what it means when we say that the Bible is "inspired." Other Christians, have resorted to integrating their faith with the latest "scientific discoveries," and as a result, no longer subscribe to the notion of a literalist approach to Scripture, or to a faith which requires miracles in order to be self-authenticated.
It is not my place to judge or question the validity of either position or to judge the persons who for whatever reasons hold to them. I can only humbly speak for myself in terms of where I am at in my spiritual journey relative to these issues.
As I said earlier, I am a simple follower of Jesus. This for me means that I do not know or understand it all. I am constantly seeking to make sense out of issues generated by the faith. My simple faith, informed by Scripture and by the traditions of the Church, lead me to continue to believe that Jesus is indeed, the incarnate, i.e. the God-human.
I believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. However, I do not believe that subscribing to these positions is what validates a person's relationship with God or lack thereof. I've known several sincere Christians that take these stories as embellished legends or myths designed to authenticate the faith of the Church. While I do not necessarily resonate with this latter group's position, I will admit in all honesty that it presents a challenge to those of us who look to the miracle stories as the basis for validation. I also believe that if we need the miracle stories for authentication and validation, that we run the risk of converting our faith into an Alice in Wonderland or Cinderella fairy tail. The truth of the Gospel stands on its own two feet without the need of miracles or supernatural occurrences.
Like Dr. Borg and other so-called "liberal" scholars, I believe that Jesus was also fully human. What this means for me is that I have no problem with the idea of Jesus playing, running, and falling down, and scraping his knees. Nor do I have any problem with the idea of his mother Mary changing his diapers when he was an infant. While many Christians would be offended at the idea of Jesus as a human being experiencing sexual attraction and urges, this writer has no such problems. One Scripture writer informs us that he was tempted in every point as we are, but without sin.
En fin, I do not believe that there is any real distinction between the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The community of faith, at some points in its history, has wanted to go to the extreme of divinizing Jesus so much that they deemphasize and almost deny his humanity. That is why in the body of the New Testament itself (John's Gospel account, and the three letters of John) certain thing were written, i.e. to combat the notion of Jesus not being human. On the other hand, the community of both religious and secular scholars has gone to the other extreme of dethroning Jesus and making him a mere human creature. They see no need for people to deify him in order to believe in his prophetic message.
All thanks and praise be to God for persons like Marcus Borg, who are constantly challenging us to rethink and reevaluate our faith, as well as the grounds for all our assumptions and presuppositions. They challenge us to seek to put things into proper perspective by having a faith which is not only informed and shaped by Scripture, tradition, and experience, but also a faith which constantly engages with the other branches of human knowledge, i.e humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, it order to be able to think through our faith in an analytical and critical manner.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment
1. To pay tribute to Dr. Marcus Borg, a well-known New Testament scholar who passed away January 21st. Dr. Borg was a member of the Jesus Seminar, which was a school of thought (some say a movement) which focused on the writings of the New Testament and on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Borg, along with other members of the Jesus Seminar authored and co-authored books and other writings which focused on the historicity of Jesus, and on whether the contents of the New Testament were literal or legendary and mythological.
2. To have us consider the following questions:
a. Do faith and scholarship cancel each other out?
b. Can one be a man or woman of faith while engaged in scholarship?
c. Does one have to take the contents and message of the New Testament literally in order to be considered a Christian or individual of faith?
d. Does allowing room for the possibility of legend and myth in the New Testament, mean that one is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater?"
This writer (yours truly) a simple follower of Jesus, like Marcus Borg was, an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, and small scale theologian, following in the footsteps of scholars like Dr. Borg, and who has wrestled with these questions for many years. At the end of the day, Dr. Borg was considered a man of deep faith, though his theological positions were not always the ones held to by conventional Christianity. Though it was only in the last two years, that I had become acquainted with Dr. Borg and the Jesus Seminar, I had wrestled with the issues that he had brought up along with those who had preceded him with the quest for the historical Jesus for many years.
The so-called "Liberal" school of theology has affirmed that we must make a distinction between the Jesus who is the product of the Church's faith on the one hand, and the Jesus who lived in history like all other human beings on the other. On the basis of the Gospel writings and its ancient traditions, the Church has always affirmed that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, i.e. God in human form. This affirmation has cost the church ridicule, scorn, and even at some points in its history, political persecution, especially from governments that believe that their authority is threatened. On the other hand, the so-called "liberals" (I say so-called, because they are not really liberal in the true sense of the word), on the basis of "historical research," examination and classification of literary genre, and accommodation to society's standards of establishing truth, insist that we must consider Jesus strictly in terms of his humanity, and not attribute to him characteristics which are not real such as divine origins. These two polar positions have caused divisions and sub-divisions within the Christian community. As a result of the tension between the two, some Christians have retreated into a defensive and entrenched position about the meaning of what it means to be "saved," and what it means when we say that the Bible is "inspired." Other Christians, have resorted to integrating their faith with the latest "scientific discoveries," and as a result, no longer subscribe to the notion of a literalist approach to Scripture, or to a faith which requires miracles in order to be self-authenticated.
It is not my place to judge or question the validity of either position or to judge the persons who for whatever reasons hold to them. I can only humbly speak for myself in terms of where I am at in my spiritual journey relative to these issues.
As I said earlier, I am a simple follower of Jesus. This for me means that I do not know or understand it all. I am constantly seeking to make sense out of issues generated by the faith. My simple faith, informed by Scripture and by the traditions of the Church, lead me to continue to believe that Jesus is indeed, the incarnate, i.e. the God-human.
I believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. However, I do not believe that subscribing to these positions is what validates a person's relationship with God or lack thereof. I've known several sincere Christians that take these stories as embellished legends or myths designed to authenticate the faith of the Church. While I do not necessarily resonate with this latter group's position, I will admit in all honesty that it presents a challenge to those of us who look to the miracle stories as the basis for validation. I also believe that if we need the miracle stories for authentication and validation, that we run the risk of converting our faith into an Alice in Wonderland or Cinderella fairy tail. The truth of the Gospel stands on its own two feet without the need of miracles or supernatural occurrences.
Like Dr. Borg and other so-called "liberal" scholars, I believe that Jesus was also fully human. What this means for me is that I have no problem with the idea of Jesus playing, running, and falling down, and scraping his knees. Nor do I have any problem with the idea of his mother Mary changing his diapers when he was an infant. While many Christians would be offended at the idea of Jesus as a human being experiencing sexual attraction and urges, this writer has no such problems. One Scripture writer informs us that he was tempted in every point as we are, but without sin.
En fin, I do not believe that there is any real distinction between the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The community of faith, at some points in its history, has wanted to go to the extreme of divinizing Jesus so much that they deemphasize and almost deny his humanity. That is why in the body of the New Testament itself (John's Gospel account, and the three letters of John) certain thing were written, i.e. to combat the notion of Jesus not being human. On the other hand, the community of both religious and secular scholars has gone to the other extreme of dethroning Jesus and making him a mere human creature. They see no need for people to deify him in order to believe in his prophetic message.
All thanks and praise be to God for persons like Marcus Borg, who are constantly challenging us to rethink and reevaluate our faith, as well as the grounds for all our assumptions and presuppositions. They challenge us to seek to put things into proper perspective by having a faith which is not only informed and shaped by Scripture, tradition, and experience, but also a faith which constantly engages with the other branches of human knowledge, i.e humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, it order to be able to think through our faith in an analytical and critical manner.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)