I'm sure that by now, those of you who have read my essays on the different schools of theology have noticed that I have interjected essays on related topics in between the ones on theology. Today I am doing that again. I am including an essay in between the most recent one on Process Theology and the next one, which will be on Theology of Hope, which will be written in the next few days.
As I pointed out in one previous essay, I will again state that many people validate or invalidate a particular theology on the basis of what they believe "the Bible says." They will tend to take a literalist or "quick to verse" approach in order to establish what they believe to be "sound doctrine." These two approaches give little or no room for reading "what the Bible says" in context. They basically consist of reading and quoting the Bible in a vacuum.
Before moving on to Theology of Hope, I would like to address an important issue regarding the role of Scripture in the construction of a theological system. It is the issue of inerrancy, i.e the position that since the Bible has been "divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit," there is no way that it can contain anything erroneous in content. Those who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy believe that if Scripture does contain error, then by logical extension, the possibility of error would have to be extended to the Holy Spirit as well. In this line of thinking, since it is impossible for God to err, then it should also be impossible to find errors in the book which God has inspired.
In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, I will, for the purposes of this essay, bypass the issue of the various meanings of the word "inspiration," and move on to the issue of in inerrant book. The issues of whether or not the Bible is an inerrant document can be addressed (though not fully resolved) by raising the following questions:
1. When we claim that the Bible is inerrant, are we making that claim for the Bible in its original document or does that claim only extend to the manuscripts and translations which were written after the original document had disappeared?
2. If the claim for inerrancy is only made for the original document of Scripture, on what objective basis other than faith do we make that claim?
3. If we believe that the claim for inerrancy does not extend to the subsequent manuscripts and translations, then how do we go about establishing a biblical theology, given the fact that there is variation within the manuscripts and translations?
4. At the end of the day, is inerrancy really important or is it a moot issue?
To question #1, there can be more than one answer or perspective. Those who use the historical critical approach to the Bible (author, date, audience, reason for writing, styles of writing, sources of information, literary genre, redaction, etc.) tend to leave room for error in both the original document and the manuscripts and translations. The reason for this is because they acknowledge the human condition of frailty and proneness to error in all human endeavors. While they will not outright deny the divine inspiration of the Bible, their understanding of "inspiration" does not cancel out the possibility of error.
Those who utilize the textual critical approach ( comparison of manuscripts and translations to "reconstruct" the original document) tend to favor the view that inerrancy only applies to the original document. They have seen enough variations of length and content in the manuscripts to justify not attributing inerrancy to the manuscripts and translations.
Those who take a devotional or literalist approach will by and large avoid all the "razzle dazzle" of both historical and textual criticism. Their position will be "the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, end of story." Their view of "inspiration" leads them to believe that research and scholarship are not necessary for one to study or believe in the message of the Bible.
To question #2, there can be at least two perspectives. One would be that since the original authors of the Bible (not the manuscript writers or the translators) were divinely inspired (led by the Spirit), there is no possible way that the original documents could contain error of any kind. This perspective reflects a certain theological logic, i.e. an inerrant Spirit could not and would not produce an errant document to be established for faith and practice.
The other perspective relative to question #2 would be one of faith. It would be the type of faith that does not require concrete and tangible proof, but rather a faith that says "I don't know or understand it all, but I trust God." This type of faith does not require logic, though it does not rule logic out entirely. It also comes close to being a blind faith, because it does not require data in order for one to exercise it.
To question #3, the answer or answers can be complex. If our faith is based on the manuscripts and translations, as it certainly is, then we have to assume that the manuscripts and translations of our preferences most accurately reflect what the original document said. No one claim that their faith is based on what the original document said, because the original documents have disappeared and are no longer in existence. In essence, then, our faith and theology are based on manuscripts and translations which we prefer for whatever reason, and in some extreme cases, believing that the Holy Spirit has a special preference for those manuscripts and translations.
To question #4, we can only answer by establishing for ourselves and maybe others, what the priorities are for us. Will engaging in issues of inerrancy pay my mortgage/rent and other financial obligations? Will arguments, controversies, and debates about inerrancy address and alleviate the suffering that is going on in the world? Will the issue of inerrancy really result in an improvement in our spiritual journey and relationship with God? Are these issues really moot?
I now invite you to review these questions and share with us your perspectives. Tell us how important or non-important you think they are and why or why not? Feel free to express your own viewpoints and heart-felt feelings on these issues. Your input will contribute to a learning experience for all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Monday, March 30, 2015
Process Theology
Process Theology is rooted in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, known as Process Philosophy or Process Thought. Whitehead revived an ancient Greek philosophical belief that reality is "becoming" rather than "being." This concept basically states that everything is in a state of flux, and that it is dynamic rather than static.
Charles Hartshorne developed Whitehead's thinking and applied it to the field of theology, which is a discourse about God. For Hartshorne, God is the ultimate reality, and subsequently, God is "becoming" rather than "being." God is subsequently, part of the evolutionary process of nature. As a participant in the evolutionary process, God is not subject to either an initial or final form. God in this concept is constantly evolving with everything and everyone else in the universe.
John Cobb, another Process theologian, later on elaborated on Process Theology's idea of God luring us to Godself. In other words, since God is in all (not is all), and all is in God, we are also involved in this evolutionary process of becoming and not being final. Unlike conventional Christianity which emphasizes the end of history, Process theology stresses the constant movement of history and nature. There appears to be no "final stage" in history in the sense that Christians speak of matters such as "the Second Coming," or the "kingdom of God." This does not mean, however, that in Process Theology there is no design or purpose in the sense of the Greek word "teleos," which means that God or nature have an end in sight. What it does mean is that since God is a participant in this evolutionary process. the evolutionary process is not a blind natural force running amok. Since it is God, an entity with intelligence, that is participating in and moving the process, the notion is that the process is designed to insure the good. The concept of God alluring us to Godself is one that stresses invitation rather than coercion. There appears to be an element of "universal salvation," in Process Theology in that God's alluring really leaves no room for eternal alienation between God and humans, or for that matter, between God and everything and everyone in the universe.
Process theologians tend to subscribe, by and large to the historical criticism of the Bible, which as pointed out in my previous postings, is a method that interprets the content of Scripture in the light of culture, language, and history. Historical criticism emphasizes authorship, audience, reasons for writing, date of writing, styles of writing, sources of information, and the issues of redaction. The historical-critical approach to the Bible leaves very little room for the notion of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible because it acknowledges the role of frail humans in its writing. Some scholars and theologians who resort to the higher critical approach to the Bible subscribe to the theory of evolution in the sense that Charles Darwin expounded it.
Process Theology does not have a strict emphasis on a "Christ-centeredness" relative to either theology itself or to a relationship with God. If anything, Process Theology appears to have elements of both "universal salvation," and of the "Cosmic Christ," who is not only the Christ of Christian believers, but the Christ of everyone who will eventually be allured to God.
Unlike the emphasis in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition on a transcendental God, Process Theology sees God in a horizontal and immanent form. The idea of God "up there" is alien to Process Theology, because it runs the risk of believing in a God who is detached from everything that is going on in history and nature. God is not "up there" in Process Theology, but rather "down here" and "among us," and "among everything." Process Theology believes in the biblical concept of the God who is "in all" "through all," and "with all."
How do you as a believer evaluate Process Theology? Is there anything in Process Theology which resonates with what you as a believer in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition believe? Is Process Theology's utilization of the historical critical approach to the Bible beneficial or detrimental to the construction a "sound" doctrinal and theological position? Your responses to these questions and/or your formulation of other questions and/or comments will make for healthy dialogue on this subject.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Charles Hartshorne developed Whitehead's thinking and applied it to the field of theology, which is a discourse about God. For Hartshorne, God is the ultimate reality, and subsequently, God is "becoming" rather than "being." God is subsequently, part of the evolutionary process of nature. As a participant in the evolutionary process, God is not subject to either an initial or final form. God in this concept is constantly evolving with everything and everyone else in the universe.
John Cobb, another Process theologian, later on elaborated on Process Theology's idea of God luring us to Godself. In other words, since God is in all (not is all), and all is in God, we are also involved in this evolutionary process of becoming and not being final. Unlike conventional Christianity which emphasizes the end of history, Process theology stresses the constant movement of history and nature. There appears to be no "final stage" in history in the sense that Christians speak of matters such as "the Second Coming," or the "kingdom of God." This does not mean, however, that in Process Theology there is no design or purpose in the sense of the Greek word "teleos," which means that God or nature have an end in sight. What it does mean is that since God is a participant in this evolutionary process. the evolutionary process is not a blind natural force running amok. Since it is God, an entity with intelligence, that is participating in and moving the process, the notion is that the process is designed to insure the good. The concept of God alluring us to Godself is one that stresses invitation rather than coercion. There appears to be an element of "universal salvation," in Process Theology in that God's alluring really leaves no room for eternal alienation between God and humans, or for that matter, between God and everything and everyone in the universe.
Process theologians tend to subscribe, by and large to the historical criticism of the Bible, which as pointed out in my previous postings, is a method that interprets the content of Scripture in the light of culture, language, and history. Historical criticism emphasizes authorship, audience, reasons for writing, date of writing, styles of writing, sources of information, and the issues of redaction. The historical-critical approach to the Bible leaves very little room for the notion of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible because it acknowledges the role of frail humans in its writing. Some scholars and theologians who resort to the higher critical approach to the Bible subscribe to the theory of evolution in the sense that Charles Darwin expounded it.
Process Theology does not have a strict emphasis on a "Christ-centeredness" relative to either theology itself or to a relationship with God. If anything, Process Theology appears to have elements of both "universal salvation," and of the "Cosmic Christ," who is not only the Christ of Christian believers, but the Christ of everyone who will eventually be allured to God.
Unlike the emphasis in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition on a transcendental God, Process Theology sees God in a horizontal and immanent form. The idea of God "up there" is alien to Process Theology, because it runs the risk of believing in a God who is detached from everything that is going on in history and nature. God is not "up there" in Process Theology, but rather "down here" and "among us," and "among everything." Process Theology believes in the biblical concept of the God who is "in all" "through all," and "with all."
How do you as a believer evaluate Process Theology? Is there anything in Process Theology which resonates with what you as a believer in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition believe? Is Process Theology's utilization of the historical critical approach to the Bible beneficial or detrimental to the construction a "sound" doctrinal and theological position? Your responses to these questions and/or your formulation of other questions and/or comments will make for healthy dialogue on this subject.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, March 27, 2015
An Invitation to Adventure, Risk, and Tedium
Before I move on to talk about the next school of thought, which will be Process Theology, I will briefly write on an approach to Bible reading and study which excites some and "turns off" others.
It is known as the historical critical method of Bible study. The major reason why I write on this topic, is because to many people, the validity of a theological position is determined by the role that the Bible plays in arriving in establishing that position. Some people want to know "what does that Bible say about that," or what "that" has to do with "what the Bible says?"
Since I have not taken a statistical census, I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that the average person would prefer to take the "devotional" approach to Scripture. This approach merely consists of reading the Bible, for the most part superficially, and/or quoting it. This approach is a very comfortable one since it does not require much rigor or too much investigation and research. Taking this approach is reflective of what many of us prefer, i.e. the short-cut to study as well as to other things in life.
I will in no way criticize that approach, or the people who prefer to use it. It works for some people that way in terms of how their faith is informed and how their faith journey is shaped. I have to admit that at some point in my faith journey, that is the approach that I used. But the reason for that was that I was not familiar and had not heard of the approach which I will now be addressing, i.e. the historical-critical approach to Bible study. I am grateful that by God's grace I have been exposed to this method, though I will confess that this method introduces a series of complex issues and questions relative to this book which we consider to be "the Word of God." Sometimes, as a result of being exposed to and utilizing this method in my practice of ministry, I wish that I could go back to the devotional method, which in essence, is Bible 101. I have been mentioning in the classes that I have taught that in Bible study and theology, we go from the simple to the complex and back to the simple. The difference in this case is that the second simplicity is an informed simplicity rather than a blind and naïve one in which the person believes everything that he/she hears.
I now invite you to adventure. The adventure is to delve into more information. I invite you to risk. This method is risky, because it will challenge us to reexamine our assumptions and presuppositions about "what the Bible says." I invite you to tedium. I guarantee you that because of the details involved, this approach to the Bible will at some points seem tedious and even boring. Personally, after swimming in six feet of water, I prefer the challenge of swimming in sixteen feet of water, if I may use that analogy in comparing the approaches to the Bible. I acknowledge the fact that swimming in sixteen feet of water poses great risks and dangers, but I find it much more fun and exciting to be somewhat "daring."
This historical critical approach to the Bible began in the seventeenth century and became popularized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It resulted in divisions within the Church, and I suspect even in the Jewish communities because of the results of "faith vs. scholarship" syndrome. The historical critical approach consists of the following questions:
1. Authorship- When we read any piece of literature, one of the first questions that comes to our mind is "who wrote this book?" The Bible, as a literary document, is no exception to this rule. It is very important for us to know who wrote the individual books of the Bible. We ask questions such as did Jeremiah write the book which carries his name, or did someone else write it, using Jeremiah's name to give it credibility?
2. Audience- If we do not bother to ask who the book was written to, or who the recipients were, we might miss out on something important. I have recently completed a book which took me two years to write, and one of the questions that my wife and I constantly asked was "who is the intended audience of readers?" In other words, who is bound to read this book?
3. Reason for writing- Every literary writer has a reason for putting her/his thoughts into writing. There is something or someone that will motivate that person to write. Furthermore, the writer expects or at least hopes for certain results that will happen as a consequence of the reading. Again, every writer of Scripture had a reason for writing and expected that her/his writings would result in some type of change in the lives of the readers.
4. Date of writing- Scholars are divided amongst themselves as to when certain books of the Bible were written. For example, because the second half of the book of Isaiah describes scenes that were familiar to people after the Babylonian Exile, some scholars believe that there were two writers named Isaiah, one writing before, and the other one writing after the Exile. New Testament scholarship reflects some scholars post-dating the Gospel accounts and the book of Revelation, while other scholars prefer to say that the books were written closer in time to the events described in the books.
5. Sources of information- Since we cannot approach the Bible as a book written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth, it is only logical that we ask what or who the sources of information were for the different authors of the Bible books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking "where did Mark get his information from in order to write his Gospel account?" Nor does it help to say that he got his information from God. To the best of our knowledge, God is not in the business of dishing out information that one can obtain by engaging in research and asking questions. The details in Scripture reflect that the authors did, indeed, engage in research.
6. Literary dependency- Because some of the books of Scripture reflect similarity with other literary documents, it is almost inevitable to inquire as to whether the writers depended to a certain extent on previous writings. For example, the Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood bear a lot of similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events. One cannot help but wonder if the author or authors of Genesis "borrowed" from the Babylonian accounts which were written at least five hundred years prior to Genesis. And because the first five books of the Bible mention more than one name for God and focus on certain themes, raises the question as to whether there was more than author and whether the various authors had different agendas to promote. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis is that since Elohim and Yahweh are different names for God in the Pentateuch, there must have been more than one author writing, each one with a different interest in mind.
7. Style of writing- Each piece of literature reflects a certain style of writing. There is history, legend, myth, poetry, prose, and allegory. The various books of the Bible reflect these literary types. The reader has to then determine how the various literary types have an impact on how we receive, understand, and apply the message of the book.
8. Redaction-Very, very rarely does someone write without reviewing what he/she has written before putting it into final form and submitting it to be published and/or read. There is nothing wrong with believing that the authors of the Bible were not any different. Acknowledging this does not in any way mitigate against the belief in "divine inspiration." Inspiration in this case means, that the Holy Spirit acted as a "superintendent," guiding the writers, not through mechanical dictation, nor through suppressing their personality, or obliterating their culture, but rather, through the historical process
of research, reading, and writing. The acknowledgement of redaction goes against the notion that the writers of Scripture sat or stood passively while God dictated to them the words of Scripture.
9. Cultural Environment- If we bypass the linguistic and cultural origins of the books of the Bible, we miss many important points. For example, if we ignore the fact that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in Hebrew the twenty-third Psalms says "Yahweh is my shepherd, whereas in English it says "the Lord is my shepherd." If we ignore the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in the first chapter of Colossians Paul uses the word "firstborn" for Jesus, leading the Jehovah's witnesses to demonstrate on biblical grounds that Jesus is a creature of God and is not God the Creator as most Christians believe that He is. If we don't understand the culture of the Bible writers it would be difficult for us to know why Solomon says that when we sit down at the dinner table we should "put a knife to our throat," or why foot washing was a symbol of hospitality in the Middle East. It would also be difficult for us to understand why a woman was considered property of the husband and why the Scriptures themselves appear to give approve to that notion which was widely held.
I am not say that the historical critical approach to the Bible is superior to the devotional approach. Neither am I claiming or pretending that the historical critical approach to the Bible will render us infallible. I've known many people who use the devotional approach and who have not even heard of the historical critical approach, but yet have a deep insight into the meaning of the message of the text. Conversely, I've known many people who use the historical critical method, and yet miss out on the main ingredients of Scripture. I believe that there is place and time for both. Having said that, I am firmly convinced that the historical critical approach opens up the door for a broader understanding of the Bible both as a literary document, and as a book of faith. It helps us understand "the story behind the story" by having us delve into culture, history, and language. To those who believe that the historical critical approach to the Bible will lead to a disbelief in its message, I would say that my exposure to the historical critical method has led me to believe in its message in a much stronger way. To those who believe that they don't want to go through all this "razzle dazzle" to study the Scriptures, I would strongly challenge them to go over and beyond the elementary and rudimentary approaches and open yourself to the adventures of looking at the Scriptures in different settings and to consider the diversity of theological perspectives within the body of the text itself.
Please feel free to comment on this approach to the Bible. Tell us if you think that it will erode and weaken your faith or will it make it stronger. Tell us if you think that it is a worthwhile effort, in spite of the risk of having you examine your assumptions and presuppositions, and in spite of the element of tediousness involved in rigorous study. Your contributions will be helpful.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
7.
It is known as the historical critical method of Bible study. The major reason why I write on this topic, is because to many people, the validity of a theological position is determined by the role that the Bible plays in arriving in establishing that position. Some people want to know "what does that Bible say about that," or what "that" has to do with "what the Bible says?"
Since I have not taken a statistical census, I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that the average person would prefer to take the "devotional" approach to Scripture. This approach merely consists of reading the Bible, for the most part superficially, and/or quoting it. This approach is a very comfortable one since it does not require much rigor or too much investigation and research. Taking this approach is reflective of what many of us prefer, i.e. the short-cut to study as well as to other things in life.
I will in no way criticize that approach, or the people who prefer to use it. It works for some people that way in terms of how their faith is informed and how their faith journey is shaped. I have to admit that at some point in my faith journey, that is the approach that I used. But the reason for that was that I was not familiar and had not heard of the approach which I will now be addressing, i.e. the historical-critical approach to Bible study. I am grateful that by God's grace I have been exposed to this method, though I will confess that this method introduces a series of complex issues and questions relative to this book which we consider to be "the Word of God." Sometimes, as a result of being exposed to and utilizing this method in my practice of ministry, I wish that I could go back to the devotional method, which in essence, is Bible 101. I have been mentioning in the classes that I have taught that in Bible study and theology, we go from the simple to the complex and back to the simple. The difference in this case is that the second simplicity is an informed simplicity rather than a blind and naïve one in which the person believes everything that he/she hears.
I now invite you to adventure. The adventure is to delve into more information. I invite you to risk. This method is risky, because it will challenge us to reexamine our assumptions and presuppositions about "what the Bible says." I invite you to tedium. I guarantee you that because of the details involved, this approach to the Bible will at some points seem tedious and even boring. Personally, after swimming in six feet of water, I prefer the challenge of swimming in sixteen feet of water, if I may use that analogy in comparing the approaches to the Bible. I acknowledge the fact that swimming in sixteen feet of water poses great risks and dangers, but I find it much more fun and exciting to be somewhat "daring."
This historical critical approach to the Bible began in the seventeenth century and became popularized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It resulted in divisions within the Church, and I suspect even in the Jewish communities because of the results of "faith vs. scholarship" syndrome. The historical critical approach consists of the following questions:
1. Authorship- When we read any piece of literature, one of the first questions that comes to our mind is "who wrote this book?" The Bible, as a literary document, is no exception to this rule. It is very important for us to know who wrote the individual books of the Bible. We ask questions such as did Jeremiah write the book which carries his name, or did someone else write it, using Jeremiah's name to give it credibility?
2. Audience- If we do not bother to ask who the book was written to, or who the recipients were, we might miss out on something important. I have recently completed a book which took me two years to write, and one of the questions that my wife and I constantly asked was "who is the intended audience of readers?" In other words, who is bound to read this book?
3. Reason for writing- Every literary writer has a reason for putting her/his thoughts into writing. There is something or someone that will motivate that person to write. Furthermore, the writer expects or at least hopes for certain results that will happen as a consequence of the reading. Again, every writer of Scripture had a reason for writing and expected that her/his writings would result in some type of change in the lives of the readers.
4. Date of writing- Scholars are divided amongst themselves as to when certain books of the Bible were written. For example, because the second half of the book of Isaiah describes scenes that were familiar to people after the Babylonian Exile, some scholars believe that there were two writers named Isaiah, one writing before, and the other one writing after the Exile. New Testament scholarship reflects some scholars post-dating the Gospel accounts and the book of Revelation, while other scholars prefer to say that the books were written closer in time to the events described in the books.
5. Sources of information- Since we cannot approach the Bible as a book written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth, it is only logical that we ask what or who the sources of information were for the different authors of the Bible books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking "where did Mark get his information from in order to write his Gospel account?" Nor does it help to say that he got his information from God. To the best of our knowledge, God is not in the business of dishing out information that one can obtain by engaging in research and asking questions. The details in Scripture reflect that the authors did, indeed, engage in research.
6. Literary dependency- Because some of the books of Scripture reflect similarity with other literary documents, it is almost inevitable to inquire as to whether the writers depended to a certain extent on previous writings. For example, the Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood bear a lot of similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events. One cannot help but wonder if the author or authors of Genesis "borrowed" from the Babylonian accounts which were written at least five hundred years prior to Genesis. And because the first five books of the Bible mention more than one name for God and focus on certain themes, raises the question as to whether there was more than author and whether the various authors had different agendas to promote. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis is that since Elohim and Yahweh are different names for God in the Pentateuch, there must have been more than one author writing, each one with a different interest in mind.
7. Style of writing- Each piece of literature reflects a certain style of writing. There is history, legend, myth, poetry, prose, and allegory. The various books of the Bible reflect these literary types. The reader has to then determine how the various literary types have an impact on how we receive, understand, and apply the message of the book.
8. Redaction-Very, very rarely does someone write without reviewing what he/she has written before putting it into final form and submitting it to be published and/or read. There is nothing wrong with believing that the authors of the Bible were not any different. Acknowledging this does not in any way mitigate against the belief in "divine inspiration." Inspiration in this case means, that the Holy Spirit acted as a "superintendent," guiding the writers, not through mechanical dictation, nor through suppressing their personality, or obliterating their culture, but rather, through the historical process
of research, reading, and writing. The acknowledgement of redaction goes against the notion that the writers of Scripture sat or stood passively while God dictated to them the words of Scripture.
9. Cultural Environment- If we bypass the linguistic and cultural origins of the books of the Bible, we miss many important points. For example, if we ignore the fact that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in Hebrew the twenty-third Psalms says "Yahweh is my shepherd, whereas in English it says "the Lord is my shepherd." If we ignore the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in the first chapter of Colossians Paul uses the word "firstborn" for Jesus, leading the Jehovah's witnesses to demonstrate on biblical grounds that Jesus is a creature of God and is not God the Creator as most Christians believe that He is. If we don't understand the culture of the Bible writers it would be difficult for us to know why Solomon says that when we sit down at the dinner table we should "put a knife to our throat," or why foot washing was a symbol of hospitality in the Middle East. It would also be difficult for us to understand why a woman was considered property of the husband and why the Scriptures themselves appear to give approve to that notion which was widely held.
I am not say that the historical critical approach to the Bible is superior to the devotional approach. Neither am I claiming or pretending that the historical critical approach to the Bible will render us infallible. I've known many people who use the devotional approach and who have not even heard of the historical critical approach, but yet have a deep insight into the meaning of the message of the text. Conversely, I've known many people who use the historical critical method, and yet miss out on the main ingredients of Scripture. I believe that there is place and time for both. Having said that, I am firmly convinced that the historical critical approach opens up the door for a broader understanding of the Bible both as a literary document, and as a book of faith. It helps us understand "the story behind the story" by having us delve into culture, history, and language. To those who believe that the historical critical approach to the Bible will lead to a disbelief in its message, I would say that my exposure to the historical critical method has led me to believe in its message in a much stronger way. To those who believe that they don't want to go through all this "razzle dazzle" to study the Scriptures, I would strongly challenge them to go over and beyond the elementary and rudimentary approaches and open yourself to the adventures of looking at the Scriptures in different settings and to consider the diversity of theological perspectives within the body of the text itself.
Please feel free to comment on this approach to the Bible. Tell us if you think that it will erode and weaken your faith or will it make it stronger. Tell us if you think that it is a worthwhile effort, in spite of the risk of having you examine your assumptions and presuppositions, and in spite of the element of tediousness involved in rigorous study. Your contributions will be helpful.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
7.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
News Flash-Church's Stance on Marriage
Last Thursday the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. voted to redefine marriage as "a union between two persons." This new definition opened the door to ecclesiastical endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Presbyterian Church, U.SA. becomes the second Protestant denomination to go this route through its highest court. The United Church of Christ had taken a similar action in previous years.
The purpose of this essay is not to speak for or against this latest action, but rather to present some of the challenges and opportunities, not only for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A and other denominations, but rather for the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole. There is no doubt that this action will have various results, including dissension and division along biblical hermeneutical and theological grounds, but also in relation to long standing traditions and customs of Christ's Church. This action will not doubt result in the following:
1. Members who oppose this action on biblical grounds will right away go to the Bible and quote a plethora of Scripture passages (taking the "quick to verse" approach) that in their belief speak against same-sex marriage. The major problem with this is the following:
a. The Bible nowhere speaks against same-sex marriage for the simple reason that same-sex marriage, to the best of our knowledge, was not a widespread practice in the society of biblical times. The Bible has various passages which speak against same-sex relations, and one would then have to determine if the biblical injunction against same-sex relations applies by implication to same-sex marriage.
b. The "quick to verse" approach (quoting Scripture passages without making any mention of the cultural, linguistic, and social origins of the Bible) has never solved any theological problem. If anything, the "quick to verse" approach has just resulted in individual Christians and churches disagreeing with each other because of different biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) and also "hair splitting" over the meaning of different passages of "what the Bible says." People who use the "quick to verse" approach are rather allergic to going through the trouble of doing the necessary research to establish the intended definition of those passages. They prefer the comfortable short-cut route of just citing the passages in order to "proof-text" their position, as if just merely quoting the particular passages prove anything. Their attitude is "the Bible says so, end of story."
c. Quoting the Bible as if in and of itself, the Bible has a life of its own, complicates the problem. This approach results in what Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor and theologian referred to as "bibliolatry," i.e. worship of the Bible. If the Bible is not Christ-centered, i.e. if the Bible does not play the role of witnessing to the Word, which is none other than Jesus the Christ, it is a book like any other. Thank God that the Scriptures do, indeed, play that role.
2. Many (both lay people and ordained clergy) who believe that this latest action is a reflection of the Church's abandoning and twisting the Word of God found in Scripture, will leave to other churches, or perhaps start their own new churches. What else is new? Since the beginning of time, the Church of Jesus the Christ has undergone division. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century accompanied by the subsequent emergence of different denominations quoting the same Bible is a witness to this ongoing thing with people being dissatisfied with things "as they are," vs. "how they should be."
3. Those who are open to a wide variety of hermeneutical perspectives will probably remain within their churches, while at the same time experiencing the "growing pains" of Scripture as historically understood vs. tradition. They will feel uncomfortable with the action taken, but at the same time trusting that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church as it examines and reexamines its biblical hermeneutics and theological presuppositions. This does not mean that they will blindly and uncritically accept and be in agreement with everything that the leadership of the Church decides, but they will trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church's leadership as the leadership submits itself to constant study of the Scriptures and of the Christian tradition, revising wherever and whenever revision is needed. They will accept the notion of "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (The Church reformed, always reforming)."
I invite you, the reader to evaluate the latest action in the light of the following:
1. The need to engage in honest and ongoing biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). This involves moving away from the tendency to quote Scripture in an impulsive, mechanical, and robotically-programmed manner. If and when you quote and utilize the Scripture as a frame of reference, make sure that you have gone through the rigorous task of examining the Scriptures in their original context, and at the same time do everything to avoid the infantile approach of just quoting them. Remember, anyone, including a child, can quote Scripture. Cliches and slogans about "what the Bible says," are not helpful.
2. The need for the Church to determine if its position on marriage and other moral issues should be exclusively based on ancient texts such as the Bible, or whether it is desirable for the Church to adopt pragmatic models which are based on the reality of life as we know it today.
3. The need for us to ask ourselves honestly, openly, and sincerely, if the latest action is reflective of the Church's accommodation to secular social mores and norms in order to make itself and the message of the Gospel "relevant" to our age, and also whether it reflects the Church preferring to find favor with society rather than favor with God.
Your comments on and reactions to this presentation are highly desired and most welcome. I trust that you will take the time to contribute to this ongoing discussion.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The purpose of this essay is not to speak for or against this latest action, but rather to present some of the challenges and opportunities, not only for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A and other denominations, but rather for the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole. There is no doubt that this action will have various results, including dissension and division along biblical hermeneutical and theological grounds, but also in relation to long standing traditions and customs of Christ's Church. This action will not doubt result in the following:
1. Members who oppose this action on biblical grounds will right away go to the Bible and quote a plethora of Scripture passages (taking the "quick to verse" approach) that in their belief speak against same-sex marriage. The major problem with this is the following:
a. The Bible nowhere speaks against same-sex marriage for the simple reason that same-sex marriage, to the best of our knowledge, was not a widespread practice in the society of biblical times. The Bible has various passages which speak against same-sex relations, and one would then have to determine if the biblical injunction against same-sex relations applies by implication to same-sex marriage.
b. The "quick to verse" approach (quoting Scripture passages without making any mention of the cultural, linguistic, and social origins of the Bible) has never solved any theological problem. If anything, the "quick to verse" approach has just resulted in individual Christians and churches disagreeing with each other because of different biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) and also "hair splitting" over the meaning of different passages of "what the Bible says." People who use the "quick to verse" approach are rather allergic to going through the trouble of doing the necessary research to establish the intended definition of those passages. They prefer the comfortable short-cut route of just citing the passages in order to "proof-text" their position, as if just merely quoting the particular passages prove anything. Their attitude is "the Bible says so, end of story."
c. Quoting the Bible as if in and of itself, the Bible has a life of its own, complicates the problem. This approach results in what Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor and theologian referred to as "bibliolatry," i.e. worship of the Bible. If the Bible is not Christ-centered, i.e. if the Bible does not play the role of witnessing to the Word, which is none other than Jesus the Christ, it is a book like any other. Thank God that the Scriptures do, indeed, play that role.
2. Many (both lay people and ordained clergy) who believe that this latest action is a reflection of the Church's abandoning and twisting the Word of God found in Scripture, will leave to other churches, or perhaps start their own new churches. What else is new? Since the beginning of time, the Church of Jesus the Christ has undergone division. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century accompanied by the subsequent emergence of different denominations quoting the same Bible is a witness to this ongoing thing with people being dissatisfied with things "as they are," vs. "how they should be."
3. Those who are open to a wide variety of hermeneutical perspectives will probably remain within their churches, while at the same time experiencing the "growing pains" of Scripture as historically understood vs. tradition. They will feel uncomfortable with the action taken, but at the same time trusting that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church as it examines and reexamines its biblical hermeneutics and theological presuppositions. This does not mean that they will blindly and uncritically accept and be in agreement with everything that the leadership of the Church decides, but they will trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church's leadership as the leadership submits itself to constant study of the Scriptures and of the Christian tradition, revising wherever and whenever revision is needed. They will accept the notion of "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (The Church reformed, always reforming)."
I invite you, the reader to evaluate the latest action in the light of the following:
1. The need to engage in honest and ongoing biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). This involves moving away from the tendency to quote Scripture in an impulsive, mechanical, and robotically-programmed manner. If and when you quote and utilize the Scripture as a frame of reference, make sure that you have gone through the rigorous task of examining the Scriptures in their original context, and at the same time do everything to avoid the infantile approach of just quoting them. Remember, anyone, including a child, can quote Scripture. Cliches and slogans about "what the Bible says," are not helpful.
2. The need for the Church to determine if its position on marriage and other moral issues should be exclusively based on ancient texts such as the Bible, or whether it is desirable for the Church to adopt pragmatic models which are based on the reality of life as we know it today.
3. The need for us to ask ourselves honestly, openly, and sincerely, if the latest action is reflective of the Church's accommodation to secular social mores and norms in order to make itself and the message of the Gospel "relevant" to our age, and also whether it reflects the Church preferring to find favor with society rather than favor with God.
Your comments on and reactions to this presentation are highly desired and most welcome. I trust that you will take the time to contribute to this ongoing discussion.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, March 19, 2015
God is Dead Theology
Some of you may read the title of this school of thought, and ask, "How can there be a theology about God being dead? Isn't that a contradiction in and of itself? If God is dead or doesn't exist, why even bother with theology?" I am reminded of a song that was sung frequently in a church that I attended in New York City. The name of the song was "God's Not Dead, He is Still Alive." The validity of God's existence, as expressed in that song was "I feel Him in my heart, I feel Him in my hands, I feel Him in my feet, I feel Him in my head, I feel Him all over me." The main proof that was used to demonstrate God's existence was "feelings." In other words, there was an emotional basis for demonstrating the reality of God's existence. In essence, it was a religion of emotions.
I would be the last person to deny that emotions play a role in the Christian experience. If we evaluate human beings holistically, there are emotional, intellectual, physical, and spiritual components in our makeup. Everyone of those components plays a role in our relationship with God. We can never sever or extricate any one of those elements in our spiritual journey. Jesus affirms the teaching of the Torah by instructing His disciples to "love the Lord with all their mind (intellect), all their heart (emotions), all their might (physical strength), and all their soul (totality of their being).
In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Hordern covers the emergence of the "God is Dead" theology. He informs us that the term "God is dead" was originally coined by the philosopher Frederich Nietzche. It has been used frequently by theologians to describe the fact that for many in our age, God seems to be unreal and thus is dead. Gabriel Vahanian brought the term to prominence in his book, God is Dead, which appeared in 1957. Vahanian argues that today atheism is not simply a theory which few thinkers reach; it is a way life lived by the masses. When Vahanian wrote his book, he was aware that there was a revival of religion. But this confirmed his thesis. What was being revived was a religiosity which identified God with humankind's peace of mind and economic welfare. Nothing could better prove the death of God than the way in which this religiosity lightly used God's name. Vahanian does not believe, however, that God is in fact dead. The living God of biblical faith can be ignored but not killed. And so Vahanian calls Christians to smash the idols worshiped in our time so that the living God might be heard again. The God is dead theologians begin from the same view of our culture, but draw a different conclusion than Vahanian did. In some real sense they want to say that God is dead. (Hordern, p.238).
Leading African American theologian, James Cone, author of "God of the Oppressed," and "Black Theology and Black Power," argues that the God who is identified with the oppressing class is an evil and demonic god and needs to be put to death. For Cone, any god who supports maintaining people in a state of subjugation needs to be done away with. In Cone's theology, the only God that should be allowed to exist and served is the God who identifies with oppressed people and their struggles and their sufferings.
One key exponent of the God is dead group is Thomas Altizer. Altizer believes that Christians must accept their own age and think in its terms. He believes that God died in Christ, died in the nineteenth century, died in the twentieth century, and that God dies again every time Christians love their neighbors, and goes on to say that we must will the death of God. When Altizer reads Phillipans 2:6-8, his understanding is that God died in Christ in order to enter fully into human history. For Altizer, the person who hopes to find in him a truly atheistic theologian will be disappointed. Altizer believes that God's death does not mean that God is no more, but rather that God is becoming fully immanent within the world and history. That is why Altizer could easily say "God is dead, thank God" (Hordern, p.240).
Another leading figure in this group is William Hamilton. Hamilton believes that theology must become humble and fragmentary. In Jesus, says Hamilton, we find God lowly in the world, serving others. According to Hamilton, in Jesus, God is suffering. Today's Christian must be a rebel against God because only when we have rebelled against the "father image" of God can we serve the limited and suffering God (Hordern, p.243).
In closing, I invite you (the reader) to evaluate the God is Dead theology. What strengths and weaknesses do you see in this school of thought? Are there any elements of God is Dead theology that you believe we as Christians can embrace? Or do you believe that the God is Dead theology is a human attempt to deny the existence of God and make it irrelevant for today? Your input and response to these questions will make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I would be the last person to deny that emotions play a role in the Christian experience. If we evaluate human beings holistically, there are emotional, intellectual, physical, and spiritual components in our makeup. Everyone of those components plays a role in our relationship with God. We can never sever or extricate any one of those elements in our spiritual journey. Jesus affirms the teaching of the Torah by instructing His disciples to "love the Lord with all their mind (intellect), all their heart (emotions), all their might (physical strength), and all their soul (totality of their being).
In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Hordern covers the emergence of the "God is Dead" theology. He informs us that the term "God is dead" was originally coined by the philosopher Frederich Nietzche. It has been used frequently by theologians to describe the fact that for many in our age, God seems to be unreal and thus is dead. Gabriel Vahanian brought the term to prominence in his book, God is Dead, which appeared in 1957. Vahanian argues that today atheism is not simply a theory which few thinkers reach; it is a way life lived by the masses. When Vahanian wrote his book, he was aware that there was a revival of religion. But this confirmed his thesis. What was being revived was a religiosity which identified God with humankind's peace of mind and economic welfare. Nothing could better prove the death of God than the way in which this religiosity lightly used God's name. Vahanian does not believe, however, that God is in fact dead. The living God of biblical faith can be ignored but not killed. And so Vahanian calls Christians to smash the idols worshiped in our time so that the living God might be heard again. The God is dead theologians begin from the same view of our culture, but draw a different conclusion than Vahanian did. In some real sense they want to say that God is dead. (Hordern, p.238).
Leading African American theologian, James Cone, author of "God of the Oppressed," and "Black Theology and Black Power," argues that the God who is identified with the oppressing class is an evil and demonic god and needs to be put to death. For Cone, any god who supports maintaining people in a state of subjugation needs to be done away with. In Cone's theology, the only God that should be allowed to exist and served is the God who identifies with oppressed people and their struggles and their sufferings.
One key exponent of the God is dead group is Thomas Altizer. Altizer believes that Christians must accept their own age and think in its terms. He believes that God died in Christ, died in the nineteenth century, died in the twentieth century, and that God dies again every time Christians love their neighbors, and goes on to say that we must will the death of God. When Altizer reads Phillipans 2:6-8, his understanding is that God died in Christ in order to enter fully into human history. For Altizer, the person who hopes to find in him a truly atheistic theologian will be disappointed. Altizer believes that God's death does not mean that God is no more, but rather that God is becoming fully immanent within the world and history. That is why Altizer could easily say "God is dead, thank God" (Hordern, p.240).
Another leading figure in this group is William Hamilton. Hamilton believes that theology must become humble and fragmentary. In Jesus, says Hamilton, we find God lowly in the world, serving others. According to Hamilton, in Jesus, God is suffering. Today's Christian must be a rebel against God because only when we have rebelled against the "father image" of God can we serve the limited and suffering God (Hordern, p.243).
In closing, I invite you (the reader) to evaluate the God is Dead theology. What strengths and weaknesses do you see in this school of thought? Are there any elements of God is Dead theology that you believe we as Christians can embrace? Or do you believe that the God is Dead theology is a human attempt to deny the existence of God and make it irrelevant for today? Your input and response to these questions will make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Neo-Orthodoxy: A Return to Orthodoxy or Liberalism in Disguise?
The next theological school of thought that we will consider is called "neo-orthodoxy." Some have referred to it as "crisis theology," or "dialectical theology," because of its emergence and roots, and also the methods and approaches used by the lead thinkers in this stream of thought.
It is called "neo-orthodoxy," because the person whose name is associated with it (Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor) spoke about "returning to the Word" as a way of constructing doctrine and a theological system. For those who subscribed to the orthodox doctrine of a divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallible book, this new school of thought generated an initial joyous greeting. But once it was discovered that Barth still utilized the historical-critical approach to the Bible (the method used by liberal theology), there was a sense of disappointment on the part of orthodox Christians.
Barth had studied and been exposed to liberal theology's approach to Scripture, which included studying the original languages of the Bible, the culture and cultural background of the biblical authors, the issues of audience, dates of writing, reasons for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, and whether or not the biblical writers went through a process of redacting or editing their original writings. This approach also left room for the possibility that the biblical writers borrowed categories and thoughts that were not original with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It also left room for the possibility of error in the Bible. The liberal mindset lent itself to the idea that through education and science, humankind could overcome its deficiencies, and bring evil to an end. But the first World War disappointed Barth's view of humankind, and brought him into an encounter with the depravity of humankind, while at the same time witnessing the sovereignty of God. As a result of reading Paul's letter to the Romans, Barth came across these two realities and subsequently wrote a book called "Romerbrief," which was a commentary on the book of Romans. Barth spoke of "returning to the Word," but by "Word" he was not referring to the Bible, but rather to Jesus. He believed that the Bible is "a witness to the Word," rather than "Word" itself. In essence, he believed that unless we encounter Christ in the writings of the Bible, that the Bible is just another book on the shelf, but also, that when we encounter Christ in Scripture, that the Bible then becomes the "Word of God." At that point, believed Barth, the Bible becomes a mediating agent of divine revelation.
Bart also believed in the Christian walking with the Bible under one arm and the newspaper in the other. He believed that the Bible in and of itself meant nothing unless it had relevance for current events. That is why in his belief, the Scripture and current events had to be integrated.
To orthodox Christians (especially of the fundamentalist type) who insisted on an inerrant and infallible Bible, Barth would accuse them of converting the Bible into a "paper Pope," and of committing "bibliolatry (worship of the Bible)." For Barth, in the same way that Catholics were in essence guilty of attributing inerrancy and infallibility to a human being (the Pope), Protestants were guilty of doing the same thing with the writers of Scripture.
As pointed out before, Barth was a disappointment to both liberals and orthodox Christians. The liberals were disappointed in Barth retaining the traditional doctrine of Jesus being the incarnate God, through whom humankind would be redeemed and saved, while the orthodox believers were disappointed in his use of the historical critical approach to Scripture, leaving room for the possibility of human error in the Bible.
I will mention one more theologian who is considered to be part of neo-orthodox theology. His name is Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann is known for the term "demythologization," which came as a result of an essay he wrote entitled "New Testament and Mythology." He was a New Testament professor at the University of Marburg. Like Karl Barth, he was exposed to and made use of the historical-critical approach to the Bible. There was question as to whether he was promoting a new brand of liberalism or whether like Barth, he was trying to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing modern categories and terms that reflected resonance with modern day science. Bultmann believed that the only way to bring out the essence of the Gospel, and for that matter, the New Testament message, was to strip the Scriptures of their mythological elements and to restate the message in terms that are compatible with modern day science. For Bultmann, it is impossible to believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in an age which has been freed from ignorance and superstition through the advent of science and technology. Bultmann spoke about the need for speaking about the Resurrection in terms of our resurrecting to our maximum potentials. As can be expected, Bultmann could be applauded to a certain extent by orthodox believers for specializing in biblical theology, but at the same time by the liberals for deconstructing the outmoded forms in which the biblical message is proclaimed.
Though there are other theologians in the stream of thought known as "neo-orthodoxy," and I will stop at this point and invite you, the reader to give an evaluation of neo-orthodoxy on the basis of this brief essay. In your opinion, is it a viable and valid way of doing Christian theology and arriving at "sound doctrine," or is it alien to the message of the Gospel. Tell us what you think and why. Your contributions are important.
Grace and peace,
Dr, Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
It is called "neo-orthodoxy," because the person whose name is associated with it (Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor) spoke about "returning to the Word" as a way of constructing doctrine and a theological system. For those who subscribed to the orthodox doctrine of a divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallible book, this new school of thought generated an initial joyous greeting. But once it was discovered that Barth still utilized the historical-critical approach to the Bible (the method used by liberal theology), there was a sense of disappointment on the part of orthodox Christians.
Barth had studied and been exposed to liberal theology's approach to Scripture, which included studying the original languages of the Bible, the culture and cultural background of the biblical authors, the issues of audience, dates of writing, reasons for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, and whether or not the biblical writers went through a process of redacting or editing their original writings. This approach also left room for the possibility that the biblical writers borrowed categories and thoughts that were not original with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It also left room for the possibility of error in the Bible. The liberal mindset lent itself to the idea that through education and science, humankind could overcome its deficiencies, and bring evil to an end. But the first World War disappointed Barth's view of humankind, and brought him into an encounter with the depravity of humankind, while at the same time witnessing the sovereignty of God. As a result of reading Paul's letter to the Romans, Barth came across these two realities and subsequently wrote a book called "Romerbrief," which was a commentary on the book of Romans. Barth spoke of "returning to the Word," but by "Word" he was not referring to the Bible, but rather to Jesus. He believed that the Bible is "a witness to the Word," rather than "Word" itself. In essence, he believed that unless we encounter Christ in the writings of the Bible, that the Bible is just another book on the shelf, but also, that when we encounter Christ in Scripture, that the Bible then becomes the "Word of God." At that point, believed Barth, the Bible becomes a mediating agent of divine revelation.
Bart also believed in the Christian walking with the Bible under one arm and the newspaper in the other. He believed that the Bible in and of itself meant nothing unless it had relevance for current events. That is why in his belief, the Scripture and current events had to be integrated.
To orthodox Christians (especially of the fundamentalist type) who insisted on an inerrant and infallible Bible, Barth would accuse them of converting the Bible into a "paper Pope," and of committing "bibliolatry (worship of the Bible)." For Barth, in the same way that Catholics were in essence guilty of attributing inerrancy and infallibility to a human being (the Pope), Protestants were guilty of doing the same thing with the writers of Scripture.
As pointed out before, Barth was a disappointment to both liberals and orthodox Christians. The liberals were disappointed in Barth retaining the traditional doctrine of Jesus being the incarnate God, through whom humankind would be redeemed and saved, while the orthodox believers were disappointed in his use of the historical critical approach to Scripture, leaving room for the possibility of human error in the Bible.
I will mention one more theologian who is considered to be part of neo-orthodox theology. His name is Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann is known for the term "demythologization," which came as a result of an essay he wrote entitled "New Testament and Mythology." He was a New Testament professor at the University of Marburg. Like Karl Barth, he was exposed to and made use of the historical-critical approach to the Bible. There was question as to whether he was promoting a new brand of liberalism or whether like Barth, he was trying to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing modern categories and terms that reflected resonance with modern day science. Bultmann believed that the only way to bring out the essence of the Gospel, and for that matter, the New Testament message, was to strip the Scriptures of their mythological elements and to restate the message in terms that are compatible with modern day science. For Bultmann, it is impossible to believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in an age which has been freed from ignorance and superstition through the advent of science and technology. Bultmann spoke about the need for speaking about the Resurrection in terms of our resurrecting to our maximum potentials. As can be expected, Bultmann could be applauded to a certain extent by orthodox believers for specializing in biblical theology, but at the same time by the liberals for deconstructing the outmoded forms in which the biblical message is proclaimed.
Though there are other theologians in the stream of thought known as "neo-orthodoxy," and I will stop at this point and invite you, the reader to give an evaluation of neo-orthodoxy on the basis of this brief essay. In your opinion, is it a viable and valid way of doing Christian theology and arriving at "sound doctrine," or is it alien to the message of the Gospel. Tell us what you think and why. Your contributions are important.
Grace and peace,
Dr, Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, March 13, 2015
The MIsuse of the Bible in Christian Churches
Before continuing the topic of the different schools of Christian thought, I would like to interject an important issue. It is how the Scriptures are misused both by individual Christians and by different churches and denominations. I bring the topic up for the simple reason that Christians (both individually and collectively) claim that their practices and teachings are based or should be based on "what the Bible says." The fact remains that when one examines the doctrines and practices that many churches have, that they are actually based on a misuse of Scripture. The below are but a few examples of how churches misuse the Bible in order to justify their theological positions on certain issues and topics.
Deuteronomy 22: 5- This passage has been used in the past by many Pentecostal (and perhaps other) churches in order to justify the doctrine that women should not wear pants or slacks. Women who are members in these types of churches and who violate the rule based on this passage are subjected to disciplinary measures or possible expulsion from the church.
The fallacies of this doctrine are the following:
1. To the best of our knowledge, pants and slacks were not the standard dress either for men or for women at the time that this passage was written. In other words, pants did not exist at that time to the best of our knowledge. Subsequently, the passage has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear pants.
2. If we were to make this doctrine binding on the basis of this passage, we would have to be bound by the other laws which appear in Deuteronomy including but not limited to the passage which appears in Deuteronomy 20:18-21 calling for the death penalty of a rebellious son. Otherwise, we end up with a "pick and choose" theology which allows us to include some Scripture passages and exclude others when it is expedient for us.
3. The notion of the man being the one to "wear the pants" is a cultural bias that reflects the use of the Bible to justify the syndrome of male chauvinism.
Genesis 19: 1-29, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27
These are the passages that are used by churches to oppose same-sex relations. The following problems exist with the use of these passages. They are as follows:
1. The passage in Genesis 19: 1-29 does not deal with homosexuality. It deals with inhospitality to strangers and with attempted gang-rape.
2. The passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 are part of a larger body of laws and regulations, including dietary laws, that are not applicable today. If one insists that Leviticus 18 and 20 are binding, then the rest of what appears in Leviticus also has to be binding, unless, again, one is willing to take the risk of falling into the "pick and choose" syndrome.
3. The passage in Romans 1;26-27 reflects Paul's placing same-sex relation in the realm of the "natural." In other words, Paul is saying that same-sex relations are unnatural. However, if we are to use this as a basis for condemning same-sex relations, then we need to realize that when Paul deals with the length of the hair of the man and the woman in 1 Corinthians 11: 1-15, that he also places these matters in the realm of the "natural." One, then, has to ask, if in his writings, Paul is equating "natural" with the cultural customs of his time. Otherwise, we leave ourselves open to the charge of expediency and inconsistency in terms of what we take or do not take from Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 14: 33-39, 1 Timothy 2:11-15,
These are among several biblical passages that are used to deny women to be ordained to the ministry and to block women from leadership positions in the church by telling them to remain "silent." This particular misuse of Scripture overlooks the fact that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul makes allusion to woman prophesying, which in biblical times was the equivalent of preaching and proclaiming. It also overlooks the predictions of the prophet Joel, affirmed by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, that in the final days, the Spirit of God would be poured upon all flesh, and that both men and women would prophesy (preach).
Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3: 22-25, Romans 13: 1-3
These and several other passages have been used to justify the institution of slavery. They have also been used to prohibit slaves from rebelling against their masters. The major problem with this interpretation is that in each of these passages, Paul gives clear instructions to the slave-holders as to how to treat their slaves, i.e. not so much as subordinates, but as equal in the light of the creation. He therefore charges them with treating them with kindness, dignity, and respect.
These have been a few examples of how individual Christians and churches use and misuse the Bible in the process of establishing doctrines and practices. They make it very clear that it is not merely a question of quoting Scriptures as many Christians do, but rather digging underneath the surface and exploring the background of the passages in question in order to draw out the intended meaning. In preparation for our continued study on the different theological schools of thought, and how they utilize the Scriptures, the reader should have these things in mind.
Feel free to give any comment or input that you think might be relevant to this presentation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Deuteronomy 22: 5- This passage has been used in the past by many Pentecostal (and perhaps other) churches in order to justify the doctrine that women should not wear pants or slacks. Women who are members in these types of churches and who violate the rule based on this passage are subjected to disciplinary measures or possible expulsion from the church.
The fallacies of this doctrine are the following:
1. To the best of our knowledge, pants and slacks were not the standard dress either for men or for women at the time that this passage was written. In other words, pants did not exist at that time to the best of our knowledge. Subsequently, the passage has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear pants.
2. If we were to make this doctrine binding on the basis of this passage, we would have to be bound by the other laws which appear in Deuteronomy including but not limited to the passage which appears in Deuteronomy 20:18-21 calling for the death penalty of a rebellious son. Otherwise, we end up with a "pick and choose" theology which allows us to include some Scripture passages and exclude others when it is expedient for us.
3. The notion of the man being the one to "wear the pants" is a cultural bias that reflects the use of the Bible to justify the syndrome of male chauvinism.
Genesis 19: 1-29, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27
These are the passages that are used by churches to oppose same-sex relations. The following problems exist with the use of these passages. They are as follows:
1. The passage in Genesis 19: 1-29 does not deal with homosexuality. It deals with inhospitality to strangers and with attempted gang-rape.
2. The passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 are part of a larger body of laws and regulations, including dietary laws, that are not applicable today. If one insists that Leviticus 18 and 20 are binding, then the rest of what appears in Leviticus also has to be binding, unless, again, one is willing to take the risk of falling into the "pick and choose" syndrome.
3. The passage in Romans 1;26-27 reflects Paul's placing same-sex relation in the realm of the "natural." In other words, Paul is saying that same-sex relations are unnatural. However, if we are to use this as a basis for condemning same-sex relations, then we need to realize that when Paul deals with the length of the hair of the man and the woman in 1 Corinthians 11: 1-15, that he also places these matters in the realm of the "natural." One, then, has to ask, if in his writings, Paul is equating "natural" with the cultural customs of his time. Otherwise, we leave ourselves open to the charge of expediency and inconsistency in terms of what we take or do not take from Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 14: 33-39, 1 Timothy 2:11-15,
These are among several biblical passages that are used to deny women to be ordained to the ministry and to block women from leadership positions in the church by telling them to remain "silent." This particular misuse of Scripture overlooks the fact that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul makes allusion to woman prophesying, which in biblical times was the equivalent of preaching and proclaiming. It also overlooks the predictions of the prophet Joel, affirmed by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, that in the final days, the Spirit of God would be poured upon all flesh, and that both men and women would prophesy (preach).
Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3: 22-25, Romans 13: 1-3
These and several other passages have been used to justify the institution of slavery. They have also been used to prohibit slaves from rebelling against their masters. The major problem with this interpretation is that in each of these passages, Paul gives clear instructions to the slave-holders as to how to treat their slaves, i.e. not so much as subordinates, but as equal in the light of the creation. He therefore charges them with treating them with kindness, dignity, and respect.
These have been a few examples of how individual Christians and churches use and misuse the Bible in the process of establishing doctrines and practices. They make it very clear that it is not merely a question of quoting Scriptures as many Christians do, but rather digging underneath the surface and exploring the background of the passages in question in order to draw out the intended meaning. In preparation for our continued study on the different theological schools of thought, and how they utilize the Scriptures, the reader should have these things in mind.
Feel free to give any comment or input that you think might be relevant to this presentation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, March 2, 2015
Christian Theology- Liberalism
Like in the field of politics, the term "liberal" in the fields of religion and theology can be very deceptive and misleading. It might be intended to describe one thing, and yet convey another. When we hear the term "liberal" we tend to think of broadmindedness, open-mindedness, generosity, tolerance, and other like concepts. Sometimes we associate the term "liberal" with notions such as "do your own thing," "everything goes," "I'm okay, you're okay," "whatever floats your boat," "whatever turns you on," and other similar terms.
In American politics, the term "liberal" is used to describe those who do not adhere fully to the conservative political mindset. In many cases, it is mistakenly used to describe those who have a political leaning towards socialism. In such cases, the term "liberal" is often equated (again, mistakenly) with "left-leaning" politics.
In the field of religion and theology, the term "liberal" is often used to categorize and dismiss those whose approach to the field is not the typical closed-minded approach. In other cases, it can even be used as a sarcastic term.
For the purposes of this essay, I will use the term "liberal" to mean being open to a wide variety of theological perspectives. It does not necessarily mean subscribing to everything that "liberals" believe or practice, but rather, to at the very least, make an attempt to know and understand why people who are called "liberal" believe the way they do.
I once had dinner with a colleague in ministry who said to me that he could be "conservative" about some things and "liberal" about other things. While I understood what he meant, I can't help but wonder if trying to combine the two categories is a situation alike to trying to "go forwards in reverse." In the field of political and social issues, I've heard some people say that they are "fiscally conservative", and "socially liberal." Whether that combination can be successfully accomplished, or whether never the twain shall meet, depends on the approaches that one takes.
In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Hordern reminds us that a problem with definition, is that liberalism by its very nature is such, that there will be within it, a great many diverse positions. In the same way that there is variety within conservative and fundamentalist theologies, there is also diversity within "liberal" theology. In other words, not all liberals think exactly alike on theological issues. Subsequently, it is wrong to speak about liberalism as if it were one monolithic school of thought. We cannot stereotype liberalism, because it is a variegated perspective.
William Hordern points out that for the majority of the defenders of liberalism in the early part of the twentieth century, Liberal Theology was an attempt to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing different methodologies and a different set of tools. In other words, Liberal Theology attempted to recover "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." Liberals believe that it was the fundamentalists who were, in fact, destroying the Christianity by forcing it into the molds of the past, making it impossible for any intelligent person to hold it. Hordern points out that the typical attitude of liberals that it was not a question of new theology or old theology, but rather a question of new theology or no theology. (Hordern, p.73). The method of Liberal Theology was to attempt to modernize Christian theology. That is why liberalism is sometimes referred to as "modernism."
The world, liberals argue, has changed radically since the early creeds of the Christian faith were formulated, and subsequently, this makes the creeds sound archaic and unreal to modern humanity. We have to rethink Christianity in thought terms which the modern world can comprehend. For example, argued one liberal theologian, an abiding experience of Christianity has been its conviction that God will triumph over evil. This has been traditionally pictured in the category of Christ's Second Coming on the clouds to destroy evil and set up the good. We can no longer, say the liberals, retain this outworn category, but we can still believe the truth which this ancient thought form was trying to express (Hordern, p.74).
The conservatives and the fundamentalists will then pose the question "But what does the Bible say?"
The liberals will then answer that one has to resort to the historical-critical (authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, writing styles, redaction, sources of information, etc). in order to determine "what the Bible means by what it says." Anything short of the historical-critical approach to the Bible will leave us in a state of backwardness and obscurantism. Liberals believe that to simply quote Scripture without taking into consideration the cultural and social background of the biblical writers will result in a biblical theology which is neither faithful to the Gospel message, nor relevant for living today.
Liberalism refuses to accept religious belief exclusively on the basis of authority alone. It insists that all beliefs must pass the bar of reason and experience. The human mind is capable of thinking God's thoughts after God. Human intuition and reason are the best clues that we have to the nature of God. The mind must be open to all truth, regardless of where it comes from. The true liberal must have an open mind. No questions are closed (Hordern, 75).
The fundamentalists will argue that truth is only found in the Bible. The liberal will then respond that truth is found in nature and in other places, and that all truth will harmonize with biblical truth. Liberals believe that truth can even be found in non-Christian faith communities. Fundamentalists will argue that other religions are either of Satanic origins, or at the very least, flawed human attempts to decipher God's truth.
As pointed out above, liberals accept the higher criticism of the Bible, whereas, fundamentalists as a whole, do not. Liberals accept the theory of evolution. While some conservatives embrace the notion of "evolution within the species, i.e. that God created different species with the capacity to reproduce with variety, liberals by and large tend to subscribe to the notion that evolution includes the idea of one species evolving from others.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals do not always agree with the historic doctrinal positions of the Church. This does not mean that liberals deny the inspiration of the Bible, but rather, that they have have a different idea as to what the term "inspiration" means. Based on their tendency to read and study the Bible on the basis of a modern-day scientific, approach, many of them do not subscribe to a belief in things such as the Virgin Birth, the miracle stories, and the Resurrection. Many of them use the comparative religions approach, by which they see that many elements in Christian theology may have been "borrowed" from previous belief systems. For the fundamentalist and conservative Christian who argue the truth of these doctrines on the basis of "what the Bible says," the liberal will point out that "what the Bible says" is also reflected in other religious literature. They will point to virgin birth accounts in other religious communities, miracle stories, and god who have died and resurrected. Because many of these accounts are considered "legendary" and "mythological" some liberal Christians who use the comparative religions approach, believe that there is legend and myth within the Bible itself.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals, in many cases, have a different view of God. While many conservative and fundamentalist Christians have a view of God "sitting on His throne in Heaven," liberals tend to think in terms of immanence, i.e. that God is in all things, all places, and all creatures. Because of this, they have been wrongly accused by their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers of pantheism, i.e. that God is all and that all is God
Liberalism gave rise to the Social Gospel. The emphasis of the Social Gospel was not so much on individual sin and individual salvation, but rather on the need to redeem the structures of society which were all corrupt and sinful. While conservatives and fundamentalists "zero in" on individual and personal evangelism, liberals emphasize the need to reorder and restructure society. While conservatives and fundamentalists talk about salvation in terms of the "hereafter," "in the sweet bye and bye," "on the other side of Jordan," etc. liberals understand the message of the Gospel to be applied to the "here and now."
In closing, one comment that I would like to make is that I question if the term "liberal" is really an appropriate one for the Christians that I just finished describing? The reason why I pose this question is because many of so-called "liberals" are not open to theological perspectives that are different from theirs. Some of them right from the get-go deny the supernatural element in biblical religion. For many of them, nature and the universe are an enclosed system of functions and operations which leave no room for divine intervention and miracles. They are, in many cases, quick to dismiss their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers as "obscurantists," "narrow-minded," dogmatic, etc. Liberals can demonstrate a narrow-mindedness and dogmatic position of their own, when they are convinced that because they have used the scientific approach to faith, that they have a monopoly on truth. Their notion that unless a belief can be verified through laboratory testing, that it is a crock of "bullshit," reflects a degree of arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of some liberals.
The questions for you the reader, are the following:
1. Do you believe that if a person is a "liberal" and subscribes to "liberal" theology, that this person cannot be considered a true Christian?
2. Because the liberal uses a different approach to the Bible, does that make liberals "non-biblical?"
3. In your opinion, is there room for liberalism in the Christian faith?
4. Are there aspects of Liberal Theology that you can embrace in your spiritual journey and relationship with God?
5. What do you think about Liberal Theology in general?
Please feel free to comment on this posting either by answering the questions or coming up with questions and issues of your own. I look forward to your response.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In American politics, the term "liberal" is used to describe those who do not adhere fully to the conservative political mindset. In many cases, it is mistakenly used to describe those who have a political leaning towards socialism. In such cases, the term "liberal" is often equated (again, mistakenly) with "left-leaning" politics.
In the field of religion and theology, the term "liberal" is often used to categorize and dismiss those whose approach to the field is not the typical closed-minded approach. In other cases, it can even be used as a sarcastic term.
For the purposes of this essay, I will use the term "liberal" to mean being open to a wide variety of theological perspectives. It does not necessarily mean subscribing to everything that "liberals" believe or practice, but rather, to at the very least, make an attempt to know and understand why people who are called "liberal" believe the way they do.
I once had dinner with a colleague in ministry who said to me that he could be "conservative" about some things and "liberal" about other things. While I understood what he meant, I can't help but wonder if trying to combine the two categories is a situation alike to trying to "go forwards in reverse." In the field of political and social issues, I've heard some people say that they are "fiscally conservative", and "socially liberal." Whether that combination can be successfully accomplished, or whether never the twain shall meet, depends on the approaches that one takes.
In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Hordern reminds us that a problem with definition, is that liberalism by its very nature is such, that there will be within it, a great many diverse positions. In the same way that there is variety within conservative and fundamentalist theologies, there is also diversity within "liberal" theology. In other words, not all liberals think exactly alike on theological issues. Subsequently, it is wrong to speak about liberalism as if it were one monolithic school of thought. We cannot stereotype liberalism, because it is a variegated perspective.
William Hordern points out that for the majority of the defenders of liberalism in the early part of the twentieth century, Liberal Theology was an attempt to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing different methodologies and a different set of tools. In other words, Liberal Theology attempted to recover "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." Liberals believe that it was the fundamentalists who were, in fact, destroying the Christianity by forcing it into the molds of the past, making it impossible for any intelligent person to hold it. Hordern points out that the typical attitude of liberals that it was not a question of new theology or old theology, but rather a question of new theology or no theology. (Hordern, p.73). The method of Liberal Theology was to attempt to modernize Christian theology. That is why liberalism is sometimes referred to as "modernism."
The world, liberals argue, has changed radically since the early creeds of the Christian faith were formulated, and subsequently, this makes the creeds sound archaic and unreal to modern humanity. We have to rethink Christianity in thought terms which the modern world can comprehend. For example, argued one liberal theologian, an abiding experience of Christianity has been its conviction that God will triumph over evil. This has been traditionally pictured in the category of Christ's Second Coming on the clouds to destroy evil and set up the good. We can no longer, say the liberals, retain this outworn category, but we can still believe the truth which this ancient thought form was trying to express (Hordern, p.74).
The conservatives and the fundamentalists will then pose the question "But what does the Bible say?"
The liberals will then answer that one has to resort to the historical-critical (authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, writing styles, redaction, sources of information, etc). in order to determine "what the Bible means by what it says." Anything short of the historical-critical approach to the Bible will leave us in a state of backwardness and obscurantism. Liberals believe that to simply quote Scripture without taking into consideration the cultural and social background of the biblical writers will result in a biblical theology which is neither faithful to the Gospel message, nor relevant for living today.
Liberalism refuses to accept religious belief exclusively on the basis of authority alone. It insists that all beliefs must pass the bar of reason and experience. The human mind is capable of thinking God's thoughts after God. Human intuition and reason are the best clues that we have to the nature of God. The mind must be open to all truth, regardless of where it comes from. The true liberal must have an open mind. No questions are closed (Hordern, 75).
The fundamentalists will argue that truth is only found in the Bible. The liberal will then respond that truth is found in nature and in other places, and that all truth will harmonize with biblical truth. Liberals believe that truth can even be found in non-Christian faith communities. Fundamentalists will argue that other religions are either of Satanic origins, or at the very least, flawed human attempts to decipher God's truth.
As pointed out above, liberals accept the higher criticism of the Bible, whereas, fundamentalists as a whole, do not. Liberals accept the theory of evolution. While some conservatives embrace the notion of "evolution within the species, i.e. that God created different species with the capacity to reproduce with variety, liberals by and large tend to subscribe to the notion that evolution includes the idea of one species evolving from others.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals do not always agree with the historic doctrinal positions of the Church. This does not mean that liberals deny the inspiration of the Bible, but rather, that they have have a different idea as to what the term "inspiration" means. Based on their tendency to read and study the Bible on the basis of a modern-day scientific, approach, many of them do not subscribe to a belief in things such as the Virgin Birth, the miracle stories, and the Resurrection. Many of them use the comparative religions approach, by which they see that many elements in Christian theology may have been "borrowed" from previous belief systems. For the fundamentalist and conservative Christian who argue the truth of these doctrines on the basis of "what the Bible says," the liberal will point out that "what the Bible says" is also reflected in other religious literature. They will point to virgin birth accounts in other religious communities, miracle stories, and god who have died and resurrected. Because many of these accounts are considered "legendary" and "mythological" some liberal Christians who use the comparative religions approach, believe that there is legend and myth within the Bible itself.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals, in many cases, have a different view of God. While many conservative and fundamentalist Christians have a view of God "sitting on His throne in Heaven," liberals tend to think in terms of immanence, i.e. that God is in all things, all places, and all creatures. Because of this, they have been wrongly accused by their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers of pantheism, i.e. that God is all and that all is God
Liberalism gave rise to the Social Gospel. The emphasis of the Social Gospel was not so much on individual sin and individual salvation, but rather on the need to redeem the structures of society which were all corrupt and sinful. While conservatives and fundamentalists "zero in" on individual and personal evangelism, liberals emphasize the need to reorder and restructure society. While conservatives and fundamentalists talk about salvation in terms of the "hereafter," "in the sweet bye and bye," "on the other side of Jordan," etc. liberals understand the message of the Gospel to be applied to the "here and now."
In closing, one comment that I would like to make is that I question if the term "liberal" is really an appropriate one for the Christians that I just finished describing? The reason why I pose this question is because many of so-called "liberals" are not open to theological perspectives that are different from theirs. Some of them right from the get-go deny the supernatural element in biblical religion. For many of them, nature and the universe are an enclosed system of functions and operations which leave no room for divine intervention and miracles. They are, in many cases, quick to dismiss their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers as "obscurantists," "narrow-minded," dogmatic, etc. Liberals can demonstrate a narrow-mindedness and dogmatic position of their own, when they are convinced that because they have used the scientific approach to faith, that they have a monopoly on truth. Their notion that unless a belief can be verified through laboratory testing, that it is a crock of "bullshit," reflects a degree of arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of some liberals.
The questions for you the reader, are the following:
1. Do you believe that if a person is a "liberal" and subscribes to "liberal" theology, that this person cannot be considered a true Christian?
2. Because the liberal uses a different approach to the Bible, does that make liberals "non-biblical?"
3. In your opinion, is there room for liberalism in the Christian faith?
4. Are there aspects of Liberal Theology that you can embrace in your spiritual journey and relationship with God?
5. What do you think about Liberal Theology in general?
Please feel free to comment on this posting either by answering the questions or coming up with questions and issues of your own. I look forward to your response.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)