These next two essays will focus on reflections by Phillip E. Berryman, who at the time of the conference in Detroit in 1975, was a North American theologian working in Guatemala with the Friends Service Committee. I will remind the reader that the purpose of the conference was to bring together theologians from North America and from the Third World in order to engage with each other, and also attempt to generate a contextual North American theology which would no longer be engaged in exclusive conversations with European theology, but also in dialogue with the theology of those within its own borders who either came from the Third World, or were descendants of those who did. This dialogue would "contextualize" North American theology in that together with the theologies developing in the U.S.A. (African American, Asian-American, Appalachian, Hispanic-American, Feminist, etc.), would address the cultural, economic, political, and social issues that would normally be addressed from a different perspective, i.e. abstract, philosophical, and speculative vs. concrete, historical, and specific.
Berryman begins by writing about the Second General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (CELAM) which had already been held in the city of Medellin, Colombia in August-September of 1968. Berryman points out that though it was eclipsed by the visit of the Pope to the Eucharistic Congress in Bogota, this two-week meeting was as important for the continent as the Council was for the church at large. It was indeed, a continental meeting of the episcopate (the bishops) to apply the Council to Latin America. A number of meetings and official declarations prepared the way for Medellin; we may single out Populorum Progressio, and the Letter of Sixteen Bishops of the Third World. Of course, its antecedents were not simply intraecclesiastical: One should cite the general atmosphere of 1968, the Paris May, the proliferation of political and revolutionary theologies, the radicalization of Latin American social scientists, etc. During the months preceding Medellin, there circulated a base-document in order to gather opinions. In the meeting itself, 150 bishops and 100 periti (experts) elaborated sixteen documents which were intended as authoritative orientations for the church (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 21).
Berryman goes on to inform us that Latin American theology arises out of an experience : the discovery of institutionalized violence and the dimensions of oppression. One begins at the local level, for example in a cooperative, and enters into conflict with the local power structure; gradually it becomes more evident that the oppressive system is national and international. This growing awareness brings changes in one's options from the strictly pastoral to the political (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 26).
In a section of his article entitled "A Political Theology," Berryman points out that in recent years there appeared a European political theology which may be described as a corrective to a privatized, intimistic Christianity and as a suggestion that the church should be a critical force in society. Latin American theology accepts in principle this orientation, but it seeks to be more rooted in an analysis of concrete situations, and has become politicized in practice. (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 29).
Berryman summarizes his article by saying the purpose has been to mediate something of Latin American theology to the North American theological community. Undoubtedly, he says, in some ways it has seemed more journalism than theology, due to our conviction that this theology is to be understood in context. He adds that we have been quoting and summarizing the thought of some of the principal theologians with little comment. In this final section we would like to situate it as theology (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 49).
Berryman concludes his article with some questions and intuitions. They are:
1. Third World Theology. There would seem to be some affinity with African American theology. Hispanic Christian groups are consciously looking into Latin American theology for insights. One can ask: Does not some kind of solidarity with the Third World offer a clue to the meaning of Christian poverty today?
2. Ecclesiocentrism. Latin American theology is convinced that church renewal cannot be sought independently of the struggle for liberation. Does not the charge of ecclesiocentrism (the church's self-centeredness) ring true for much of theology?
3. Critique of social reality. Are not the theologians fiddling while the world burns? What will Christ's judgment be on the theologians of our time? As an example, to what extent has Vietnam influenced the theological problematic?
4. Humankind as agent. Latin American theology is not as interested in the accomplishment of astronauts as it is in the suffering of the human family. To what extent can people become free agents taking responsible decisions in solidarity with others and "ruling the earth?" Does not this view from below offer some hints for a theological critique of society?
5. Critique of capitalism. In a poor world, the U.S.A is overdeveloped, consumes much more than its share of the world's resources, uses it military might to maintain its privileges, and still is acutely aware that it has not attained the "good life." Is there not room for a theological critique of capitalism? (If the idea puzzles, amuses, or shocks, might not this be an indication of an ideologically immersed consciousness?)
6. Political theology. Does not the apolitical stance of the church mask a complicity with an oppressive world system? In what way does the theological profession serve the poor and oppressed, who constitute the majority of humankind?
7. Methodology. Does the common pattern of liberation theology suggest something: analysis of the reality, theological reflection, commitments? Could a theological critique be made of the U.S. "historic project"--not simply a President's successive "game plans," but including other elements. Could meetings of theological societies center on this type of analysis? It would be entering into the contingent , but so did He whose life theologians have spoken of as a "scandal of particularity (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, pp. 52-53)."
I now invite you to comment on Berryman's article. You can comment briefly on what you think is the thrust of the article. Or you can comment on any of the seven questions/intuitions that he proposes at the end. In either case, share with us the direction that you think this article is going in, and whether or not it resonates with where you are at today, theologically speaking. I am looking forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Detroit Revisited: Theology in the Americas-How Far Have We Come?
This essay is a reflection on a series of articles that were prepared for a week-long conference "Theology in the Americas: 1975," which was held in Detroit, Michigan in August 1975. As Gregory Baum, who was a Professor of Theology at St. Michael's College in Toronto, Canada at that time, tells us, it brought together Christians from North and South America to study theology by taking as their starting point their respective historical experiences. Baum informs us that that the first idea of the conference , entertained by Chilean priest Sergio Torres and a group of friends, was to invite the well-known representatives of Liberation Theology and bring them into conversation with theologians of the U.S.A. and Canada. The U.S.A. theologians would include African-American, feminists, and Native-American scholars. The purpose of this conference was to establish a contextualized North American theology, which would no longer be engaged in exclusive discourse with European theology, but rather be a contextual theology which would include contributions from Latin-America, the African-American community in the U.S.A., feminist theological scholarship, Native-American theology, and contributions from the so-called Third World.
The majority of these articles, essays, and reflections will be found in the book "Theology in the Americas," edited by John Eagleson and Sergio Torres, and published by Orbis Books in 1976. This coming August will mark the forty years since the conference was held. The purpose of this reflection is not to "get stuck in the past," relative to what happened or what was said forty years ago, but rather to for us ask ourselves where we are now since then, and also to ponder on the significance and relevance (if any) of that conference for the time that we are living in. We must ask ourselves if things have changed since then, or are we still living in and with the same realities that theology sought to address forty years ago.
One of the contributors to this book Robert McAffee Brown, at that time Professor of Ecumenics and World Christianity at Union Theological Seminary in New York, gives us a short historical narrative of how the book came to be. He says, "The book unfolds its own story. It is enough to bear in mind the following: Over the past few years there has been growing up in the Third World, and particularly in Latin America, a movement called Liberation Theology-an attempt to look at the world in terms of involvement with the underprivileged and oppressed, and to find within the Christian Gospel both the analytic tools and the energizing power to work for radical change in the world. The 'analytic tools' have also, and often initially involved sociological and economic analysis, frequently along Marxist lines, and the biblical and ecclesiastical resources have involved a critical stance toward institutional religion's long alliance with the status quo. Thanks to theologians of liberation, a rereading of Christian history and Christian documents has become possible, in terms of what they contribute to a new understanding of God as one who sides with the oppressed and works with them for their own liberation. (Mc Affee Brown in Eagleson and Torres, pp. ix-x)."
He adds, "The Detroit conference, papers for which comprise the bulk of the present volume, was an attempt to gather a group of Latin Americans who have been thinking, acting, and suffering to meet with a group of North Americans, to discuss the possible impact of and influence of the Latin American experience on the North American experience. As the text indicates, the original intent was for a small group of North American professional theologians to meet with their Latin American counterparts. When it was discovered early in the preparations that this was exclusive and even elitist, the North American net was considerably widened, so that although the Latin-Americans present (about twenty-five) tended to be persons with extensive theological training and experience, the North Americans (about 175) finally represented a tremendous breadth as well as depth---laypersons, social workers, parish priests and ministers, blue collar workers, and many people from minority groups. One result of this was that the conference quickly gravitated into special interest groups---North Americans, African-Americans, Chicanos, Native Americans, Appalachians, women, Asian-American, and even (in a caucus that became self-conscious only on the last day) white males. Much of the volatile nature of the conference came from the fact that the various groups discovered that they had different agendas, and that the agendas often remained antithetical rather than yielding to easy synthesis. That itself was a discovery worth all the pain (Mc Affee Brown in Eagleson and Torres, p. x)."
In preparation for reflection on further articles and essays in this book, and also on the basis of the quotes from Mc Affee Brown, I pose the following questions for your consideration:
1. In your opinion, what does the theological climate look like today as compared to forty years ago?
2. Is theology as you know it, functioning at the service of the Church and its mission in the world, or is theology, a self-serving discussion among a group of people who really do not give a damn about the misery and suffering going on in our communities, and in the world as a whole?
3. How does theology today, as you know it, compare to the modern-day mindset of "Name it and claim it" theology, and also to the Prosperity Gospel of as reflected by people such as Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, and Joel Osteen? Is their version of the Gospel in your understanding, resonant with the Power of Positive Thinking (Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller), and the Prosperity Gospel (Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, and Joel Olsteen), and with that general malaise of "Name it and claim it?"
4. Do we need another Detroit-like gathering to see if theology is or isn't addressing the social and global issues that need to be addressed today?
Please join us in this discussion and contribute your comments. They are very important for this discourse. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The majority of these articles, essays, and reflections will be found in the book "Theology in the Americas," edited by John Eagleson and Sergio Torres, and published by Orbis Books in 1976. This coming August will mark the forty years since the conference was held. The purpose of this reflection is not to "get stuck in the past," relative to what happened or what was said forty years ago, but rather to for us ask ourselves where we are now since then, and also to ponder on the significance and relevance (if any) of that conference for the time that we are living in. We must ask ourselves if things have changed since then, or are we still living in and with the same realities that theology sought to address forty years ago.
One of the contributors to this book Robert McAffee Brown, at that time Professor of Ecumenics and World Christianity at Union Theological Seminary in New York, gives us a short historical narrative of how the book came to be. He says, "The book unfolds its own story. It is enough to bear in mind the following: Over the past few years there has been growing up in the Third World, and particularly in Latin America, a movement called Liberation Theology-an attempt to look at the world in terms of involvement with the underprivileged and oppressed, and to find within the Christian Gospel both the analytic tools and the energizing power to work for radical change in the world. The 'analytic tools' have also, and often initially involved sociological and economic analysis, frequently along Marxist lines, and the biblical and ecclesiastical resources have involved a critical stance toward institutional religion's long alliance with the status quo. Thanks to theologians of liberation, a rereading of Christian history and Christian documents has become possible, in terms of what they contribute to a new understanding of God as one who sides with the oppressed and works with them for their own liberation. (Mc Affee Brown in Eagleson and Torres, pp. ix-x)."
He adds, "The Detroit conference, papers for which comprise the bulk of the present volume, was an attempt to gather a group of Latin Americans who have been thinking, acting, and suffering to meet with a group of North Americans, to discuss the possible impact of and influence of the Latin American experience on the North American experience. As the text indicates, the original intent was for a small group of North American professional theologians to meet with their Latin American counterparts. When it was discovered early in the preparations that this was exclusive and even elitist, the North American net was considerably widened, so that although the Latin-Americans present (about twenty-five) tended to be persons with extensive theological training and experience, the North Americans (about 175) finally represented a tremendous breadth as well as depth---laypersons, social workers, parish priests and ministers, blue collar workers, and many people from minority groups. One result of this was that the conference quickly gravitated into special interest groups---North Americans, African-Americans, Chicanos, Native Americans, Appalachians, women, Asian-American, and even (in a caucus that became self-conscious only on the last day) white males. Much of the volatile nature of the conference came from the fact that the various groups discovered that they had different agendas, and that the agendas often remained antithetical rather than yielding to easy synthesis. That itself was a discovery worth all the pain (Mc Affee Brown in Eagleson and Torres, p. x)."
In preparation for reflection on further articles and essays in this book, and also on the basis of the quotes from Mc Affee Brown, I pose the following questions for your consideration:
1. In your opinion, what does the theological climate look like today as compared to forty years ago?
2. Is theology as you know it, functioning at the service of the Church and its mission in the world, or is theology, a self-serving discussion among a group of people who really do not give a damn about the misery and suffering going on in our communities, and in the world as a whole?
3. How does theology today, as you know it, compare to the modern-day mindset of "Name it and claim it" theology, and also to the Prosperity Gospel of as reflected by people such as Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, and Joel Osteen? Is their version of the Gospel in your understanding, resonant with the Power of Positive Thinking (Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller), and the Prosperity Gospel (Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, and Joel Olsteen), and with that general malaise of "Name it and claim it?"
4. Do we need another Detroit-like gathering to see if theology is or isn't addressing the social and global issues that need to be addressed today?
Please join us in this discussion and contribute your comments. They are very important for this discourse. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, May 11, 2015
Hispanic-American Theology: The Finale- Grace and Humanness
This will be the final essay on the series of Hispanic-American theology. As we have seen, there is a close similarity between Latin American Liberation Theology, and Hispanic-American theology. The former focuses on class issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, while the latter centers on ethnic/racial issues in the continental U.S.A. They both focus on people who are oppressed by political and social injustice. They both also focus on a group of people whose primary language of parlance is Spanish. They both deal with a people who have either experienced colonization and neo-colonization, or are the offspring of those who have.
This last essay focuses on the writings of Dr. Orlando Espin who has been a professor of theology at the University of San Diego. In the book by Fernando Segovia, We are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology, Espin writes an article entitled Grace and Humanness: A Hispanic Perspective. Espin points out that Christianity is not understandable without what we call "grace." (Espin in Segovia, p. 133).
It should be noted that though Espin writes from a Roman Catholic perspective, that his emphasis on grace is something that is shared by all Christian traditions, including Eastern Orthodoxy and historic Protestantism. One of the most positive things that have been contributed by Liberation Theology and Hispanic-American theology has been a forum in which Christians of different traditions can come together to engage in effective, faithful, and serious theological engagement. Both of these theologies open the door for ecumenical and even interfaith dialogue among Hispanic-Americans. Some of the topics covered by Espin's article are the following:
The God of Grace
Espin states, "The God of Christians is a trinitarian God, the one who forever remaining one, is also an eternal community of love. In other words, the internal and eternal reality of God is expressive of the love that God is. That which binds and is the oneness of the Trinity is the love that the Three share and are among themselves. (Espin in Segovia, p. 137)."
It is interesting to note that in this article, Espin does not get "bogged down" in the controversy about whether the Trinity is a trinity of modes or a trinity of three distinct persons who share the same nature. It appears that for Espin, what really matters is not the nature or type of trinity, but rather how this triune God relates to humanity and participates in human history.
Espin goes on to say, "The God who is love, freely choosing to be authentically and fully that which God is, called another into existence, not as a sign of capriciousness, and not as expressive of raw might, but as a freely chosen consequence of that love which God is. Creation exists as the first sacrament of God's love and life, and as the first other that God loves. It is in the ongoing act of creation that we first detect that which can be called grace----God's loving self-given to us and for us as an expression of that which God is. God-for us-is grace (Espin in Segovia, p. 137)."
Two things are of noteworthy interest here. One is that Espin does not limit the notion of grace to the historic Protestant definition of "unmerited favor" which begins or is centered on the Cross, but rather, puts it in a broader context of creation. In other words, for Espin, the very act of creation is an act of grace. The other interesting thing is that Espin is not locked into the traditional masculine descriptions of God. This is noteworthy in that Liberation Theology and Hispanic-American theology both emerge from a culture which is characterized by male chauvinism.
Humanity as "Graced" Image of God
Espin points out that to be the image of God is a gift from God. We did not merit it and could do absolutely nothing to achieve it. We are gifts. God's pouring of God's loving life created us, without our having deserved it, and for the sole purpose of loving us. Our very being is graced. Because of this, all human beings can look at themselves, by the mere fact that they are the images of God, as graced. No human being, has ever been without this foundational grace. Otherwise, we would have to claim that some human beings are not images of God, that some do not find their ultimate definition and reality in the God of love who created them. (Espin in Segovia, p. 139).
In some respects, it is safe to say that Espin is challenging the notion that only those who believe in Jesus are "covered," if you will, by God's grace. For Espin, as pointed out before, grace is rooted in the creative acts of God and not in human decisions to believe or not.
Humanity as Historical and Sinful
Espin reminds us of the obvious fact (though not so obvious to some people) that humans are historical beings. He says, "It is a constitutive dimension of ourselves that we grow, that we learn, that we become. Although from the beginning we are human, we also become human as we live our lives in history, both individually and communally. The historical processes whereby we become more fully human we can call humanization.. Given all that has been said above, it can be affirmed that the most profound and ultimate goal of authentic humanization is our becoming more fully that which we are-images of the trinitarian God of love. (Espin in Segovia, p.139)."
Espin's comments remind us of the need for us to stay within the context of history when engaging in theological discourse and reflection. Far too many people, (especially Christians) want to approach theology as if it were something thrown from the sky and thrown in our laps. Even the most sacred text in the Christian faith, i.e. the Bible, has to be considered in a historical context.
Furthermore, Espin's comments remind us of our limitations not only due to history but also to sin. The historic Christian doctrine of the noetic (darkening) effects of sin include a rupture in divine-human relationship and also in human-to human relationships. Sin has affected our ability to see things clearly and objectively. Even our theological engagement is rooted in our sinful condition.
That is most demonstrated when we attempt to make our theological outlook and perspective the dominant one. When we think we know it all, or when we think that we have the totality of God's truth "in our pockets," we are guilty of the sins of arrogance and presumptuousness.
Grace and Hispanic Culture
For Espin, it is reasonable to state that the experience of grace possible to U.S. Hispanics, in order to be authentically an experience of the God-for-us, must be culturally Hispanic. Espin emphasizes that, "Deculturization, in the name of Christianity, would be dehumanizing and (as a consequence) sinful. To trample on Hispanic culture while pretending to evangelize is to impede the very experience of the God that saves, because as we have seen, the experience of grace can only be had in and through one's culture. To dehumanize, as we discussed earlier, is to actively oppose the God of love and salvation, and to decultarize or to trample on our culture is dehumanizing (Espin in Segovia, p. 147)."
For Espin, to emphasize, a non-cultural or in this case, a non-Hispanic experience of grace, runs contrary to the message of the Gospel itself. To deny one's culture, is in essence to deny part of God's creation.
Espin is quick to add, "The other side of this argument is the implied belief that non-Hispanic culture (in our American context, Anglo culture) is either part of the gospel message or the superior vehicle for its expression. That belief is not only utter nonsense, but pure evil (Espin in Segovia, p. 147)."
Espin is fighting the notion that one culture is superior to the others for experiencing the grace of God. For him, all cultures have elements of sin, and subsequently, all cultures are in need of experiencing God's grace within their own context.
Espin raises a very important question for us. It is the following: How does a Hispanic individual or community encounter the God-for-us (in other words, experience grace) in a culturally authentic way? He says that perhaps it is easier to say how it should not be done. But, he adds, we must attempt to address this question and search for answers, even if no totally satisfactory ones are to be found (Espin in Segovia, p. 148).
In closing, I invite you (the reader) to do either one of the following:
1. Comment on any of the previous essays that I have written on Hispanic-American theology. Feel free to say what you think are both the strengths and weaknesses of each essay, or at the very least, of the ones that you may have taken the time to read.
2. Comment on Espin's perspective on experiencing God's grace in a Hispanic-American cultural context. In your opinion, how is experiencing the grace of God in a Hispanic-American cultural context the same or different from having that same experience in a totally different cultural context?
3. Express in very brief and summary form, your view of Hispanic-American theology and whether or not there can be mutual dialogue between Hispanic-American theology and other theological systems that you may be familiar with.
I humbly and respectfully submit this series of essays for your reflection and evaluation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This last essay focuses on the writings of Dr. Orlando Espin who has been a professor of theology at the University of San Diego. In the book by Fernando Segovia, We are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology, Espin writes an article entitled Grace and Humanness: A Hispanic Perspective. Espin points out that Christianity is not understandable without what we call "grace." (Espin in Segovia, p. 133).
It should be noted that though Espin writes from a Roman Catholic perspective, that his emphasis on grace is something that is shared by all Christian traditions, including Eastern Orthodoxy and historic Protestantism. One of the most positive things that have been contributed by Liberation Theology and Hispanic-American theology has been a forum in which Christians of different traditions can come together to engage in effective, faithful, and serious theological engagement. Both of these theologies open the door for ecumenical and even interfaith dialogue among Hispanic-Americans. Some of the topics covered by Espin's article are the following:
The God of Grace
Espin states, "The God of Christians is a trinitarian God, the one who forever remaining one, is also an eternal community of love. In other words, the internal and eternal reality of God is expressive of the love that God is. That which binds and is the oneness of the Trinity is the love that the Three share and are among themselves. (Espin in Segovia, p. 137)."
It is interesting to note that in this article, Espin does not get "bogged down" in the controversy about whether the Trinity is a trinity of modes or a trinity of three distinct persons who share the same nature. It appears that for Espin, what really matters is not the nature or type of trinity, but rather how this triune God relates to humanity and participates in human history.
Espin goes on to say, "The God who is love, freely choosing to be authentically and fully that which God is, called another into existence, not as a sign of capriciousness, and not as expressive of raw might, but as a freely chosen consequence of that love which God is. Creation exists as the first sacrament of God's love and life, and as the first other that God loves. It is in the ongoing act of creation that we first detect that which can be called grace----God's loving self-given to us and for us as an expression of that which God is. God-for us-is grace (Espin in Segovia, p. 137)."
Two things are of noteworthy interest here. One is that Espin does not limit the notion of grace to the historic Protestant definition of "unmerited favor" which begins or is centered on the Cross, but rather, puts it in a broader context of creation. In other words, for Espin, the very act of creation is an act of grace. The other interesting thing is that Espin is not locked into the traditional masculine descriptions of God. This is noteworthy in that Liberation Theology and Hispanic-American theology both emerge from a culture which is characterized by male chauvinism.
Humanity as "Graced" Image of God
Espin points out that to be the image of God is a gift from God. We did not merit it and could do absolutely nothing to achieve it. We are gifts. God's pouring of God's loving life created us, without our having deserved it, and for the sole purpose of loving us. Our very being is graced. Because of this, all human beings can look at themselves, by the mere fact that they are the images of God, as graced. No human being, has ever been without this foundational grace. Otherwise, we would have to claim that some human beings are not images of God, that some do not find their ultimate definition and reality in the God of love who created them. (Espin in Segovia, p. 139).
In some respects, it is safe to say that Espin is challenging the notion that only those who believe in Jesus are "covered," if you will, by God's grace. For Espin, as pointed out before, grace is rooted in the creative acts of God and not in human decisions to believe or not.
Humanity as Historical and Sinful
Espin reminds us of the obvious fact (though not so obvious to some people) that humans are historical beings. He says, "It is a constitutive dimension of ourselves that we grow, that we learn, that we become. Although from the beginning we are human, we also become human as we live our lives in history, both individually and communally. The historical processes whereby we become more fully human we can call humanization.. Given all that has been said above, it can be affirmed that the most profound and ultimate goal of authentic humanization is our becoming more fully that which we are-images of the trinitarian God of love. (Espin in Segovia, p.139)."
Espin's comments remind us of the need for us to stay within the context of history when engaging in theological discourse and reflection. Far too many people, (especially Christians) want to approach theology as if it were something thrown from the sky and thrown in our laps. Even the most sacred text in the Christian faith, i.e. the Bible, has to be considered in a historical context.
Furthermore, Espin's comments remind us of our limitations not only due to history but also to sin. The historic Christian doctrine of the noetic (darkening) effects of sin include a rupture in divine-human relationship and also in human-to human relationships. Sin has affected our ability to see things clearly and objectively. Even our theological engagement is rooted in our sinful condition.
That is most demonstrated when we attempt to make our theological outlook and perspective the dominant one. When we think we know it all, or when we think that we have the totality of God's truth "in our pockets," we are guilty of the sins of arrogance and presumptuousness.
Grace and Hispanic Culture
For Espin, it is reasonable to state that the experience of grace possible to U.S. Hispanics, in order to be authentically an experience of the God-for-us, must be culturally Hispanic. Espin emphasizes that, "Deculturization, in the name of Christianity, would be dehumanizing and (as a consequence) sinful. To trample on Hispanic culture while pretending to evangelize is to impede the very experience of the God that saves, because as we have seen, the experience of grace can only be had in and through one's culture. To dehumanize, as we discussed earlier, is to actively oppose the God of love and salvation, and to decultarize or to trample on our culture is dehumanizing (Espin in Segovia, p. 147)."
For Espin, to emphasize, a non-cultural or in this case, a non-Hispanic experience of grace, runs contrary to the message of the Gospel itself. To deny one's culture, is in essence to deny part of God's creation.
Espin is quick to add, "The other side of this argument is the implied belief that non-Hispanic culture (in our American context, Anglo culture) is either part of the gospel message or the superior vehicle for its expression. That belief is not only utter nonsense, but pure evil (Espin in Segovia, p. 147)."
Espin is fighting the notion that one culture is superior to the others for experiencing the grace of God. For him, all cultures have elements of sin, and subsequently, all cultures are in need of experiencing God's grace within their own context.
Espin raises a very important question for us. It is the following: How does a Hispanic individual or community encounter the God-for-us (in other words, experience grace) in a culturally authentic way? He says that perhaps it is easier to say how it should not be done. But, he adds, we must attempt to address this question and search for answers, even if no totally satisfactory ones are to be found (Espin in Segovia, p. 148).
In closing, I invite you (the reader) to do either one of the following:
1. Comment on any of the previous essays that I have written on Hispanic-American theology. Feel free to say what you think are both the strengths and weaknesses of each essay, or at the very least, of the ones that you may have taken the time to read.
2. Comment on Espin's perspective on experiencing God's grace in a Hispanic-American cultural context. In your opinion, how is experiencing the grace of God in a Hispanic-American cultural context the same or different from having that same experience in a totally different cultural context?
3. Express in very brief and summary form, your view of Hispanic-American theology and whether or not there can be mutual dialogue between Hispanic-American theology and other theological systems that you may be familiar with.
I humbly and respectfully submit this series of essays for your reflection and evaluation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Hispanic-American Theology: A Trinitarian Component
One of the major controversial issues in Christian theology has been that of the Trinity, i.e. the doctrine that God has been revealed to humankind in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This has caused a lot of confusion because many non-Christians and even some who claim to be Christian believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching of polytheism (the doctrine of many gods). The most ardent defenders of the doctrine will insist that what is at play here, is not a promotion of polytheism, but rather an affirmation that God has been revealed in a variety of ways.
That, of course, is not too far from the Hindu affirmation that when they say that they believe in 330 million gods, that what they are saying is that the one God or the one ultimate reality has also been expressed in a multiplicity of ways.
For those who are familiar with Church history, they will know that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially adopted until well in the fourth century (325 A.D.) after the Emperor Constantine, who by had then "converted" to Christianity called for the Church to gather together to resolve the issue.
There were some (the Arians) who were saying that Jesus was a creature of God, who was inferior to God but higher than the angels. Then there were those (the Sabellian Modalists) who were claiming that God had appeared in three different modes (thus the term modalists), playing three different roles in human history as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And then there those who believed that the Father was not the Son, and that the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit was not either the Father or the Son. They believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were each distinct as to person, but the same as to nature, i.e. that they all shared the same nature as you and I are different persons who share the same nature. The problem with this was that the word "person," which came from the word "persona" meant "mask," and by saying that God was using different masks to reveal Godself, they were falling back on modalism. The doctrine of the Trinity, as we know it today, was officially adopted by the Church, though there were those in the Church who held on to other views such as Arianism and modalism. And there are some groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who continue to subscribe to the Arian view, and groups such as the Oneness Pentecostals (known to many as the "Jesus Only") who subscribe to the doctrine of modalism, and who are distinct from other Pentecostals who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity.
How does Hispanic-American theology deal with the doctrine of the Trinity? I would say that for the most part, both Latin-American Liberation Theology, the parent of Hispanic-American theology, and Hispanic-American theology itself subscribe to and operate with the classical historical view of the doctrine of the Trinity, i.e. that God has been revealed in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is, however, one element which needs to be addressed from both a Latin-American and a Hispanic-American theological point of view. It is that element which I now address, and I trust that you the reader will play close attention so as to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
In his book, We Are A People, Fernando Segovia, quotes a Catholic theologian by the name of Sixto Garcia. Dr. Garcia has served as Professor of Theology at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach Florida.
In an article entitled "Trinitarian Theology," introduces the element of Mary, the mother of Jesus as being part of the Trinity. While initially this may appear to be a view which is distinct to Roman Catholicism, Garcia is presenting it in the context of the suffering of the people of Latin America and also the suffering of Hispanics in the U.S.A. As he points out, theologians from different Christian traditions agree that the biblical role of Mary as disciple, as hearer of the Word, and as the receptor of the Holy Spirit, can offer common points of ecumenical discussion and theologizing (Segovia, p. 120). He quotes Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian Liberation theologian as saying that the Spirit "pneumatizes" Mary, the Spirit brings about, in the context of God's invitation and Mary's assent in faithful discipleship, the incarnation of the Son, and thereby becomes personified in the person of Mary, just as the world took presence (Shekinah) in the Tent of the Covenant , where the words of the Covenant were kept. He also quotes Boff as saying that the Spirit became personified in Mary just as the Son became personified in Jesus of Nazareth. (Segovia, p. 121).
Garcia goes on to say that this particular discussion underscores the role of Mary in the Hispanic perception of the unity and trinity in God. He says that this reality springs from an old tradition that associates Mary with the salvific activity of Jesus, and through Jesus, with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. He adds that this Hispanic tradition can claim a foundational New Testament background, especially, though not exclusively in the Gospel according to Luke (Segovia, pp. 120-121).
A very careful reading (which I would strongly suggest) will reveal that Garcia is not directly advocating for Mary becoming a fourth member of the Godhead, which would then no longer be a Trinity, but a cuaternity (one God revealed in four persons). Garcia is presenting his thesis from the point of view of:
1. Mary being the God-bearer, in other words, giving birth to the God-human.
2. Mary suffering at the scene of the Cross seeing her son crucified.
3. Mary identifying with the suffering of her son, which in our times, would be his solidarity with the suffering people of Latin America and Hispanics in the U.S.A.
I challenge and invite you the reader to comment on this perspective. Your evaluation is important. I look forward to your contribution.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
That, of course, is not too far from the Hindu affirmation that when they say that they believe in 330 million gods, that what they are saying is that the one God or the one ultimate reality has also been expressed in a multiplicity of ways.
For those who are familiar with Church history, they will know that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially adopted until well in the fourth century (325 A.D.) after the Emperor Constantine, who by had then "converted" to Christianity called for the Church to gather together to resolve the issue.
There were some (the Arians) who were saying that Jesus was a creature of God, who was inferior to God but higher than the angels. Then there were those (the Sabellian Modalists) who were claiming that God had appeared in three different modes (thus the term modalists), playing three different roles in human history as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And then there those who believed that the Father was not the Son, and that the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit was not either the Father or the Son. They believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were each distinct as to person, but the same as to nature, i.e. that they all shared the same nature as you and I are different persons who share the same nature. The problem with this was that the word "person," which came from the word "persona" meant "mask," and by saying that God was using different masks to reveal Godself, they were falling back on modalism. The doctrine of the Trinity, as we know it today, was officially adopted by the Church, though there were those in the Church who held on to other views such as Arianism and modalism. And there are some groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who continue to subscribe to the Arian view, and groups such as the Oneness Pentecostals (known to many as the "Jesus Only") who subscribe to the doctrine of modalism, and who are distinct from other Pentecostals who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity.
How does Hispanic-American theology deal with the doctrine of the Trinity? I would say that for the most part, both Latin-American Liberation Theology, the parent of Hispanic-American theology, and Hispanic-American theology itself subscribe to and operate with the classical historical view of the doctrine of the Trinity, i.e. that God has been revealed in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is, however, one element which needs to be addressed from both a Latin-American and a Hispanic-American theological point of view. It is that element which I now address, and I trust that you the reader will play close attention so as to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
In his book, We Are A People, Fernando Segovia, quotes a Catholic theologian by the name of Sixto Garcia. Dr. Garcia has served as Professor of Theology at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach Florida.
In an article entitled "Trinitarian Theology," introduces the element of Mary, the mother of Jesus as being part of the Trinity. While initially this may appear to be a view which is distinct to Roman Catholicism, Garcia is presenting it in the context of the suffering of the people of Latin America and also the suffering of Hispanics in the U.S.A. As he points out, theologians from different Christian traditions agree that the biblical role of Mary as disciple, as hearer of the Word, and as the receptor of the Holy Spirit, can offer common points of ecumenical discussion and theologizing (Segovia, p. 120). He quotes Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian Liberation theologian as saying that the Spirit "pneumatizes" Mary, the Spirit brings about, in the context of God's invitation and Mary's assent in faithful discipleship, the incarnation of the Son, and thereby becomes personified in the person of Mary, just as the world took presence (Shekinah) in the Tent of the Covenant , where the words of the Covenant were kept. He also quotes Boff as saying that the Spirit became personified in Mary just as the Son became personified in Jesus of Nazareth. (Segovia, p. 121).
Garcia goes on to say that this particular discussion underscores the role of Mary in the Hispanic perception of the unity and trinity in God. He says that this reality springs from an old tradition that associates Mary with the salvific activity of Jesus, and through Jesus, with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. He adds that this Hispanic tradition can claim a foundational New Testament background, especially, though not exclusively in the Gospel according to Luke (Segovia, pp. 120-121).
A very careful reading (which I would strongly suggest) will reveal that Garcia is not directly advocating for Mary becoming a fourth member of the Godhead, which would then no longer be a Trinity, but a cuaternity (one God revealed in four persons). Garcia is presenting his thesis from the point of view of:
1. Mary being the God-bearer, in other words, giving birth to the God-human.
2. Mary suffering at the scene of the Cross seeing her son crucified.
3. Mary identifying with the suffering of her son, which in our times, would be his solidarity with the suffering people of Latin America and Hispanics in the U.S.A.
I challenge and invite you the reader to comment on this perspective. Your evaluation is important. I look forward to your contribution.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, May 1, 2015
Theology, Crime, and Law Enforcement- An Interjection
Some years ago, while I was doing research for my doctoral dissertation, I read a book about how theology related to life in Latin America. The author said, "Nowadays, every one in Latin American is interested in theology. Even the police are interested in theology."
The background of that was of course, the emergence and development of Liberation Theology. Because Liberation Theology called for a prophetic denounciation of social justice, it was considered to be subversive. Because of its use of critical social analysis, some suspected it of being "Marxist and Communist" inspired. As a matter of fact, some in the positions of political authority in Latin America thought that is was really "Marxism in disguise."
Having moved on to write about Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A., I now propose that we consider the following questions from a theological point of view. The questions have to do with
the relationship between the theological enterprise on the one hand, and crime and law enforcement on the other. As we move on, the reader will notice that there is some resemblance between Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A, and Liberation Theology in Latin America. The questions are the following:
How is Hispanic-American theology affected by the criminal justice system in the U.S.A?
How does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of crimes committed by people in law enforcement?
How does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of social justice?
To the first question (how is Hispanic-American theology affected by the criminal justice system in the U.S.A.?) I would answer that Hispanic-American theology is rooted in and emerges from the context of social injustice. This is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that Hispanic-American theology approves of, condones, or justifies crimes committed by individuals against other individuals or against society. Nor does Hispanic-American theology say that a person should not be arrested, tried, and convicted simply because they are Hispanic. What Hispanic-American theology does say is that we need to take into account the socio-economic environment of alienation, social marginalization, and poverty, and how these, in turn, are in and of themselves the seeds that lead to the committing of individual crimes.
To the second question (how does Hispanic-American theology address the issue of crimes committed by people in law enforcement?), I would respond that it is a complex issue. When we consider situations such as Ferguson, Staten Island, and most recently, Baltimore, as a Hispanic-American pastor and theologian, I would have to weigh keeping the balance of what law enforcement is designed and supposed to be, while at the same time, dealing with what it has actually become in the reality of people of color, primarily African-American and Hispanic. If law enforcement functions in accordance with its ideals, i.e. public safety on an equal basis for all, then theology is 100% behind it. But if, on the other hand, law enforcement becomes the very same evil that it is supposed to combat against, then theology has a moral mandate to prophetically denounce it. And I would add that the crimes, alleged or real, supposedly committed by African-Americans and Hispanics, does not in any way justify or validate the committal of crimes by those who are supposed to enforce and uphold the law.
To the third question (how does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of social justice?), I would say that Hispanic-American theology by its very nature, is one that as I said before, is born and emerges from the context of social injustice, and also, by its very nature, promotes social justice through the proclamation of the Gospel, and by social praxis. Hispanic-American theology, like its parent, Latin American Liberation Theology, does not, and cannot disregard and ignore issues such as unemployment, underemployment, poverty, unjust incarceration, immigration, deportation, substandard housing, lack of access to quality medical care, et. If it were to ignore these issues, Hispanic-American theology could not claim to be faithful to the Christ whose Gospel is preached and proclaimed by the Church, and neither would it be faithful or accountable to the Hispanic-American community for whom it supposedly speaks.
In subsequent essays, we will note how Hispanic-American theology addresses these issues. I invite you, the reader to join our dialogue by helping us to contextualize and discuss matters related to the functions of Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The background of that was of course, the emergence and development of Liberation Theology. Because Liberation Theology called for a prophetic denounciation of social justice, it was considered to be subversive. Because of its use of critical social analysis, some suspected it of being "Marxist and Communist" inspired. As a matter of fact, some in the positions of political authority in Latin America thought that is was really "Marxism in disguise."
Having moved on to write about Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A., I now propose that we consider the following questions from a theological point of view. The questions have to do with
the relationship between the theological enterprise on the one hand, and crime and law enforcement on the other. As we move on, the reader will notice that there is some resemblance between Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A, and Liberation Theology in Latin America. The questions are the following:
How is Hispanic-American theology affected by the criminal justice system in the U.S.A?
How does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of crimes committed by people in law enforcement?
How does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of social justice?
To the first question (how is Hispanic-American theology affected by the criminal justice system in the U.S.A.?) I would answer that Hispanic-American theology is rooted in and emerges from the context of social injustice. This is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that Hispanic-American theology approves of, condones, or justifies crimes committed by individuals against other individuals or against society. Nor does Hispanic-American theology say that a person should not be arrested, tried, and convicted simply because they are Hispanic. What Hispanic-American theology does say is that we need to take into account the socio-economic environment of alienation, social marginalization, and poverty, and how these, in turn, are in and of themselves the seeds that lead to the committing of individual crimes.
To the second question (how does Hispanic-American theology address the issue of crimes committed by people in law enforcement?), I would respond that it is a complex issue. When we consider situations such as Ferguson, Staten Island, and most recently, Baltimore, as a Hispanic-American pastor and theologian, I would have to weigh keeping the balance of what law enforcement is designed and supposed to be, while at the same time, dealing with what it has actually become in the reality of people of color, primarily African-American and Hispanic. If law enforcement functions in accordance with its ideals, i.e. public safety on an equal basis for all, then theology is 100% behind it. But if, on the other hand, law enforcement becomes the very same evil that it is supposed to combat against, then theology has a moral mandate to prophetically denounce it. And I would add that the crimes, alleged or real, supposedly committed by African-Americans and Hispanics, does not in any way justify or validate the committal of crimes by those who are supposed to enforce and uphold the law.
To the third question (how does Hispanic-American theology address the issues of social justice?), I would say that Hispanic-American theology by its very nature, is one that as I said before, is born and emerges from the context of social injustice, and also, by its very nature, promotes social justice through the proclamation of the Gospel, and by social praxis. Hispanic-American theology, like its parent, Latin American Liberation Theology, does not, and cannot disregard and ignore issues such as unemployment, underemployment, poverty, unjust incarceration, immigration, deportation, substandard housing, lack of access to quality medical care, et. If it were to ignore these issues, Hispanic-American theology could not claim to be faithful to the Christ whose Gospel is preached and proclaimed by the Church, and neither would it be faithful or accountable to the Hispanic-American community for whom it supposedly speaks.
In subsequent essays, we will note how Hispanic-American theology addresses these issues. I invite you, the reader to join our dialogue by helping us to contextualize and discuss matters related to the functions of Hispanic-American theology in the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)