Beyond the Bible

In this essay, I will invite the reader to focus on an issue which I sincerely believe will be both challenging and thought-provoking.  A good friend of mine in the past has jokingly accused me of "playing with fire."  Well, I do have to admit that once in every once in a  great while, I love to instigate trouble, lol.  Those of you who know me personally (including my wife Ruth), know that I have a reputation for being a "trouble-maker."  That goes with the turf of being a minister.  It has been said that a good preacher knows how to comfort the afflicted and how to afflict the comfortable.  I hope that this essay does both.

In previous essays, I spoke about the topic of whether God's truth is limited to the Bible. Many, if not most Christians, especially of the evangelical persuasion tend to believe that it is.  They see no truth outside of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.  They believe truth comes from Scripture and that truth and non-truth are ultimately determined by Scripture.  I have also spoken about how some Christian theologians (like Karl Barth), the Bible is not "the Word of God," but rather "a witness to the Word, which is Jesus Christ."

In this essay, I wish to go beyond the Bible and beyond Barth, in spite of the admiration and respect that I have for him and other theologians.  I want to challenge us to consider going over and beyond being what a good friend of mine calls being "biblically focused."

You, the reader, might ask how is that this Christian preacher (yours truly) can even think of going "beyond the Bible?"  Some Christians will even think that this very thought amounts to blasphemy. For them, the Bible is not only the ultimate barometer of truth, but truth itself. Subsequently, since they believe that the Bible is the "divinely inerrant and infallible inspired Word of God," that to even suggest that we can go over and beyond this inspired document, is the epitome and height of sacrilege.

Without mocking or ridiculing my sisters and brothers who think this way, let me begin by reminding us that God's truth existed long before the Bible was written. In comparison to how long humankind has been on the face of the earth, the Bible is a relatively-speaking, recently written document.  To insist that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth is tantamount to saying that those humans who lived long before the Bible was written had no knowledge of God's truth.  That would mean that people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, had no knowledge of the truth since the Bible was not written during their lifetime.  This position flies in the face of the scriptural witness itself.  Nowhere does the Scripture claim to be the ultimate criteria for the divine truth with which we should be familiar.

I would also add that to limit God's truth to the Bible, is to deny that God speaks through the sacred scriptures of other religions. If God's truth is not found in extrabiblical literature, then we would have no choice but to demonize these writings by claiming that the authors of these documents were inspired by a diabolical influence.  It is this writer's humble opinion that only a very narrowly focused and bigoted mind is capable of thinking in these terms.  God Herself/Himself is much, much bigger than our doctrines, and bigger than the Scriptures from which our doctrines supposedly come.  Our Scriptures themselves point to a God who is not only sovereign, but also cosmic.  God is not confined to or restricted by our concepts of Her/Him, even when these concepts are "biblically based."

En fin, I invite you, the reader to join me in exploring the myriad ways in which God is revealing God-self to the human race.  As a Christian, my primary referential frameworks for knowing and understanding, albeit, with limitations, God's self-disclosure and liberative actions in history, are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.  But the Cosmic God-in Christ is also revealed in other scriptures and in the experience of total liberation for all humankind.

I invite you to engage in dialogue with us by commenting on the above.  No matter where you stand on these issues, your comments and input will not only be respected, but highly valued.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Theology in the Americas: Letter of Avery Dulles to Sergio Torres

Continuing the thread of preparation for the Theology in the Americas Conference in Detroit in 1975, I now focus on a letter written by Avery Dulles to Sergio Torres. 

At the time of the writing of his letter, Dulles was a teacher and writer working at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington, D.C.  The purpose of his letter was to decide on what the major focus of the conference should be.  As he saw it, it could be:

1.  An expose and critique of recent Latin American theology as developed in the Latin American context, by sympathetic but discriminating North American observers. 

2.  An exploration of something like an indigenous liberation theology growing out of the North American situation (Dulles in Eagleson and Torres, p. 93).

Dulles saw the difficulty in attempting to combine these in a conference that would last a week or less.  There would be limitations of both space and time.

Dulles gives room to the possibility that the conference could bring together African American, Hispanic American, and Native American theologians to expand on what is in their traditions. But he believes that the brunt of the conference should be to address the confusions and tensions felt by all  participants in the conference, and not simply with the so-called "minority" groups (Dulles, p. 94).

A question for consideration that Dulles raises is whether the conference should attempt to carry out a theological critique of the present socio-political and economic structures of U.S. society. He believes that the task would prove to be too immense , even with strenuous preparation (Dulles, p.94).

As a Puerto Rican minister and theologian operating in a North American context, I do not believe that Latin American theology can or should be exported to the U.S.A.  Theology (God-talk) has to be contextualized.  Therefore, our God-talk has to emerge from and develop within the existential reality that we are living in and facing every day.  While some of the elements of Latin American theology might be useful, our theology has to address our socio-economic and political realities. Our God-talk in this context, addresses issues of social class as God-talk in Latin America does, but it also addresses issues of gender, race, and sexual preference.  The question for us living in the U.S.A is then, what is God doing and saying in our context?  How do we in the North American context understand the Word and actions of God where we are?  How is God's liberating action understood by those in this context who are suffering from discrimination and mistreatment on the basis of class, gender, race, and sexual preference?

Please share with us your thoughts on how God-talk can take place within the confines of our reality here in the U.S.A.  Tell us if you think that it is different or the same, and how is it different or the same. Your input is important.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Carmona

What the Hell?

It was the Spring of 1970.  My girlfriend and I had an argument and were not talking to each other for a few days. Believe it or not, we got engaged later on that same year and married the next year.  Well, because of the non-communicative status that we were in, I said "what the hell," and decided to take a trip to Richmond, Virginia to visit my friend at the seminary where he was studying at.  I had met him in his senior year at the King's College, where he was a roommate with my best friend.  My friend Bill had invited me to spend a weekend at the college, getting acquainted with the students and with the environment.  He introduced me to his roommate Dave, and for whatever reason, Dave left an impression upon my mind that still lingers on to this day.  Dave even gave me a copy of a recording which he had made with four other students which contained many Gospel hymns which became ingrained in my soul until this day.  Bill and Dave graduated from King's that May.  Bill and I had met in high school in Staten Island and graduated together.   Well, after graduation, Bill went on to Bethel Seminary in Minnesota, and Dave went on to Union Presbyterian Seminary in Virginia.  Dave impressed me with his academic rigor, graduating with a 4.0 average and pretty much into singing.  But he was Presbyterian (so what?).  Having grown up in a Puerto Rican Pentecostal Church, to me anyone who wasn't Pentecostal was either a second-class Christian or just simply on their way to hell.

There was something strange about this dude Dave, and for some reason unknown to me, I wanted to figure him out.  So I went to visit him at Union.  Not only was he Presbyterian, but he was also smoking a pipe, which by my traditional Pentecostal standards was a  no, no. He and Bill had graduated from a very conservative Baptist college, which prohibited the use of tobacco, and alcohol. In fact, students had to sign a pledge that they would not dance or attend a theater either while on campus or off campus.  While at King's, Dave had grown a beard, and the Dean ordered him to remove it.  He complied, but in the spirit of the great reformer, Martin Luther, he took 95 pieces of hair and nailed them to the door of the Dean's office.  Now, after graduating from this real conservative college, he was in a very lax seminary which did not have the restrictions of the college.
You would think that the seminary would be even stricter.  Not only was Dave smoking a pipe, but he also took me to a movie (a no, no by Pentecostal standards because godly people are not supposed to sit in the seat of the ungodly according to Psalm 1) to see the Molly McGuires.  And then, to top it off, the song "Let it Be" by the Beatles had just come out that year, and Dave would listen to it and sing along with every chance he got. 

Between his pipe smoking, movie attendance, and "Let it Be," I became "contaminated" and started to develop a "what the hell" type of attitude.  This man impressed me so much with his acquired laxity combined with his Christian commitment.  I attended a Mass with him at an Episcopal church, where he sang in the choir.  Then, for the first time in my life, I attended a worship service in a Presbyterian church.  Little did I know, that eight years later, I myself would become a minister of the Reformed Church, of which the Presbyterian churches are family members. I learned by Dave's example that being a Christian and being godly did not require an arrogant, pompous-ass, and self-righteous attitude.  Dave and I stayed in touch "on and off" during and after his seminary years. In the last year, we have seen him and his dear wife Riitta several times and broken bread with them. He is now a retired minister.  I still have the recording which he gave me, and to Ruth's consternation, lol, I play the record every now and then while I am either writing, or in a mood to get back to my "roots."

So, a follower of Christ smokes a pipe. What the hell?  Another follower of Christ (like myself) likes to dance to the music of the 60's and 70's. What the hell?  Some followers of Christ (myself included) enjoy an occasion glass of wine with their meals. "Let it be, let it be."

Christ has not called us to moralize or to pontificate.  Christ has not called us to be rubbing our noses in people's personal business. Christ has called us to nurture and sustain people, not only in our words, but also in our actions and examples.  Christ has called us to be present where people are hurting, and to be an extension of His presence in their lives.  The great revivalist John Wesley (one of the founders of Methodism) believed in "think and let think."  I would add to that "live and let live." Let us, as my friend Dave and his quartet, the Challengers, did by responding to the call of Christ to go out and make a difference in our world.  Let it be, let it be, there will be answer, let it be. Let it be, let it be, whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Theoogy in the Americas: Sergio Torres responds to Gregory Baum

In the previous essay, we reviewed a letter by Gregory Baum, a Professor of Theology at St. Michael's College in Toronto, to Sergio Torres,  a Roman Catholic priest from Chile, and Executive Secretary of the Theology in the Americas Conference, held in Detroit in 1975.  In this essay, we will consider Torres's response to Baum.

Torres says to Baum, "We in Chile and South America have experienced some forms of oppression that come from the national sectors, e.g., rich and powerful minorities who were denounced by the bishops at Medellin.  But also we have seen how some American agencies and companies have undoubtedly intervened in the affairs of those countries (Torres in Eagleson and Torres, p. 90)."

In his letter, Torres is trying to make clear to Baum, economic, political, and social oppression in Latin America are the starting points for doing carrying out theological reflection.  As we had seen in the previous essay, Baum had made it clear that he did not believe that Latin American theology should be the model from which people in North America (U.S.A. and Canada) must be learn. In fact, he was concerned about the fact that North Americans (specifically Canadians) were to quick and willing to learn from others. (Baum, in Eagleson and Torres, p.88).

Torres goes on to say, "The great difficulty with American middle-class people is that they ignore many of these activities.  They don't feel personally bothered by them and so reject them. Even if they do recognize them, they feel powerless to change them.  Our conference has felt that one way of drawing attention to the situation is to begin reflecting on the image that the U.S.A. projects in Latin America. The second step will be to study whether or not this corresponds to the reality, then we will try to reflect theologically on the conclusions and to leave open the field for a praxis of transformation and hope (Torres in Eagleson and Torres, p. 91)."

Some readers of this exchange between Baum and Torres may react by saying that political issues are overemphasized in Latin American theology.  The question that some of us Christians in the U.S.A. may ask is "what does the Gospel have to do with politics?"  Because of the degree of comfort and wealth that we live with in the U.S.A., many of us will tend to advocate for political "neutrality." Torres, like many other theologians from Latin America will emphasize that the Gospel itself is political in nature, especially in an environment where the masses of people are being marginalized in relation to economic well-being, housing, health, education, and are politically speaking, disenfranchised.  Latin American theologians believe that the Gospel calls for a reordering and restructuring of society, and that indeed, there is no such thing as neutrality.  Latin American theology stresses the fact that the Scriptures make it clear that we are either on the side of the oppressed, or on the side of the oppressor.

Torres tells Baum, " The central objective of the conference will be to analyze the economic and political situation, national and international, from the point of view of revelation, utilizing  biblical categories of domination-liberation, found in the book of Exodus. The conference will not be held only for the purpose of listening to Latin Americans.  Our meeting is centered on the American reality.  The Latin Americans will share their experience and the criteria of their theological reflection (Torres in Eagleson and Torres, p. 91)."

Torres is making every attempt to assure Baum that the dialogue will be a two-way one. In other words, North Americans and Latin Americans will be listening to and sharing with each other.

This exchange between Baum and Torres raises the following questions which I invite you the reader to attempt responding to. They are the following:

1.  In your opinion, should models of theology be imported from one part of the world to another?

2.  In your opinion, should the role of Scripture may exclusive or shout it be primary in the formulation of a theological system?

3.  Given the various principles of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation), and given the fact theology is or should be contextualized, what would you as a North American say should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection?

Your response to these three questions should help us engage in healthy theological dialogue.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Are we bound by the Bible?

Before continuing with the issue of the Theology in the Americas Conference in Detroit, I would like to interject an essay for continuous reflection and thought.  I write this essay for two reasons. First of all, I write because I know that the question that many people ask when they read anything that has to do with theology is "what is the role of Scripture in all this?"  In other words, their question is "what does the Bible say?"  And since the Bible plays a role in all expressions of Christianity, that question needs to be addressed. The second reason for my writing is how we as a community of faith have been challenged by the decisions that governments have made relative to the Confederacy flag and same-sex marriage.  Many in the community of faith will use and misuse Scripture by quoting it, without taking into consideration its relevancy or non-relevancy to these issues.

Subsequently, an important question emerges: Are we bound by the Bible and by its contents?  My answer to that is basically no.  You, the reader might be surprised by this answer coming from a Christian preacher.  You might ask me how is it possible that a Minister of the Gospel could take such a position.  My answer to that is, that if we think that we are bound to the Bible, then we fall back into the slavery that the Apostle Paul speaks about in his letters to the Roman and Galatian churches, i.e. the slavery of codes and legalism.  We also fall back into the danger of bibliolatry (worship of the Bible).  We, in that instance, convert the Bible into another God.

What or who then are we bound to for godly living and practice?  I humbly and respectfully submit that we are bound not to the Scripture, but rather to the God of Scripture who has been revealed and manifested in human history through God's Son, Jesus the Christ, to whom be all glory, honor, majesty, and power, forever more, amen.  The Scriptures play the role of witnessing to this revelation  of God in Christ.

I would also like to clarify that when I say that we are "bound" to God in Christ, I am not referring to being enslaved to rules and regulations that we have to comply with begrudgingly .  When I say that we are "bound," I am stating that we are in relationship with God on the basis of our appreciation and love for God as a response of grace to what God has done for us. That appreciation and love for God, in turn, leads us to want to please God in all we say and do.  It is not a question of being "bound" to God out of fear of punishment by "roasting and toasting in hell forever and ever."  It is being "bound" to God in the same way that we are "bound" to our spouses and significant other, i.e. "bound" by love and the desire to be in a relationship with that person.  My relationship with my wife is not based on rules and regulations, but rather on the love for her and desire of her companionship. The day that our relationship deteriorates into rules and regulations,  marriage in the true sense of the word comes to an end. 

In closing, I invite and challenge you to move away from being "bound" by Scripture, if you are, and to move towards being "bound" by God in a relationship of appreciation, gratitude, and love. Feel free to share your own thoughts and perspectives with us relative to being "bound to God."

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.  Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona