Having established the importance of acquaintance with the original languages of the Bible, I now move forward to having us examine those principles which can help us to put biblical understanding into proper perspective. The questions below will help us with this important task.
What is the right interpretation of the Bible? How should the Bible be interpreted? The answer to these questions depends, to a large extent, on the intention of the one who is using the Scriptures. We should also take into account that the Bible is made up of a diverse body of materials that were produced over many centuries, and which includes a variety of theological perspectives. I will lay out some principles which govern and guide the hermeneutical task.
The Bible should be its own interpreter ( E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d., p. 19). By this I mean that the Scriptures should be interpreted by the use of the Scriptures themselves. Support for erroneous views of God, humanity, and life can be found in the Scriptures if one abandons this simple principle. People can use the Bible to make a case for reincarnation, the infallibility of human leaders, militarism, etc. by lifting out passages, which in their thinking, establish the basis for such beliefs. The principle of biblical self-interpretation is one which calls for us to compare the various parts of Scripture in order to arrive at some understanding of the passages in question (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Colgate Rochester Divinity School, Rochester, New York, 1982, p. 32).
Please tell us what you believe and think about this principle of biblical self-interpretation. Is it a self-serving and redundant principle, or is it useful in helping us to understand Scripture? Your input is important in our journey to seek the proper understanding of this witness to God's Word.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step 1: Original Languages
As I had indicated in my last essay, the next several essays will be devoted to having us explore the steps that we need to take to have a broader understanding of the Scriptures. These steps will not render us infallible, but they will, at the very least, help us to understand the Bible in a more analytical and critical manner. They will help broaden our thinking in terms of understanding the biblical message.
This particular essay deals with the original languages of the Bible, i.e. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
The bulk of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and a few passages were written in a related language, i.e. Aramaic. The New Testament was written in koine Greek, the language spoken by the common folk in the time of Jesus and the first-century Church.
Some may wonder if they need to be discouraged about ever understanding the Bible because they have never studied the Bible in its original languages. My answer to that is "absolutely not." Those who have never studied Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew can do one of three things, or perhaps all three:
1. Purchase a lexicon which is a dictionary of biblical languages, providing words and terms in those languages with translation into English.
2. Compare the different translations of the English Bible (King James, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New International Bible, Living Bible, etc.) by focusing on the differences and similarities between each translation.
3. Compare the different Bible commentaries which are written by people who have studied the original languages of Scripture and made comments based on their understanding of the Bible in its original language.
Some may ask, "What is the big deal about studying the Bible in its original languages as opposed to studying it in the languages that we know?" That is a valid question, but it is a question that is asked, for the most part, by people who want to limit themselves to a cursory and very simple approach to Scripture. Unfortunately, many, if not most students of the Bible do not want to engage in a lot of "razzle dazzle" when it comes to biblical study. They are either adverse or allergic to rigorous examination of Scripture, and prefer the "two and two is four" approach to Bible study.
The answer to the above question is that lack of knowledge of the original languages can cause us to not be aware of some of the apparent contrasts that exist between the original languages of the Bible, and the translations which most of us rely on to do and carry out Bible study. Below, are some examples of the problems between the original languages and the translations that we use.
1. We are told in Genesis 1 that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The word for God in the original Hebrew is "Elohim," which translated into English or any other language is plural, therefore, meaning "gods." Why would the writer of Genesis say that gods created the heavens and the earth? The reason why the writer uses "Elohim" instead of "El" (singular for God) is because in the Middle Eastern culture, God was described in terms of Her/His various attributes, including majesty and power. It is not that the Arabs, Jews, or other Middle Eastern people were believing in a multiplicity of gods, but rather that the one God was was thought of in terms of many attributes and dimensions.
2. In most of the English translations, the twenty-third Psalm tells us that "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." In the Hebrew it says "Yahweh is my shepherd, I shall not want." Why do the English translations get away from the original by using the the term "Lord?'' The Spanish translations use the term "Jehova," which is Spanish for Yahweh or as has been translated into English "Jehovah." The reason why most of the English translators use the word "Lord," is because they knew that one of the commandments which the Hebrew/Jewish people had received was not to take the name of God in vain. Whenever they read the name "Yahweh," they would substitute it by pronouncing the word "Adonai," which is the Hebrew word for "Lord." While the translators of the Bible into other languages tended to do a "word for word" translation of the original Hebrew, the translators of the English Bibles preferred to be sensitive to the needs of the Hebrew people to avoid pronouncing God's name, and therefore, taking the risk of using God's name in vain.
3. In Colossians 1, Paul refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" of every creature. This has led some groups, such as the Jehovah's witnesses to affirm believe that Jesus is a creature. The issue here is that in Greek (the original language of the New Testament), there are two words for "firstborn." One is "protogenes," which means the eldest or the first to be born. The other words is "prototokos," which means "inheritor." A literal interpretation of Colossians 1 into English, would be that Jesus is the "inheritor" of every creature.
These are just three of many examples that point to the importance of being acquainted with the Bible in its original languages. There are others, of course, but for the sake of space and time, we will not cover them in this essay. The main issue here is that for us to exercise responsible study of Scripture, we must have some acquaintance with the original languages. That acquaintance might come through direct study of these languages or indirectly by reading commentaries and other literature written by those who have studied the original languages.
It is hoped that this first of many steps will help the reader to dig deeper into the Scriptures, which are a written witness to the Word, which is Jesus the Christ, the Word made flesh. Please feel free to comment on this approach or to share any concerns which you may have. Remember, this is a dialogue, not an argument or a debate.
In the name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This particular essay deals with the original languages of the Bible, i.e. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
The bulk of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and a few passages were written in a related language, i.e. Aramaic. The New Testament was written in koine Greek, the language spoken by the common folk in the time of Jesus and the first-century Church.
Some may wonder if they need to be discouraged about ever understanding the Bible because they have never studied the Bible in its original languages. My answer to that is "absolutely not." Those who have never studied Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew can do one of three things, or perhaps all three:
1. Purchase a lexicon which is a dictionary of biblical languages, providing words and terms in those languages with translation into English.
2. Compare the different translations of the English Bible (King James, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New International Bible, Living Bible, etc.) by focusing on the differences and similarities between each translation.
3. Compare the different Bible commentaries which are written by people who have studied the original languages of Scripture and made comments based on their understanding of the Bible in its original language.
Some may ask, "What is the big deal about studying the Bible in its original languages as opposed to studying it in the languages that we know?" That is a valid question, but it is a question that is asked, for the most part, by people who want to limit themselves to a cursory and very simple approach to Scripture. Unfortunately, many, if not most students of the Bible do not want to engage in a lot of "razzle dazzle" when it comes to biblical study. They are either adverse or allergic to rigorous examination of Scripture, and prefer the "two and two is four" approach to Bible study.
The answer to the above question is that lack of knowledge of the original languages can cause us to not be aware of some of the apparent contrasts that exist between the original languages of the Bible, and the translations which most of us rely on to do and carry out Bible study. Below, are some examples of the problems between the original languages and the translations that we use.
1. We are told in Genesis 1 that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The word for God in the original Hebrew is "Elohim," which translated into English or any other language is plural, therefore, meaning "gods." Why would the writer of Genesis say that gods created the heavens and the earth? The reason why the writer uses "Elohim" instead of "El" (singular for God) is because in the Middle Eastern culture, God was described in terms of Her/His various attributes, including majesty and power. It is not that the Arabs, Jews, or other Middle Eastern people were believing in a multiplicity of gods, but rather that the one God was was thought of in terms of many attributes and dimensions.
2. In most of the English translations, the twenty-third Psalm tells us that "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." In the Hebrew it says "Yahweh is my shepherd, I shall not want." Why do the English translations get away from the original by using the the term "Lord?'' The Spanish translations use the term "Jehova," which is Spanish for Yahweh or as has been translated into English "Jehovah." The reason why most of the English translators use the word "Lord," is because they knew that one of the commandments which the Hebrew/Jewish people had received was not to take the name of God in vain. Whenever they read the name "Yahweh," they would substitute it by pronouncing the word "Adonai," which is the Hebrew word for "Lord." While the translators of the Bible into other languages tended to do a "word for word" translation of the original Hebrew, the translators of the English Bibles preferred to be sensitive to the needs of the Hebrew people to avoid pronouncing God's name, and therefore, taking the risk of using God's name in vain.
3. In Colossians 1, Paul refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" of every creature. This has led some groups, such as the Jehovah's witnesses to affirm believe that Jesus is a creature. The issue here is that in Greek (the original language of the New Testament), there are two words for "firstborn." One is "protogenes," which means the eldest or the first to be born. The other words is "prototokos," which means "inheritor." A literal interpretation of Colossians 1 into English, would be that Jesus is the "inheritor" of every creature.
These are just three of many examples that point to the importance of being acquainted with the Bible in its original languages. There are others, of course, but for the sake of space and time, we will not cover them in this essay. The main issue here is that for us to exercise responsible study of Scripture, we must have some acquaintance with the original languages. That acquaintance might come through direct study of these languages or indirectly by reading commentaries and other literature written by those who have studied the original languages.
It is hoped that this first of many steps will help the reader to dig deeper into the Scriptures, which are a written witness to the Word, which is Jesus the Christ, the Word made flesh. Please feel free to comment on this approach or to share any concerns which you may have. Remember, this is a dialogue, not an argument or a debate.
In the name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Theological Gimmicks
One of the phenomena that we come across frequently in religious (especially Christian) circles is that of gimmicks. Some of the gimmicks that people resort to are a chief exemplification of the chicanery that goes on in daily life. I would like to draw your attention to a frequent gimmick that people resort to in the community of Christians.
Christians often (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally) resort to quoting the Scriptures in support of their doctrine, position, or for their personal gain and benefit. You may ask, "What then can or should we base our beliefs and practices on, if not the Bible?" i do not intend to discourage believers from basing their beliefs and practices on Scripture. But I do strongly discourage the habit of quoting Scripture without taking into consideration the context from which the Scriptures emerged. One person may quote a biblical passage in support of her/his position on a given issue, and another person might quote another passage in support of an opposite position to the first person. Or, in some cases, you may have two different people quoting the same passage of Scripture, but yet, arriving at different conclusions as to the meaning of that particular passage.
I always remember the story shared with me by a colleague in ministry. When he was having difficulties with his former spouse, a group of members of his church came to their house, and quoted to her certain Scriptures which spoke about the need for a woman to "submit" to her husband. She took a magic marker, and deleted those passages, and said to her visitors "Now it doesn't say it anymore."
How can we maintain a Scriptural position without resorting to proof-texting or using the literal or what some would call the "quick to verse" approach? Is it possible to base our beliefs on "what the Bible says" and at the same time avoid resorting to quotation of Scripture without taking context into consideration? In order to attempt answering that question, the next series of essays will focus on biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
I am not suggesting that a study of hermeneutical principles will result in our becoming "biblical experts," or that it will render an infallible and inerrant interpretation. But I do believe that looking at each set of principles will enable us to approximate what the Holy Spirit through the original writers of Scripture intended for us to understand. It will also enable us to compare our understanding of the biblical message with how others understand that same message.
As I lay out these steps, I invite you to examine each one carefully and prayerfully, seeking divine guidance, and at the same time, using common sense. I look forward to your engagement with us in this discourse.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Christians often (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally) resort to quoting the Scriptures in support of their doctrine, position, or for their personal gain and benefit. You may ask, "What then can or should we base our beliefs and practices on, if not the Bible?" i do not intend to discourage believers from basing their beliefs and practices on Scripture. But I do strongly discourage the habit of quoting Scripture without taking into consideration the context from which the Scriptures emerged. One person may quote a biblical passage in support of her/his position on a given issue, and another person might quote another passage in support of an opposite position to the first person. Or, in some cases, you may have two different people quoting the same passage of Scripture, but yet, arriving at different conclusions as to the meaning of that particular passage.
I always remember the story shared with me by a colleague in ministry. When he was having difficulties with his former spouse, a group of members of his church came to their house, and quoted to her certain Scriptures which spoke about the need for a woman to "submit" to her husband. She took a magic marker, and deleted those passages, and said to her visitors "Now it doesn't say it anymore."
How can we maintain a Scriptural position without resorting to proof-texting or using the literal or what some would call the "quick to verse" approach? Is it possible to base our beliefs on "what the Bible says" and at the same time avoid resorting to quotation of Scripture without taking context into consideration? In order to attempt answering that question, the next series of essays will focus on biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
I am not suggesting that a study of hermeneutical principles will result in our becoming "biblical experts," or that it will render an infallible and inerrant interpretation. But I do believe that looking at each set of principles will enable us to approximate what the Holy Spirit through the original writers of Scripture intended for us to understand. It will also enable us to compare our understanding of the biblical message with how others understand that same message.
As I lay out these steps, I invite you to examine each one carefully and prayerfully, seeking divine guidance, and at the same time, using common sense. I look forward to your engagement with us in this discourse.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, August 27, 2015
"Colonialism: A Theological Standpoint"-Puerto Rico
People within the Church and other faith groups are divided on political and social issues. Members of the faith communities do not articulate a monolithic view of these issues. The variety of perspectives on these issues in the communities of faith are reflective of the diverse perspectives in the wider society.
In this essay, I will deal with the issue of colonialism. For the purposes of this discussion, I will define colonialism as the usurpation of a land, its people, and its resources for the economic, military, and political advantage of the colonizer.
This essay will focus on the island of Puerto Rico. I am a New York born and raised Puerto Rican minister and theologian who has a theological commitment to social justice. The views that I express in this essay are rooted in my faith and its attendant ethics.
I will begin my dismissing outright that contemptous, derogatory, insulting, and patronizing statement that is often made by those who are opposed to people expressing their views on injustice, i.e. "If you don't like it here, go back where you came from." I will respond to that by saying that this is not about "liking or not liking here." This is a matter of pointing out one of the many flaws of the nation that we live in and in which we strive for it to live up its self-proclaimed ideals of democracy, and "liberty and justice for all." And I would add to that, that those who make that type of statement, are by and large, descendants of the European land-grabbing colonizers who were not invited here, but rather took it upon themselves to come to the Caribbean and what is known today as Latin America, to usurp the land from its original owners, killing many of them off, and replacing them with the institution of chattel slavery. Maybe their descendants who say such things to us should be the ones to "go back where they come from," no offense to my Euro-American and Anglo-American sisters and brothers.
I will add that I am not approaching this issue on the basis of an economic and political outcome. In other words, I do not believe that the decision regarding the political status of Puerto Rico should be based on what may or may not happen if Puerto Rico were to become a self-governing nation. As a theologian, my questions would be "what does justice require?" on the one hand, and on the other, "do the people of Puerto Rico, like any other nation, have the right to be sovereign and self-governing republic?" And ultimately, as I theologian, I would be concerned with the issue of what is God's stance on colonialism?
Since this essay will not be a detailed treatise, I would recommend a reading of the books, " Colonial Dilemma: Critical Perspectives on Contemporary Puerto Rico," edited by Edwin Melendez and Edgardo Melendez, 1993 South End Press, Boston MA, and my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico" A Theological Perspective" by Juan A. Carmona, 1982, Library at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, Rochester, New York. While these two books do not constitute an exhaustive list, they do provide some insight into the contents of this essay.
There are those who believe that Puerto Rico's current economic problems and the subsequent mass migration out of the country to Slavetown, U.S.A. are rooted in its "overspending and borrowing by the government." This writer respectfully disagrees with that, and in fact, believes that this notion is a myth.
I humbly and respectfully submit that Puerto Rico's economic problems stem from the colonization and immoral occupation of the island and its people by external powers, as well as exploitation by certain "elites" within the Puerto Rican community who serve at the pleasure of the Multi National Corporations (MNC) who have been conducting business on the island on a "tax free" basis.
Since 1508, when Juan Ponce de Leon, established the Spanish occupation of Puerto Rico, and since 1898, when Puerto Rico became a territory of the U.S.A as a result of the Spanish American War, the people of Puerto Rico have not been able enjoy complete freedom from external powers. The Spaniards imposed their culture, language, and religion (Catholicism), and the Americans imposed their economic (capitalism) and political (pseudo-democracy) institutions, as well as establishing their religion (Protestantism with its many shades). During the era of Spanish colonization, the cross went "hand in hand" with the sword, i.e. there was an alliance between the Church and the Spanish Empire. In the era of American neo-colonization, Protestant Christianity was linked to the idea of "Manifest Destiny," i.e. the notion that God had predestined America to bring "civilization" to the "brutes and savages" of Puerto Rico and the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America.
What does God think of colonization? The thrust of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and the Gospel accounts in the New Testament, is that God is against and denounces all forms of injustice. This injustice includes but is not limited to socio-economic alienation and poverty, but also includes neglect of the widows and orphans, abuse of the powerless, neglect of the immigrants, and theft,whether it be of the individual nature or institutional, structural, and systemic theft (colonization) type.
You, the reader are invited to contribute to this conversation. Please share your perspectives and views with us on the basis of ethics and theology, and not on the basis of what is politically expedient or convenient.
I look forward to your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In this essay, I will deal with the issue of colonialism. For the purposes of this discussion, I will define colonialism as the usurpation of a land, its people, and its resources for the economic, military, and political advantage of the colonizer.
This essay will focus on the island of Puerto Rico. I am a New York born and raised Puerto Rican minister and theologian who has a theological commitment to social justice. The views that I express in this essay are rooted in my faith and its attendant ethics.
I will begin my dismissing outright that contemptous, derogatory, insulting, and patronizing statement that is often made by those who are opposed to people expressing their views on injustice, i.e. "If you don't like it here, go back where you came from." I will respond to that by saying that this is not about "liking or not liking here." This is a matter of pointing out one of the many flaws of the nation that we live in and in which we strive for it to live up its self-proclaimed ideals of democracy, and "liberty and justice for all." And I would add to that, that those who make that type of statement, are by and large, descendants of the European land-grabbing colonizers who were not invited here, but rather took it upon themselves to come to the Caribbean and what is known today as Latin America, to usurp the land from its original owners, killing many of them off, and replacing them with the institution of chattel slavery. Maybe their descendants who say such things to us should be the ones to "go back where they come from," no offense to my Euro-American and Anglo-American sisters and brothers.
I will add that I am not approaching this issue on the basis of an economic and political outcome. In other words, I do not believe that the decision regarding the political status of Puerto Rico should be based on what may or may not happen if Puerto Rico were to become a self-governing nation. As a theologian, my questions would be "what does justice require?" on the one hand, and on the other, "do the people of Puerto Rico, like any other nation, have the right to be sovereign and self-governing republic?" And ultimately, as I theologian, I would be concerned with the issue of what is God's stance on colonialism?
Since this essay will not be a detailed treatise, I would recommend a reading of the books, " Colonial Dilemma: Critical Perspectives on Contemporary Puerto Rico," edited by Edwin Melendez and Edgardo Melendez, 1993 South End Press, Boston MA, and my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico" A Theological Perspective" by Juan A. Carmona, 1982, Library at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, Rochester, New York. While these two books do not constitute an exhaustive list, they do provide some insight into the contents of this essay.
There are those who believe that Puerto Rico's current economic problems and the subsequent mass migration out of the country to Slavetown, U.S.A. are rooted in its "overspending and borrowing by the government." This writer respectfully disagrees with that, and in fact, believes that this notion is a myth.
I humbly and respectfully submit that Puerto Rico's economic problems stem from the colonization and immoral occupation of the island and its people by external powers, as well as exploitation by certain "elites" within the Puerto Rican community who serve at the pleasure of the Multi National Corporations (MNC) who have been conducting business on the island on a "tax free" basis.
Since 1508, when Juan Ponce de Leon, established the Spanish occupation of Puerto Rico, and since 1898, when Puerto Rico became a territory of the U.S.A as a result of the Spanish American War, the people of Puerto Rico have not been able enjoy complete freedom from external powers. The Spaniards imposed their culture, language, and religion (Catholicism), and the Americans imposed their economic (capitalism) and political (pseudo-democracy) institutions, as well as establishing their religion (Protestantism with its many shades). During the era of Spanish colonization, the cross went "hand in hand" with the sword, i.e. there was an alliance between the Church and the Spanish Empire. In the era of American neo-colonization, Protestant Christianity was linked to the idea of "Manifest Destiny," i.e. the notion that God had predestined America to bring "civilization" to the "brutes and savages" of Puerto Rico and the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America.
What does God think of colonization? The thrust of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and the Gospel accounts in the New Testament, is that God is against and denounces all forms of injustice. This injustice includes but is not limited to socio-economic alienation and poverty, but also includes neglect of the widows and orphans, abuse of the powerless, neglect of the immigrants, and theft,whether it be of the individual nature or institutional, structural, and systemic theft (colonization) type.
You, the reader are invited to contribute to this conversation. Please share your perspectives and views with us on the basis of ethics and theology, and not on the basis of what is politically expedient or convenient.
I look forward to your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, August 24, 2015
Theology in the Americas: The Finale - Theology from the Native American StandpointWe
This will be the last essay on the Theology in the Americas Conference, held in Detroit in 1975. This essay will focus on how theological reflection takes place in the Native American community. This is a challenge, because we are now talking about theological reflection emerging from a conquered and vanquished people.
Theology from the standpoint of the conquerors is assumed to be superior and universally valid. It is part and parcel of the mentality that those who conquer "must be doing something right." The basic underlying presupposition is that those who conquer have been enabled by God to conquer, and therefore, the conquest reflects God's favor of and preference for the conquerors. Therefore, biblical interpretation and theological reflection which takes place in the conquering community must be "the correct one." Subsequently, biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of the vanquished is an appendix at best, and secondary and inferior at worst.
Sister Jeanne Rollins, who at the time of this writing, was a Franciscan Sister working on a Swinomish reservation in the state of Washington, says the following: "From words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 4: 8-18), we can perhaps come to grips with what it means to born into society as a native American. We were born into a community native to this land and yet displaced because of historical and sociological events by which the white man usurped our land using it in a way very much different from our way (Rollins in Eagleson and Torres, p. 202)."
Rollins adds " Today many of our people live on reservations where land has been set aside for us. There are as many reactions to reservation life as there are a variety of economic situations due to the climate, location, and natural resources of each particular reservation. Some feel the reservation system must be abolished and Indian people integrated into the mainstream of white society. This would follow the original intention of setting up reservations: that they be a temporary place for us until we could mix into society in five or ten years. Instead, the system has been in progress for over a century now. Many don't mind this, however, because they see the reservation as the last sign of self-pride and more than likely we would have been completely eradicated had this system followed its original course. Oppression, in its many forms-social, economic, educational, and physical-would be total without the reservation (Rollins, p.203)."
Finally, Rollins states, "We must continue to live closely with the Great Spirit in the way He is familiar to us: Wakan Taran, Nabi, Jesus, whoever. It is our responsibility to provide for the good of all the community and also to have respect and reverence for all of life and creation. We must be ready to carry on the role of the Spirit and not allow or wait for the black robes and/or their followers to lead us. We must recognize and work with the young for our community. They are the prize of today and the hope of our tomorrow. To provide this educational setting, communication is of the utmost importance. Most of our communication is the heart, in the remembered spoken word rather than the easily forgotten ideas that lose their meanings in abstractions. We have an "eye" for what is there and miss much of what is on the printed page. We are also unfamiliar with the spirit of competition as it is manifested in the white man's world; therefore there is much cause for "burning," and putting down. Where do we look? What do we do? We have already learned that waiting for someone else to take positive action on Indian issues is a lesson in frustration. If things are to change in line with our expectations , then the answers must ultimately come from ourselves (Rollins, p. 205)."
Speaking as a Native American. Rollins is advocating for and promoting the need for Native American theological reflection not only to be indigenous, but also autonomous. In other words, Native Americans should not sit and wait for the conqueror to be doing theology for them. The theology of Native Americans, as Rollins describes it, needs to emerge from their culture and from their experience as an oppressed and marginalized group, rather than be a theology that is imposed on them by "the white man." The biblical message has to be understood through the prism of a conquered people and not through the values of the conquerors. The affinity with and closeness to nature of Native American people, together with their experience of being conquered and marginalized, must be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
In closing this series of essays on Theology in the Americas, I challenge you, the reader to ponder on the following questions:
1. What do you think about doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of the economic, political, and social underdog, i.e. the powerless?
2. If you are a Caucasian Christian, do you feel threatened and uncomfortable by non-Caucasians doing theology from their social standpoint?
3. Is it possible to construct a theological system that reflects the diversity of people of ethnic/racial, class, and gender background in the U.S.A? Is there such an animal as an "eclectic" theology.
I trust that this series of essays on Theology in the Americas has been helpful to you in your spiritual journey and quest for clarity of thinking.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Theology from the standpoint of the conquerors is assumed to be superior and universally valid. It is part and parcel of the mentality that those who conquer "must be doing something right." The basic underlying presupposition is that those who conquer have been enabled by God to conquer, and therefore, the conquest reflects God's favor of and preference for the conquerors. Therefore, biblical interpretation and theological reflection which takes place in the conquering community must be "the correct one." Subsequently, biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of the vanquished is an appendix at best, and secondary and inferior at worst.
Sister Jeanne Rollins, who at the time of this writing, was a Franciscan Sister working on a Swinomish reservation in the state of Washington, says the following: "From words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 4: 8-18), we can perhaps come to grips with what it means to born into society as a native American. We were born into a community native to this land and yet displaced because of historical and sociological events by which the white man usurped our land using it in a way very much different from our way (Rollins in Eagleson and Torres, p. 202)."
Rollins adds " Today many of our people live on reservations where land has been set aside for us. There are as many reactions to reservation life as there are a variety of economic situations due to the climate, location, and natural resources of each particular reservation. Some feel the reservation system must be abolished and Indian people integrated into the mainstream of white society. This would follow the original intention of setting up reservations: that they be a temporary place for us until we could mix into society in five or ten years. Instead, the system has been in progress for over a century now. Many don't mind this, however, because they see the reservation as the last sign of self-pride and more than likely we would have been completely eradicated had this system followed its original course. Oppression, in its many forms-social, economic, educational, and physical-would be total without the reservation (Rollins, p.203)."
Finally, Rollins states, "We must continue to live closely with the Great Spirit in the way He is familiar to us: Wakan Taran, Nabi, Jesus, whoever. It is our responsibility to provide for the good of all the community and also to have respect and reverence for all of life and creation. We must be ready to carry on the role of the Spirit and not allow or wait for the black robes and/or their followers to lead us. We must recognize and work with the young for our community. They are the prize of today and the hope of our tomorrow. To provide this educational setting, communication is of the utmost importance. Most of our communication is the heart, in the remembered spoken word rather than the easily forgotten ideas that lose their meanings in abstractions. We have an "eye" for what is there and miss much of what is on the printed page. We are also unfamiliar with the spirit of competition as it is manifested in the white man's world; therefore there is much cause for "burning," and putting down. Where do we look? What do we do? We have already learned that waiting for someone else to take positive action on Indian issues is a lesson in frustration. If things are to change in line with our expectations , then the answers must ultimately come from ourselves (Rollins, p. 205)."
Speaking as a Native American. Rollins is advocating for and promoting the need for Native American theological reflection not only to be indigenous, but also autonomous. In other words, Native Americans should not sit and wait for the conqueror to be doing theology for them. The theology of Native Americans, as Rollins describes it, needs to emerge from their culture and from their experience as an oppressed and marginalized group, rather than be a theology that is imposed on them by "the white man." The biblical message has to be understood through the prism of a conquered people and not through the values of the conquerors. The affinity with and closeness to nature of Native American people, together with their experience of being conquered and marginalized, must be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
In closing this series of essays on Theology in the Americas, I challenge you, the reader to ponder on the following questions:
1. What do you think about doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of the economic, political, and social underdog, i.e. the powerless?
2. If you are a Caucasian Christian, do you feel threatened and uncomfortable by non-Caucasians doing theology from their social standpoint?
3. Is it possible to construct a theological system that reflects the diversity of people of ethnic/racial, class, and gender background in the U.S.A? Is there such an animal as an "eclectic" theology.
I trust that this series of essays on Theology in the Americas has been helpful to you in your spiritual journey and quest for clarity of thinking.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Confronting Homosexuality in the Church
A friend of mine who is both a Christian minister and theologian, was called to an interview for a faculty position at a seminary. Of the many questions that he was asked during the interview, one was "What is your position on homosexuality?" He offered a counter-question, "Do you want a pastoral answer or a theological answer?" They said to him, "We want a pastoral answer." He responded, "From a pastoral point of view, I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated like every one else, i.e. with love, compassion, dignity, and respect. Now do you want my theological answer?" They said to him ,"No, let's continue with this interview."
He was hired and given the faculty position, in spite of the fact that they sensed that he believed that from a theological point of view, homosexuality is a sin.
Now we can take the very same question that he was asked, the answers that he gave, and evaluate them within the context of the Church. We can ask if practicing gay and lesbian people should be admitted to membership in Christ's Church and to its Sacraments of Baptism and access to the Lord's Table. My pastoral answer would be that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people should be admitted to Christ's Church and to His table on the same grounds as everyone one else, i.e. repentance from a life of sin, in whatever shape or form that sin might be, and faith in Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives.
Now, that sounds easy enough. But it is more complex and complicated than that. One of the things that makes it difficult is that having said that LGBT persons should be admitted to Christ's Church and to the Sacraments, and even to ordination to the Gospel ministry, there are many within the Church, including heterosexual people, who believe that homosexuality is not a sin. There are some who believe that "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin," while there are others who believe that homosexuality is not a sin at all.
Subsequently, the latter group would also believe in the right of people to marry someone of the same gender. And then, there are others, including yours truly, who believe that the concept of "sin" relative to homosexuality, has more to do with "choice homosexuality," i.e. people who go against their very own nature by engaging in same-sex acts and same-sex relations and lifestyles. In other words, I believe that "choice homosexuality" is sinful.
But what about genetically or physiologically-based homosexuality? At this point in my spiritual journey and practice of ministry, I refrain from judgment because I do not understand it enough to give an opinion. If there are people who have a natural same-sex orientation, we cannot be so quick to dismiss that orientation as "sin," in that they did not "choose" to be this way. Since the Scriptures nowhere speak to the issue of sexual orientation, in the same vein, I refrain from commenting and pontificating until more enlightening information is provided.
I furthermore, hesitate to base my views of human sexuality exclusively on the basis of Scripture, since it is a well-known fact (I think) that much of the sexual morality in the Bible emerges from an agricultural context in which some human beings (for example, women) are considered the property of others. This is further complicated by the cultural custom of arranged marriages, where marriage between a man and a woman was based more on cultural and social custom more than it was on love between the two. Some may want to argue that this was true in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. But the fact remains that the New Testament was written primarily by people who true to their Hebrew/Jewish heritage, adhered to the customs of their time in terms of the woman being the property of the man.
Please allow me to add that defining homosexuality as "a sin" does not constitute homophobia in any way, shape, or form. It is one thing to have fear of or hatred towards people who engage in same-sex relations or lifestyles. It is something entirely different to be against a particular lifestyle for whatever reason. For example, because I do not engage in or support the activity of drug trafficking, does not make me a "narco-phobic." I may love my drug-dealing sister or brother without supporting their habit or life-style.
How, then, do we deal with the issue of same-sex relations within the community of faith? There are no easy answers, but I think that some suggestions might help us to get started.
1. The Church should have a very clear biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) which takes into consideration the agricultural context from which sexual morality emerges on the one hand, and, on the other, seek for those elements in Scripture which are universally valid and applicable in all times and in all places.
2. The Church should deal with LGBT persons in the same way that we deal with all other human beings, i.e. sinners in need of grace, repentance, and restoration through Christ.
3. The Church should remember that "the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath," i.e. the standards given by God were given to facilitate human liberation and not human enslavement.
4. The Church should refrain from singling out sexual sins (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.) and making them weightier than other sins such as greed, murder, theft, etc.
5. The Church should refrain from basing its moral standards on the basis of what is "politically or socially correct" and popular. A discerning Church will always seek to discern what is the "good and acceptable will of God?" over what is the socially acceptable and popular thing to do?
I am not suggesting that these five steps will completely resolve the problem that the Church faces on the issue of sexual morality. However, I do believe that they are a step in the right direction. Please feel free to give your input on this subject and on the contents of this essay. Your input is very much needed to help us as a community of faith to do and say the right thing.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sanctifier. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
He was hired and given the faculty position, in spite of the fact that they sensed that he believed that from a theological point of view, homosexuality is a sin.
Now we can take the very same question that he was asked, the answers that he gave, and evaluate them within the context of the Church. We can ask if practicing gay and lesbian people should be admitted to membership in Christ's Church and to its Sacraments of Baptism and access to the Lord's Table. My pastoral answer would be that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people should be admitted to Christ's Church and to His table on the same grounds as everyone one else, i.e. repentance from a life of sin, in whatever shape or form that sin might be, and faith in Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives.
Now, that sounds easy enough. But it is more complex and complicated than that. One of the things that makes it difficult is that having said that LGBT persons should be admitted to Christ's Church and to the Sacraments, and even to ordination to the Gospel ministry, there are many within the Church, including heterosexual people, who believe that homosexuality is not a sin. There are some who believe that "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin," while there are others who believe that homosexuality is not a sin at all.
Subsequently, the latter group would also believe in the right of people to marry someone of the same gender. And then, there are others, including yours truly, who believe that the concept of "sin" relative to homosexuality, has more to do with "choice homosexuality," i.e. people who go against their very own nature by engaging in same-sex acts and same-sex relations and lifestyles. In other words, I believe that "choice homosexuality" is sinful.
But what about genetically or physiologically-based homosexuality? At this point in my spiritual journey and practice of ministry, I refrain from judgment because I do not understand it enough to give an opinion. If there are people who have a natural same-sex orientation, we cannot be so quick to dismiss that orientation as "sin," in that they did not "choose" to be this way. Since the Scriptures nowhere speak to the issue of sexual orientation, in the same vein, I refrain from commenting and pontificating until more enlightening information is provided.
I furthermore, hesitate to base my views of human sexuality exclusively on the basis of Scripture, since it is a well-known fact (I think) that much of the sexual morality in the Bible emerges from an agricultural context in which some human beings (for example, women) are considered the property of others. This is further complicated by the cultural custom of arranged marriages, where marriage between a man and a woman was based more on cultural and social custom more than it was on love between the two. Some may want to argue that this was true in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. But the fact remains that the New Testament was written primarily by people who true to their Hebrew/Jewish heritage, adhered to the customs of their time in terms of the woman being the property of the man.
Please allow me to add that defining homosexuality as "a sin" does not constitute homophobia in any way, shape, or form. It is one thing to have fear of or hatred towards people who engage in same-sex relations or lifestyles. It is something entirely different to be against a particular lifestyle for whatever reason. For example, because I do not engage in or support the activity of drug trafficking, does not make me a "narco-phobic." I may love my drug-dealing sister or brother without supporting their habit or life-style.
How, then, do we deal with the issue of same-sex relations within the community of faith? There are no easy answers, but I think that some suggestions might help us to get started.
1. The Church should have a very clear biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) which takes into consideration the agricultural context from which sexual morality emerges on the one hand, and, on the other, seek for those elements in Scripture which are universally valid and applicable in all times and in all places.
2. The Church should deal with LGBT persons in the same way that we deal with all other human beings, i.e. sinners in need of grace, repentance, and restoration through Christ.
3. The Church should remember that "the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath," i.e. the standards given by God were given to facilitate human liberation and not human enslavement.
4. The Church should refrain from singling out sexual sins (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.) and making them weightier than other sins such as greed, murder, theft, etc.
5. The Church should refrain from basing its moral standards on the basis of what is "politically or socially correct" and popular. A discerning Church will always seek to discern what is the "good and acceptable will of God?" over what is the socially acceptable and popular thing to do?
I am not suggesting that these five steps will completely resolve the problem that the Church faces on the issue of sexual morality. However, I do believe that they are a step in the right direction. Please feel free to give your input on this subject and on the contents of this essay. Your input is very much needed to help us as a community of faith to do and say the right thing.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sanctifier. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, August 17, 2015
Theology in the Americas-The Structure of Women's Oppression in the United States
This essay continues the Theology in the America's conference in Detroit in 1975. It focuses specifically on an article written by Mary Burke, who at the time of this writing was a staff member of the Center of Concern in Washington, D.C.
The word "oppression" in the title of Burke's article can be provocative. I say this because it is somewhat of an aversion for us Americans to even begin to think that oppression of any kind can be found in such a "great and democratic" nation as ours. We tend to think of ourselves as a people who are benevolent, charitable, caring, and kind. Even the idea that violence exists in our nation will come as a shock to many. But as African-American militant of the 1960's H. Rap. Brown said, "Violence is as much a part of America as cherry pie." We tend to think of ourselves as peaceful, when in fact, violence is an institutionalized and systemic reality. Burke points out that oppression of women in the U.S.A is also systemic and structural.
So the question would be "How are biblical interpretation and theological reflection carried out from a women's standpoint?" Some might even ask if interpretation and reflection should be carried out from the standpoint of women. This attitude is a reflection of an assumption that biblical hermeneutics and theological reflection from a masculine (white-middle class male) standpoint is the only universally valid way of doing biblical theology. If theology is done from any other standpoint, it is considered secondary and even inferior to the traditional male-dominated theological perspective.
Burke writes, "This is a time of challenge and contradictions for women in the United States. It is a time marked by both hope and fear_____hope that women will be able to build a movement that will contribute to the liberation of all women and men, fear that faced by the overwhelming pressures, women will settle for token changes that will further alienate them from each other and from other oppressed people and, in the long run, increase the restrictions and limitations all face (Burke in Eagleson and Torres, p.192)."
She then adds, "An overview of the condition of women in the United States leads to two general statements: (1) No matter what their status or position, women are oppressed. (2) Women, in addition, share in the privilege or oppression of the class and/or race to which they belong (Burke, p. 193)."
Burke's second point is very important because it points out the fact that some women experience the triple-layered oppression of class, gender, and ethnicity/race. White middle-class women might be oppressed because of their gender, but then become oppressors of women who are of a different social class or ethnic/racial affiliation than them. Their oppression might be of the benign non-intentional type in that they are not aware of the oppression of their economically poor sisters, or their sisters who are not Caucasian like themselves. In either case, it is still oppression.
Just as Scriptures have been quoted to justify relegating people to an inferior position based on race and social class (slavery), the Bible and theology have been quoted to support the notion that women are an inferior breed of human beings that are made to "be seen and not heard." The Scriptures which speak about prohibiting female leadership in the Church, and about female subordination to male, have been not only quoted, but also manipulated and misused to justify oppressing and suppressing women.
Is it appropiate for women to interpret Scripture and carry out the theological task from their standpoint as women? This Afro-Puerto Rican minister/theologian would respond with an astounding "Yes!" The creation narratives in the book of Genesis present the woman as a partner to the man, a status of equality. Granted that sin brought about a disruption in ethnic/race, class, and gender relationships, but the theological thrust of the New Testament is the restoration of that equality in Christ who breaks down all types of barriers created by humans. In Christ there is no East or West, and no female or male. Subsequently, as ethnic/racial, and poor peoples read and understand the Gospel message from their social standpoint, women have the same right and privilege to not only understand, but also appropiate the Gospel message from their social location as an oppressed group. Women who are members of the covenant community of faith have every right in the world to say "the hell with the patterns of male-dominated theology and Scriptural interpretation. We are oppressed and struggling for our liberation in the light of the Gospel." Some may even want to add a phrase that was used after women in a certain denomination were ordained to the ministry "God is coming and she's pissed." May all women, regardless of ethnicity/race or social class experience the liberating power of the Gospel and the transformation that comes through Jesus the Liberator.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer, Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment on the contents of this essay.
The word "oppression" in the title of Burke's article can be provocative. I say this because it is somewhat of an aversion for us Americans to even begin to think that oppression of any kind can be found in such a "great and democratic" nation as ours. We tend to think of ourselves as a people who are benevolent, charitable, caring, and kind. Even the idea that violence exists in our nation will come as a shock to many. But as African-American militant of the 1960's H. Rap. Brown said, "Violence is as much a part of America as cherry pie." We tend to think of ourselves as peaceful, when in fact, violence is an institutionalized and systemic reality. Burke points out that oppression of women in the U.S.A is also systemic and structural.
So the question would be "How are biblical interpretation and theological reflection carried out from a women's standpoint?" Some might even ask if interpretation and reflection should be carried out from the standpoint of women. This attitude is a reflection of an assumption that biblical hermeneutics and theological reflection from a masculine (white-middle class male) standpoint is the only universally valid way of doing biblical theology. If theology is done from any other standpoint, it is considered secondary and even inferior to the traditional male-dominated theological perspective.
Burke writes, "This is a time of challenge and contradictions for women in the United States. It is a time marked by both hope and fear_____hope that women will be able to build a movement that will contribute to the liberation of all women and men, fear that faced by the overwhelming pressures, women will settle for token changes that will further alienate them from each other and from other oppressed people and, in the long run, increase the restrictions and limitations all face (Burke in Eagleson and Torres, p.192)."
She then adds, "An overview of the condition of women in the United States leads to two general statements: (1) No matter what their status or position, women are oppressed. (2) Women, in addition, share in the privilege or oppression of the class and/or race to which they belong (Burke, p. 193)."
Burke's second point is very important because it points out the fact that some women experience the triple-layered oppression of class, gender, and ethnicity/race. White middle-class women might be oppressed because of their gender, but then become oppressors of women who are of a different social class or ethnic/racial affiliation than them. Their oppression might be of the benign non-intentional type in that they are not aware of the oppression of their economically poor sisters, or their sisters who are not Caucasian like themselves. In either case, it is still oppression.
Just as Scriptures have been quoted to justify relegating people to an inferior position based on race and social class (slavery), the Bible and theology have been quoted to support the notion that women are an inferior breed of human beings that are made to "be seen and not heard." The Scriptures which speak about prohibiting female leadership in the Church, and about female subordination to male, have been not only quoted, but also manipulated and misused to justify oppressing and suppressing women.
Is it appropiate for women to interpret Scripture and carry out the theological task from their standpoint as women? This Afro-Puerto Rican minister/theologian would respond with an astounding "Yes!" The creation narratives in the book of Genesis present the woman as a partner to the man, a status of equality. Granted that sin brought about a disruption in ethnic/race, class, and gender relationships, but the theological thrust of the New Testament is the restoration of that equality in Christ who breaks down all types of barriers created by humans. In Christ there is no East or West, and no female or male. Subsequently, as ethnic/racial, and poor peoples read and understand the Gospel message from their social standpoint, women have the same right and privilege to not only understand, but also appropiate the Gospel message from their social location as an oppressed group. Women who are members of the covenant community of faith have every right in the world to say "the hell with the patterns of male-dominated theology and Scriptural interpretation. We are oppressed and struggling for our liberation in the light of the Gospel." Some may even want to add a phrase that was used after women in a certain denomination were ordained to the ministry "God is coming and she's pissed." May all women, regardless of ethnicity/race or social class experience the liberating power of the Gospel and the transformation that comes through Jesus the Liberator.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer, Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment on the contents of this essay.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
The Sin Festival Syndrome: Which came First, the Chicken or the Egg?"
To my personal disappointment, there is an issue which I personally believe is overemphasized in Christian circles. It is the issue of sin. I say disappointment because I have found and experienced that Christians seem to have an obsession with talking about sin more than they do about anything else. It appears that the issue of sin is alluded to in most conversations among Christians. I can almost say that Christians tend to engage in a "sin festival" when a good number of their conversations are geared towards this issue.
I am not suggesting that we ignore the reality of sin. Neither am I suggesting that we should "sweep it under the rug." Nor am I even remotely implying that the issue of sin should not be a part of theological discourse.
My main concern is that we focus so much on the issue of sin, that we almost tend to overlook the remedy for sin which is grace. We are so sin-conscious that we diminish God's liberating and saving actions which come to us as a result of God's grace, experienced and transmitted by faith in Jesus Christ. We should be having, I think, more grace "festivals" acknowledging God's mercy and forgiveness in our lives. Acknowledging the grace of God is cause for constant celebration and rejoicing.
There are two questions that I would like to pose for our consideration. They are:
1. What constitutes sin? Traditionally, sin has been thought to be a willful and intentional disregard of God's laws and standards. But what makes a particular act or lifestyle sinful? Is it a sin because the Bible "says so," or does the Bible "say so" because it's a sin? If we say that certain things are sinful (adultery, murder, theft, etc.) because the Bible "says so," then we are saying, in essence, that there was no such thing as sin before the Bible was written. In other words, sin came into the picture of human history when the Scriptures were completed. On the other hand, if the Bible "says so" because it's a sin, then we admitting that there was sin before the Bible was written, and that in the pre-biblical period, there was a different criteria for the definition of sin, Would that, then, mean that this pre-biblical criteria is as authoritative and normative as the Bible, or does it mean that this criteria was discarded when the Scriptures were completed? These questions are not meant to be "trick" questions, but rather meant to be a stimulant for us to think clearly and analytically about those things which we strongly believe.
2. Is sin determined by the external act or by the motive behind the act? For example, we are told that Rahab the prostitute hid the men of God and also lied about their whereabouts. We could say that she did the wrong thing (lying) for the right reason. King David, in time of war, took the sacred bread from the temple to feed himself and the men who were accompanying him. Again, he did the wrong thing for the right reason. Can we say that the reverse is also true? If a person does "the right thing" for the wrong reason, is that person's actions acceptable to God? For example, if I give a piece of bread to hungry person so that I can receive human applause, is not that act a sinful one in that I was not operating with the correct motive? If I remain in a marital relationship because of financial and other conveniences, and not out of love for my spouse, am I not guilty of legalized prostitution and sinning before God? If I engage in certain religious activities such as church attendance, prayer meetings, Bible study, etc., because I want to accumulate "brownie points" with God, am I not sinning in that I am not motivated by appreciation to and love for God, but rather by "what's in it for me?"
In closing, I ask, which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question is the overall framework and context for our attempt to answer the two questions above. Please feel free to give your take on the above questions. Your input is very valuable in helping us to seek what is the correct course of action.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I am not suggesting that we ignore the reality of sin. Neither am I suggesting that we should "sweep it under the rug." Nor am I even remotely implying that the issue of sin should not be a part of theological discourse.
My main concern is that we focus so much on the issue of sin, that we almost tend to overlook the remedy for sin which is grace. We are so sin-conscious that we diminish God's liberating and saving actions which come to us as a result of God's grace, experienced and transmitted by faith in Jesus Christ. We should be having, I think, more grace "festivals" acknowledging God's mercy and forgiveness in our lives. Acknowledging the grace of God is cause for constant celebration and rejoicing.
There are two questions that I would like to pose for our consideration. They are:
1. What constitutes sin? Traditionally, sin has been thought to be a willful and intentional disregard of God's laws and standards. But what makes a particular act or lifestyle sinful? Is it a sin because the Bible "says so," or does the Bible "say so" because it's a sin? If we say that certain things are sinful (adultery, murder, theft, etc.) because the Bible "says so," then we are saying, in essence, that there was no such thing as sin before the Bible was written. In other words, sin came into the picture of human history when the Scriptures were completed. On the other hand, if the Bible "says so" because it's a sin, then we admitting that there was sin before the Bible was written, and that in the pre-biblical period, there was a different criteria for the definition of sin, Would that, then, mean that this pre-biblical criteria is as authoritative and normative as the Bible, or does it mean that this criteria was discarded when the Scriptures were completed? These questions are not meant to be "trick" questions, but rather meant to be a stimulant for us to think clearly and analytically about those things which we strongly believe.
2. Is sin determined by the external act or by the motive behind the act? For example, we are told that Rahab the prostitute hid the men of God and also lied about their whereabouts. We could say that she did the wrong thing (lying) for the right reason. King David, in time of war, took the sacred bread from the temple to feed himself and the men who were accompanying him. Again, he did the wrong thing for the right reason. Can we say that the reverse is also true? If a person does "the right thing" for the wrong reason, is that person's actions acceptable to God? For example, if I give a piece of bread to hungry person so that I can receive human applause, is not that act a sinful one in that I was not operating with the correct motive? If I remain in a marital relationship because of financial and other conveniences, and not out of love for my spouse, am I not guilty of legalized prostitution and sinning before God? If I engage in certain religious activities such as church attendance, prayer meetings, Bible study, etc., because I want to accumulate "brownie points" with God, am I not sinning in that I am not motivated by appreciation to and love for God, but rather by "what's in it for me?"
In closing, I ask, which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question is the overall framework and context for our attempt to answer the two questions above. Please feel free to give your take on the above questions. Your input is very valuable in helping us to seek what is the correct course of action.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Can the Church have a Moral Conscience?
One of the many issues that continue to surface is that of the Church speaking out on a variety of issues that go against its moral and theological grain. Some Christians believe that the Church should speak out against social injustices such as abortion, classism, racism, sexism, and discrimination against people of same-sex orientation. Other Christians believe that the Church has no business speaking out against social issues, because the Church is called to ¨preach the Gospel,¨ and not get involved in political or social issues. And then there are other Christians who believe that the Church should not address social issues because ¨Jesus is coming soon and will straighten out this mess.¨ We also have Christians who believe that speaking out against social injustice is part and parcel of proclaiming the Gospel.
So we ask then, is it possible for the Church to have a moral conscience, given the diversity of perspectives that different Christians have on different issues? The ideal part of me wants to say that it would be possible if Christians could sit down and come to a consensus as to what they believe that Jesus has called us for. The realistic side of me says that it is difficult, if not outright impossible for the Church to have a moral conscience, when Christians are divided among themselves as to how the sources that determine right and wrong (the Scriptures, the traditions, the experiences, etc.) are to be understood, interpreted, and applied in the life of the community. Some Christians, for example, would be opposed to abortion because the Scriptures prohibit the taking of a life. Other Christians would respond that we have to define what is meant by ¨life,¨ whether it is exclusively breathing and movement, or whether it involves other things such as the capacity for satisfaction. Ironically enough, some of the Christians who are strongly against abortion on the basis of the principle of not taking a life, are the most militant when it comes to advocating for warfare. Some Christians would say that the Gospel has nothing to do with politics, but yet, if political decisions are made that impact their personal livelihood or the parameters around which the Church can operate in society, will be the first to jump on the political bandwagon of denouncing these governmental decisions. Some Christians will say that we should advocate for the rights of undocumented people, while other Christians will claim that undocumented persons are breaking the law by being here ¨illegally.¨
In my humble, but staunch view, the only way that the Church can speak with a moral conscience is:
1. If we come to a consensus as to what are the issues that we need to be addressing.
2. What is the criteria by which we determine what are the issues that we should be addressing?
3. How do we deal with the principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) before launching on a journey of addressing the issues?
4. Determine if we can live with a variety of hermeneutical perspectives and still speak with one voice.
When Jesus prayed to his Father that we should all be ¨one,¨ I don't believe that he was advocating for uniformity. Unity does not require uniformity, nor does it require that we be carbon copies or clones of each other. Unity requires that we be united in the quest for pleasing God and working hard to destroy all that which dehumanizes people. If we can come to a consensus that we need to unite to work for the betterment of humankind, then we will be well on our way to speaking with a moral conscience. Christ calls us as a community of faith to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation. Can the Church say Amen?
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
So we ask then, is it possible for the Church to have a moral conscience, given the diversity of perspectives that different Christians have on different issues? The ideal part of me wants to say that it would be possible if Christians could sit down and come to a consensus as to what they believe that Jesus has called us for. The realistic side of me says that it is difficult, if not outright impossible for the Church to have a moral conscience, when Christians are divided among themselves as to how the sources that determine right and wrong (the Scriptures, the traditions, the experiences, etc.) are to be understood, interpreted, and applied in the life of the community. Some Christians, for example, would be opposed to abortion because the Scriptures prohibit the taking of a life. Other Christians would respond that we have to define what is meant by ¨life,¨ whether it is exclusively breathing and movement, or whether it involves other things such as the capacity for satisfaction. Ironically enough, some of the Christians who are strongly against abortion on the basis of the principle of not taking a life, are the most militant when it comes to advocating for warfare. Some Christians would say that the Gospel has nothing to do with politics, but yet, if political decisions are made that impact their personal livelihood or the parameters around which the Church can operate in society, will be the first to jump on the political bandwagon of denouncing these governmental decisions. Some Christians will say that we should advocate for the rights of undocumented people, while other Christians will claim that undocumented persons are breaking the law by being here ¨illegally.¨
In my humble, but staunch view, the only way that the Church can speak with a moral conscience is:
1. If we come to a consensus as to what are the issues that we need to be addressing.
2. What is the criteria by which we determine what are the issues that we should be addressing?
3. How do we deal with the principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) before launching on a journey of addressing the issues?
4. Determine if we can live with a variety of hermeneutical perspectives and still speak with one voice.
When Jesus prayed to his Father that we should all be ¨one,¨ I don't believe that he was advocating for uniformity. Unity does not require uniformity, nor does it require that we be carbon copies or clones of each other. Unity requires that we be united in the quest for pleasing God and working hard to destroy all that which dehumanizes people. If we can come to a consensus that we need to unite to work for the betterment of humankind, then we will be well on our way to speaking with a moral conscience. Christ calls us as a community of faith to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation. Can the Church say Amen?
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Religion and Daily Survival
I remember back in the '70's, that on Monday and Tuesday nights, a group of us would gather at the Good Neighbor Presbyterian Church in Manhattan to play volleyball and conclude by having devotionals. Even Ruth, who at that time was more like a little sister to me, would join us. A Christian quintet, called ¨The King's Five¨ were the main organizers of these activities. They had put out two recordings of Christian music, and I had purchased these two recordings because I loved their music. Whenever I came home from work, or whenever I had free time at home, I would play these records. I would engage with my youngest brother who at that time was thirteen years old. To my surprise, one day, out of the clear blue sky, he said to me ¨All you talk about is the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five. Can't you find something more interesting to talk about?¨ I had to ponder for a minute on what he said. My brother was right, for the most part. Aside from my full-time job as a teletype operator at a bank, my life did revolve around the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five. I had nothing else to talk about. I couldn't think of anything else about which to
engage in conversation. I was living in a spiritual bubble with an emphasis an internalized spirituality which focused very little, if at all, on my immediate surroundings. I was not paying much attention to the difficulties which people, including a very close relative, were experiencing. I just thought that if they got involved in ¨the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five,¨ that everything would be alright. All we did was to ¨focus on Jesus and prepare to go to Heaven.¨
Fourty-five years later, as I ponder on my journey through spiritual ¨Lalaland,¨ and reflecting on my mistakes, I ask how did I survive that insanity and get to the place where I am now, by the grace of God. I still wonder how is it that we as Christians still preach a Gospel that has absolutely nothing with ¨getting the cheese off the trucks,¨ i.e. daily survival? How is it that we cannot be present in the midst of people's struggle for dignity and social justice? We are so obsessed with getting people ¨to Heaven,¨ and forgetting that they are unemployed, underemployed, living in deplorable housing conditions, have little, if any, access to quality health care, few economic resources to obtain higher education, etc. etc. I ask, what in tarnation does being economically alienated, and socially marginalized, and politically disenfranchised have to do with ¨going to Heaven?¨ We are expected to proclaim a Gospel message that gives the impression that God does not care about these human conditions because God is preparing a ¨better place¨ for them. Well, this type of ¨Casper the Friendly Ghost¨ message does not cut the mustard.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Harold Recinos, reminds us on an almost daily basis, that we are called to be ¨the Word made flesh,¨ i.e. the embodiment of God's love and justice for all humankind. We can talk all we want about the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five, but if we are not in the vanguard of the struggle for human liberation, all we are doing is talking rhetoric. If we are not struggling for prisoner's rights, the rights of our undocumented sisters and brothers, concerned with the homeless and the hungry, joining the working class in their struggle for a living wage, all our preaching and singing is empty-talk, full of cliches and slogans. What's more, if we are not present in the struggles of the people for survival with dignity, we are guilty of a pseudo spirituality. If we are not physically present in the quest for human liberation, we are false prophets.
May the God who became embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, empower us to move over and beyond the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five into the arena for liberation from classist, racist, and sexist oppression.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to comment.
engage in conversation. I was living in a spiritual bubble with an emphasis an internalized spirituality which focused very little, if at all, on my immediate surroundings. I was not paying much attention to the difficulties which people, including a very close relative, were experiencing. I just thought that if they got involved in ¨the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five,¨ that everything would be alright. All we did was to ¨focus on Jesus and prepare to go to Heaven.¨
Fourty-five years later, as I ponder on my journey through spiritual ¨Lalaland,¨ and reflecting on my mistakes, I ask how did I survive that insanity and get to the place where I am now, by the grace of God. I still wonder how is it that we as Christians still preach a Gospel that has absolutely nothing with ¨getting the cheese off the trucks,¨ i.e. daily survival? How is it that we cannot be present in the midst of people's struggle for dignity and social justice? We are so obsessed with getting people ¨to Heaven,¨ and forgetting that they are unemployed, underemployed, living in deplorable housing conditions, have little, if any, access to quality health care, few economic resources to obtain higher education, etc. etc. I ask, what in tarnation does being economically alienated, and socially marginalized, and politically disenfranchised have to do with ¨going to Heaven?¨ We are expected to proclaim a Gospel message that gives the impression that God does not care about these human conditions because God is preparing a ¨better place¨ for them. Well, this type of ¨Casper the Friendly Ghost¨ message does not cut the mustard.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Harold Recinos, reminds us on an almost daily basis, that we are called to be ¨the Word made flesh,¨ i.e. the embodiment of God's love and justice for all humankind. We can talk all we want about the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five, but if we are not in the vanguard of the struggle for human liberation, all we are doing is talking rhetoric. If we are not struggling for prisoner's rights, the rights of our undocumented sisters and brothers, concerned with the homeless and the hungry, joining the working class in their struggle for a living wage, all our preaching and singing is empty-talk, full of cliches and slogans. What's more, if we are not present in the struggles of the people for survival with dignity, we are guilty of a pseudo spirituality. If we are not physically present in the quest for human liberation, we are false prophets.
May the God who became embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, empower us to move over and beyond the Bible, the Church, and the King's Five into the arena for liberation from classist, racist, and sexist oppression.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to comment.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Theology in the Americas: African American Theology vs. Liberation Theology
This essay focuses on an article written by Herbert O. Edwards, who at the time of this writing was a member of the Department of Religious Studies at Duke University. Edwards seeks to address the fundamental differences between African American theology, on the one hand, and Liberation Theology, on the other.
I will begin by reiterating that when we speak about theology, we are speaking about God-talk. In other words, theology is a discourse about God, and in that sense, we are all theologians, because we all engage in God-talk in one way or the other. Even if we are atheists, we still engage in God-talk, i.e. denying the existence of God. Some of us engage in God-talk as a way of strengthening our faith. Others of us engage in this type of discourse because we find it interesting. Yet others of us engage in God-talk because it is our profession to either preach or teach religion. Others of us withdraw from God-talk because we find it to be both confusing and monotonous. I think that even that withdrawal is an indirect way of affirming that God-talk affects us one way or the other.
How is God-talk in the African American community the same or different from God-talk in the Hispanic American community? Do African Americans think and talk about God in the same way that Hispanic Americans think and talk about God? Are the theological paradigms one and the same or they different?
Edwards says: "The willingness to listen to, to learn from, Latin American theology by U.S. theologians must not blind the former to the past history of the United States in its totality of effects on Latin American life and thought, theory and praxis. Latin American liberation theology, in its dialogic encounter with North American theology, must not be unaware of of the ease with which one can speak universal language with the understanding that it is not really inclusive of all in the society. How much racism, Western, North American style, has entered the veins of Latin American thought is difficult to say; that it is not absent is almost a certainty. For my part, I have discovered all to little attention being given to it in the literature that I have read. There is no question that the U.S. ethos of racism has followed it dollar and military power wherever it has gone (Edwards in Eagleson and Torres, p.187)."
My own initial response to Edwards is that he is affirming something truthful and valid. The major issue that I find, however, is that he is concentrating on Liberation Theology from the Latin American standpoint and not from the Hispanic American standpoint. While there are similarities between Latin American theology and Hispanic American theology, there are also fundamental differences. For one, Liberation Theology in Latin America for the most part addresses issues of social injustice relative to social class. Liberation Theology in the U.S.A. focuses on social injustice relative to ethnicity and race in the same vein that African American theology does. African American and Hispanic American theology focus on oppression and suffering that is rooted in ethnic and racial discrimination. While there is nothing wrong, per se, for Edwards to compare African American theology to Latin American theology, he should, I humbly and respectfully submit, have spent more time on God-talk in the Hispanic American community in that this conference was designed to address and cover how oppressed communities in Slavetown, U.S.A. engage in theology within this context.
The reader of the article by Edwards will note that he places the oppression of and inhumanity to the African American community in historical perspective. He speaks about the institution of slavery, the period of Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, the Black Panthers, etc. I respectfully submit, however, that this approach has the limitation of disregarding and overlooking the oppression of Hispanic Americans in a historical perspective. This approach almost gives the impression that African Americans have a monopoly on the experience of oppression, alienation, marginalization, and political disenfranchisement.
If we are to compare how God-talk is different or the same in both the African American and Hispanic communities, there needs to be ongoing dialogue and interaction between the two. Furthermore, our sisters and brothers in the African American community need to be aware of the fact, that our history of experiencing oppression, dating back to Europe, also includes the institution of chattel slavery in the Caribbean, and also the forced migration to Slavetown, U.S.A. because of the economic consequences of of land-grabbing colonization and neo-colonization by Europe and the U.S.A.
You, the reader, are invited to share with us how you think that God-talk in both communities can be both more effective, and at the same time faithful to the message of the Gospel of Jesus, the true liberator of all
of humankind.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I will begin by reiterating that when we speak about theology, we are speaking about God-talk. In other words, theology is a discourse about God, and in that sense, we are all theologians, because we all engage in God-talk in one way or the other. Even if we are atheists, we still engage in God-talk, i.e. denying the existence of God. Some of us engage in God-talk as a way of strengthening our faith. Others of us engage in this type of discourse because we find it interesting. Yet others of us engage in God-talk because it is our profession to either preach or teach religion. Others of us withdraw from God-talk because we find it to be both confusing and monotonous. I think that even that withdrawal is an indirect way of affirming that God-talk affects us one way or the other.
How is God-talk in the African American community the same or different from God-talk in the Hispanic American community? Do African Americans think and talk about God in the same way that Hispanic Americans think and talk about God? Are the theological paradigms one and the same or they different?
Edwards says: "The willingness to listen to, to learn from, Latin American theology by U.S. theologians must not blind the former to the past history of the United States in its totality of effects on Latin American life and thought, theory and praxis. Latin American liberation theology, in its dialogic encounter with North American theology, must not be unaware of of the ease with which one can speak universal language with the understanding that it is not really inclusive of all in the society. How much racism, Western, North American style, has entered the veins of Latin American thought is difficult to say; that it is not absent is almost a certainty. For my part, I have discovered all to little attention being given to it in the literature that I have read. There is no question that the U.S. ethos of racism has followed it dollar and military power wherever it has gone (Edwards in Eagleson and Torres, p.187)."
My own initial response to Edwards is that he is affirming something truthful and valid. The major issue that I find, however, is that he is concentrating on Liberation Theology from the Latin American standpoint and not from the Hispanic American standpoint. While there are similarities between Latin American theology and Hispanic American theology, there are also fundamental differences. For one, Liberation Theology in Latin America for the most part addresses issues of social injustice relative to social class. Liberation Theology in the U.S.A. focuses on social injustice relative to ethnicity and race in the same vein that African American theology does. African American and Hispanic American theology focus on oppression and suffering that is rooted in ethnic and racial discrimination. While there is nothing wrong, per se, for Edwards to compare African American theology to Latin American theology, he should, I humbly and respectfully submit, have spent more time on God-talk in the Hispanic American community in that this conference was designed to address and cover how oppressed communities in Slavetown, U.S.A. engage in theology within this context.
The reader of the article by Edwards will note that he places the oppression of and inhumanity to the African American community in historical perspective. He speaks about the institution of slavery, the period of Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, the Black Panthers, etc. I respectfully submit, however, that this approach has the limitation of disregarding and overlooking the oppression of Hispanic Americans in a historical perspective. This approach almost gives the impression that African Americans have a monopoly on the experience of oppression, alienation, marginalization, and political disenfranchisement.
If we are to compare how God-talk is different or the same in both the African American and Hispanic communities, there needs to be ongoing dialogue and interaction between the two. Furthermore, our sisters and brothers in the African American community need to be aware of the fact, that our history of experiencing oppression, dating back to Europe, also includes the institution of chattel slavery in the Caribbean, and also the forced migration to Slavetown, U.S.A. because of the economic consequences of of land-grabbing colonization and neo-colonization by Europe and the U.S.A.
You, the reader, are invited to share with us how you think that God-talk in both communities can be both more effective, and at the same time faithful to the message of the Gospel of Jesus, the true liberator of all
of humankind.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Theology in the Americas: Civil Religion vs. Liberation Theology
In this essay, I would like to address the issue of how Civil Religion and Liberation Theology are juxtaposed. This essay will focus on an article written by John A. Coleman, who at the time of this writing, was a Jesuit priest teaching theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, California.
Coleman defines civil religion as "the mystic chord of communal memory (always being summoned to reinterpretation in face of new historic tasks) which ties together both the nation's citizenry and the episodes of its history into a meaningful identity by using significant national beliefs, events, persons, places, or documents to serve as symbolic repositories of the special vocational significance of the nation-state in the light of a more ultimate or transcendent bar of judgment, ethical ideals, humanity, world history, being, the universe of God (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 114)." He summarizes this definition by saying that civil religion is "the religious dimension in the national political experience (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 115)."
Here Coleman alludes to how civil religion makes sacred the political and social mindset that seeks to give the impression that what is socially and politically is equivalent to what is in the mind of God. In other words, this mindset indicates that God's rubber stamp and seal of approval are embedded in the present economic, political, and social institutions.
While as Coleman points out later on in his article, the U.S.A is not unique in having a civil religion, American civil religion is more pronounced in concepts such as "under God," and "for God and country." The ideal of "Manifest Destiny" also comes into play here. The reader is advised and encouraged to examine these concepts more thoroughly for herself/himself.
Coleman goes on to compare American civil religion with Latin American Liberation Theology. He says that in a paradoxical way, the best strands of America's civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American Liberation Theology is an attempt to create a civil religion. According to Coleman, both have in common their being political theologies, both stress the relevance of the historical experience of the community as the locus for critical religious reflection, both are future oriented, premised on a pervasive hope for a more just this-worldly future.
This writer (yours truly) believes that while there may be some similarities (superficial, albeit) between the two, that there are also fundamental differences. On the one hand, American civil religion tends to give sacred meaning to the history and present socio-political status quo, while on the other hand, Latin American theology calls the status quo into question and considers it as a demonic and evil entity. American civil religion carries an interfaith mindset that reflects the religious diversity of the U.S.A. Latin American theology emerges out of a rereading of the Christian traditions and restatement of the Gospel. American civil religion gives the impression that God and America are one and the same. Latin American theology, on the other hand emerges from the struggle of oppressed and suffering people to not only reform, but to transform the structures of society.
You, the reader, are invited to share you views on this. Tell us if you think that American civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American theology is a civil religion. Your input is important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Coleman defines civil religion as "the mystic chord of communal memory (always being summoned to reinterpretation in face of new historic tasks) which ties together both the nation's citizenry and the episodes of its history into a meaningful identity by using significant national beliefs, events, persons, places, or documents to serve as symbolic repositories of the special vocational significance of the nation-state in the light of a more ultimate or transcendent bar of judgment, ethical ideals, humanity, world history, being, the universe of God (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 114)." He summarizes this definition by saying that civil religion is "the religious dimension in the national political experience (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 115)."
Here Coleman alludes to how civil religion makes sacred the political and social mindset that seeks to give the impression that what is socially and politically is equivalent to what is in the mind of God. In other words, this mindset indicates that God's rubber stamp and seal of approval are embedded in the present economic, political, and social institutions.
While as Coleman points out later on in his article, the U.S.A is not unique in having a civil religion, American civil religion is more pronounced in concepts such as "under God," and "for God and country." The ideal of "Manifest Destiny" also comes into play here. The reader is advised and encouraged to examine these concepts more thoroughly for herself/himself.
Coleman goes on to compare American civil religion with Latin American Liberation Theology. He says that in a paradoxical way, the best strands of America's civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American Liberation Theology is an attempt to create a civil religion. According to Coleman, both have in common their being political theologies, both stress the relevance of the historical experience of the community as the locus for critical religious reflection, both are future oriented, premised on a pervasive hope for a more just this-worldly future.
This writer (yours truly) believes that while there may be some similarities (superficial, albeit) between the two, that there are also fundamental differences. On the one hand, American civil religion tends to give sacred meaning to the history and present socio-political status quo, while on the other hand, Latin American theology calls the status quo into question and considers it as a demonic and evil entity. American civil religion carries an interfaith mindset that reflects the religious diversity of the U.S.A. Latin American theology emerges out of a rereading of the Christian traditions and restatement of the Gospel. American civil religion gives the impression that God and America are one and the same. Latin American theology, on the other hand emerges from the struggle of oppressed and suffering people to not only reform, but to transform the structures of society.
You, the reader, are invited to share you views on this. Tell us if you think that American civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American theology is a civil religion. Your input is important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)