In this essay, I would like to cover the role that socialism has played in the African-American´s community pursuit of equality and social justice. Some readers may be ¨turned off¨ because of a negative attitude and posture towards socialism. Unfortunately, many people condemn and demonize socialism without even knowing what it is about. Their views of socialism are based, for the most part, on a combination of market-place rumors and media hype. They have not taken the time to research the issues. Their view of socialism is based on hearsay.
In the four decades before the Civil War, several communitarian and utopian socialist societies were established in the United States. Utopian socialism found fertile ground in the United States and was the dominant current among socialists until 1850 (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 110). During 1820-1850, the American countryside was liberally dotted with communities established by searchers for the utopias promised by Robert Owen and Charles Fourier (Philip Foner, American Socialism and Black America, p.4).
Marxists and utopian socialists had fundamentally different approaches to the questions of slavery and racism. The first difference involved the attitude towards Blacks and their involvement in the movement. Robert Owens opposed slavery but was a supporter of emigrationism and excluded Blacks from his own colony, New Hampshire, Indiana. He said that Blacks could be helpers if necessary, but if it were considered useful, they could be prepared and enabled to be associated in communities in Africa (Foner, p.6).
In contrast, the Communist Club of New York invited Blacks to become members. Its constitution required to ¨recognize the complete equality of all persons-no matter whatever color or sex (Phiip Foner and Brewster Chamberlain, Labor Movement in the United States: A History of the American Working Class From Colonial Times to 1890. Westport, CT: Greenwood Port, 1977, p. 6).
In chapter seven of his book, Black Liberation and Socialism, Ahmed Shawki makes it very clear that the attempted integration in the socialist movement by the African-American community did not result in an ideal situation. Many of the organizations claiming to be ¨socialist¨ were dominated by white leaders who still thought of the Black race as an inferior race. At times it was difficult to distinguish between the social class issue on the one hand, and the race issue on the other.
We might ask from a theological standpoint, what is the value of oppressed groups such as African-Americans aligning themselves with socialism? Will a movement that emphasizes the elimination of social class be beneficial to the African-American community?
This writer (yours truly) has a theological commitment to socialism. My commitment to socialism does not, however, emerge, like in the time of Karl Marx, out of an industrial context. Neither does it emerge from the context of a technological society such as the one we live in. My commitment to socialism is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The thrust of the Gospel message is full equality for all humankind independent of class, ethnic/racial issues, or issues of gender. While most socialist movements claim these very same things, the major ingredient missing in them is a God-consciousness which would enable them to view the dysfunction in human relations as the consequence of divine-human rupture.
It behooves us to examine how a Gospel-driven socialism can be more effective in and relative to the Black struggle for liberation. If we affirm and consider Jesus Christ as the ultimate liberator, then all other persons and movements offer us solutions that are half-baked and reformist. We need a type of socialism that gets to the root of the problem.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Whose Life Really Matters? Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad in Paris
Once again we are faced with acts of terrorism, where innocent people lose their lives. And along with these acts, we again witness the desire for retaliation. And, of course, as always, we witness the blaming and finger-pointing at the alleged perpetrators, whether imaginary or real.
When we encounter and hear about atrocities such as the one in Paris this last weekend, we become indignant. We ask "Why do these things have to happen?" We become awed, confused, perplexed, and full of rage. No logical or rational explanation that we hear is sufficient to even minimize our anger and desire for vengeance. Our emotions and irrationality blind us to the possibility of other explanations as to the "why" of occurrences such as these.
As in the case of September 11, 2001, we condemn and denounce the immediate perpetrators. Very, very rarely, if ever, do we begin to ponder on the question of "what have we contributed to this situation?" We act as if we were innocent bystanders that have things happen to us out of the clear blue sky with no historical antecedent or precedent. All we want to do is to get back at those that we consider the main culprits. The mere suggestion that we examine ourselves in order to determine if we have contributed in any way will generate anger.
I can't help but ask if Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), were living in Paris, how would they react to these atrocities? If the atrocities had been committed by people who claim the Jewish faith as their own, would we be quick to condemn Judaism as a religion of terror? Or if they had been committed by those claiming to be Christian, would we be quick to say that we must "secure our borders against Christians?" One preacher who also happens to be the son of a famous preacher, had the audacity to advocate for "securing our borders against Muslims." Needless to say, I wrote a note of condemnation for that bigoted and ignorant statement on his part. I even went as far as saying to him that his statement was a disgrace since it does not adequately represent the Christian Gospel, and furthermore, is a disgrace to the legacy of his father.
What can we do to stop terrorism? Some would resort to the quickest and most simple approach, i.e. retaliate, and bomb the hell out of the perpetrators.
I would like to think that what Moses, Jesus, and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) would challenge us to do would be the following:
1. Undergo a sincere introspection of the heart to examine ourselves and determine if we have in any way been guilty of agitating and instigating these types of situations.
2. Put an end to the support of state-sponsored terrorist governments world-wide, especially in the so-called Middle East.
3. Commit ourselves to act in solidarity with those groups and nations who are sincerely seeking peace together with justice.
Please share with us what you think we can do to stop terrorism in the world and achieve a genuine and lasting peace.
In the Name of God the Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
When we encounter and hear about atrocities such as the one in Paris this last weekend, we become indignant. We ask "Why do these things have to happen?" We become awed, confused, perplexed, and full of rage. No logical or rational explanation that we hear is sufficient to even minimize our anger and desire for vengeance. Our emotions and irrationality blind us to the possibility of other explanations as to the "why" of occurrences such as these.
As in the case of September 11, 2001, we condemn and denounce the immediate perpetrators. Very, very rarely, if ever, do we begin to ponder on the question of "what have we contributed to this situation?" We act as if we were innocent bystanders that have things happen to us out of the clear blue sky with no historical antecedent or precedent. All we want to do is to get back at those that we consider the main culprits. The mere suggestion that we examine ourselves in order to determine if we have contributed in any way will generate anger.
I can't help but ask if Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), were living in Paris, how would they react to these atrocities? If the atrocities had been committed by people who claim the Jewish faith as their own, would we be quick to condemn Judaism as a religion of terror? Or if they had been committed by those claiming to be Christian, would we be quick to say that we must "secure our borders against Christians?" One preacher who also happens to be the son of a famous preacher, had the audacity to advocate for "securing our borders against Muslims." Needless to say, I wrote a note of condemnation for that bigoted and ignorant statement on his part. I even went as far as saying to him that his statement was a disgrace since it does not adequately represent the Christian Gospel, and furthermore, is a disgrace to the legacy of his father.
What can we do to stop terrorism? Some would resort to the quickest and most simple approach, i.e. retaliate, and bomb the hell out of the perpetrators.
I would like to think that what Moses, Jesus, and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) would challenge us to do would be the following:
1. Undergo a sincere introspection of the heart to examine ourselves and determine if we have in any way been guilty of agitating and instigating these types of situations.
2. Put an end to the support of state-sponsored terrorist governments world-wide, especially in the so-called Middle East.
3. Commit ourselves to act in solidarity with those groups and nations who are sincerely seeking peace together with justice.
Please share with us what you think we can do to stop terrorism in the world and achieve a genuine and lasting peace.
In the Name of God the Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Saturday, November 14, 2015
This is the Word of the Lord: Thanks be to God!-Symbol. Myth, and the Biblical Revelation
In many churches, i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, whenever a person (lay or ordained) reads a portion of Scripture, that person concludes by saying ¨This is the Word of the Lord.¨ The congregation will usually respond by saying ¨Thanks be to God.¨
Why do we refer to the Bible as ¨the Word of God?¨ There can be many answers to that question. One person can answer ¨Because God wrote it.¨ I would ask ¨Really?¨ Another person might respond by saying that ¨God inspired it.¨ Then the question would be ¨What does ´inspired´ mean?¨ Another response might possibly be ¨God speaks through it.¨ I would then ask ¨Does God speak through any other book or piece of literature, or is the voice of God found only in the Bible?¨
Whatever one´s answers to those questions may be, the fact remains that each of those answers reflect certain assumptions and presuppositions that we all have about the Scriptures. Some people treat the Bible as a book that was written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. Others treat it as a book which was written passively by the individual authors as God controlled them in a mechanical and robotic manner. Others, yet, treat the Bible as if it were written in a cultural and historical vacuum, i.e. without any influence from the surrounding culture of the biblical writers or the historical events taking place at the time of writing.
I would like to pose a different set of questions for our consideration. Avery Dulles, who was a Professor of Theology at Woodstock College had issue with those who believed that the Bible must be purged of mythical and symbolic elements if its message is to be communicated to humanity in our time. But he also had problems with those who said that the Bible has no myth. Dulles defined myth as ¨symbolic narrative which deals with events attributed to superhuman, personalized agencies.¨
A provoking question that would anger many and please others is ¨Does the Bible contain myth?¨ The answer to that question would depend on what is meant by ¨myth.¨ Is Dulles´s definition of myth a correct one, or are there other possible definitions that we can work with?
We might ask if the presence of myth (however defined) in Scripture would diminish the element of divine inspiration. Would the content of myth and symbol lessen the authority and use of Scripture today?
This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. However, I do not believe that divine inspiration means that it is devoid of myth and symbol. At the same time that it is inspired, it is also culturally-conditioned. That in no way erodes the role of God in the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptural witness points to God working in and through culture, and human experience. It also involves divine use of all types of literature, including allegory, legend, myth, and symbol. Because God is sovereign, we cannot limit the means that He/She uses to communicate the divinely intended message.
Please join in dialogue with us as we ponder on the nature and role of Scripture, both in our individual spiritual journey, as well as in the life of the gathered community. Your input will be very helpful.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Why do we refer to the Bible as ¨the Word of God?¨ There can be many answers to that question. One person can answer ¨Because God wrote it.¨ I would ask ¨Really?¨ Another person might respond by saying that ¨God inspired it.¨ Then the question would be ¨What does ´inspired´ mean?¨ Another response might possibly be ¨God speaks through it.¨ I would then ask ¨Does God speak through any other book or piece of literature, or is the voice of God found only in the Bible?¨
Whatever one´s answers to those questions may be, the fact remains that each of those answers reflect certain assumptions and presuppositions that we all have about the Scriptures. Some people treat the Bible as a book that was written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. Others treat it as a book which was written passively by the individual authors as God controlled them in a mechanical and robotic manner. Others, yet, treat the Bible as if it were written in a cultural and historical vacuum, i.e. without any influence from the surrounding culture of the biblical writers or the historical events taking place at the time of writing.
I would like to pose a different set of questions for our consideration. Avery Dulles, who was a Professor of Theology at Woodstock College had issue with those who believed that the Bible must be purged of mythical and symbolic elements if its message is to be communicated to humanity in our time. But he also had problems with those who said that the Bible has no myth. Dulles defined myth as ¨symbolic narrative which deals with events attributed to superhuman, personalized agencies.¨
A provoking question that would anger many and please others is ¨Does the Bible contain myth?¨ The answer to that question would depend on what is meant by ¨myth.¨ Is Dulles´s definition of myth a correct one, or are there other possible definitions that we can work with?
We might ask if the presence of myth (however defined) in Scripture would diminish the element of divine inspiration. Would the content of myth and symbol lessen the authority and use of Scripture today?
This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. However, I do not believe that divine inspiration means that it is devoid of myth and symbol. At the same time that it is inspired, it is also culturally-conditioned. That in no way erodes the role of God in the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptural witness points to God working in and through culture, and human experience. It also involves divine use of all types of literature, including allegory, legend, myth, and symbol. Because God is sovereign, we cannot limit the means that He/She uses to communicate the divinely intended message.
Please join in dialogue with us as we ponder on the nature and role of Scripture, both in our individual spiritual journey, as well as in the life of the gathered community. Your input will be very helpful.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Theology: Church Centered or World Centered?If
For many centuries, the theological enterprise focused on defining doctrine for the benefit of the Church. In other words, theology was concerned with having Christians define their self-identity in terms of what they believed and practiced. For many Christians, theology was a way for the Church to till its own garden. Christians tended to think in terms of theology being "the queen of the sciences," i.e. the source of all truth found in the different branches of human knowledge such as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences. Whatever truth was found in these branches of human knowledge was considered to be derivative from and subservient to theology. It is safe to say that for a long time, the world (at least the Western part of it, i.e. Euro-America) was dominated by the arrogance of theological imperialism.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, there was a paradigm shift. The Church changed its posture. Instead of maintaining the attitude and mindset that society had to learn from the church, the notion that the Church had to learn from and interact with society came into vogue. Theology, instead of addressing issues which were almost exclusively church-related, began to address issues which were society-related. While the early part of the twentieth century witnessed the "Social Gospel," it was in the latter part of the century that theology began to seriously engage with social issues such as classism, sexism, and racism. It came to the point where social issues were interpreted in the light of theological postulates, that theology began to emerge from the experiences of of oppressed and suffering people. Liberation Theology, which emerged in the latter half of the 1960's in Latin America, and subsequently in other parts of the so-called "Third World," began to emphasize that oppression and suffering should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. No longer, was the thinking of its adherents and proponents, that theology should be used to shed light on these realities, but rather, that these realities should be used to shed light on how divine revelation was to be interpreted and understood.
Three questions come to mind as we continue to carry out the theological task in the twenty-first century. They are the following:
1. How open should we be in our theological views? If I may use the analogy of the mosquitoes and the window, I would ask, should we keep the window completely shut, even at the risk of suffocation, so that the mosquitoes (false doctrine and heresy) don't come in, should we have a screen on the windows, so that we can have a degree of fresh air, and still prevent the mosquitoes from coming in, or should we open up the windows without a screen and risk the mosquitoes and other elements to come in, in the name of "open-mindedness?" We need to be constantly wrestling with these options.
2. What socio-economic and socio-political system is our theology aligned with.? Do we subscribe to a theology which blesses and sanctions the existence of oppressive systems in the name of "stability?" Do we continue to allow for the celebration of Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day in our worship services, therefore directly or indirectly sanctioning the continuation of economic and military imperialism? Do we continue to fly our national flag alongside the Christian flag, not realizing that we are promoting an alliance between the Cross and the Sword? Or do we align our theology with a system which is seeking justice for all of its citizens by implementing free education, free health care, and at the very least, subsidized housing?
3. Should our theology be constructed, determined, and defined by the latest social trends? Is doing theology the task of the secular society or of the Church of Jesus Christ? Do we advocate for a "theology of accommodation," so that we can maintain large numbers of people and good finances in the Church? Is our theology determined and defined by the divine initiative of God's self-disclosure in Christ, or should it be socially engineered and constructed?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Nevertheless, as long as we seek to be faithful to Christ and to the message of the Gospel. we need to continue wrestling with them. The task of constructive theology is a never-ending one. We must constantly act and think theologically. There is no escape from this conondrum. I invite you to the continuous adventure of action-reflection.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
In the latter part of the twentieth century, there was a paradigm shift. The Church changed its posture. Instead of maintaining the attitude and mindset that society had to learn from the church, the notion that the Church had to learn from and interact with society came into vogue. Theology, instead of addressing issues which were almost exclusively church-related, began to address issues which were society-related. While the early part of the twentieth century witnessed the "Social Gospel," it was in the latter part of the century that theology began to seriously engage with social issues such as classism, sexism, and racism. It came to the point where social issues were interpreted in the light of theological postulates, that theology began to emerge from the experiences of of oppressed and suffering people. Liberation Theology, which emerged in the latter half of the 1960's in Latin America, and subsequently in other parts of the so-called "Third World," began to emphasize that oppression and suffering should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. No longer, was the thinking of its adherents and proponents, that theology should be used to shed light on these realities, but rather, that these realities should be used to shed light on how divine revelation was to be interpreted and understood.
Three questions come to mind as we continue to carry out the theological task in the twenty-first century. They are the following:
1. How open should we be in our theological views? If I may use the analogy of the mosquitoes and the window, I would ask, should we keep the window completely shut, even at the risk of suffocation, so that the mosquitoes (false doctrine and heresy) don't come in, should we have a screen on the windows, so that we can have a degree of fresh air, and still prevent the mosquitoes from coming in, or should we open up the windows without a screen and risk the mosquitoes and other elements to come in, in the name of "open-mindedness?" We need to be constantly wrestling with these options.
2. What socio-economic and socio-political system is our theology aligned with.? Do we subscribe to a theology which blesses and sanctions the existence of oppressive systems in the name of "stability?" Do we continue to allow for the celebration of Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day in our worship services, therefore directly or indirectly sanctioning the continuation of economic and military imperialism? Do we continue to fly our national flag alongside the Christian flag, not realizing that we are promoting an alliance between the Cross and the Sword? Or do we align our theology with a system which is seeking justice for all of its citizens by implementing free education, free health care, and at the very least, subsidized housing?
3. Should our theology be constructed, determined, and defined by the latest social trends? Is doing theology the task of the secular society or of the Church of Jesus Christ? Do we advocate for a "theology of accommodation," so that we can maintain large numbers of people and good finances in the Church? Is our theology determined and defined by the divine initiative of God's self-disclosure in Christ, or should it be socially engineered and constructed?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Nevertheless, as long as we seek to be faithful to Christ and to the message of the Gospel. we need to continue wrestling with them. The task of constructive theology is a never-ending one. We must constantly act and think theologically. There is no escape from this conondrum. I invite you to the continuous adventure of action-reflection.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective: Racial Paranoia
One of the many complex elements in dealing with the issue of racism is that of racial paranoia. When I speak of racial paranoia, I am addressing the matter of perceived racism as opposed to factual or proven racism. There are two extremes that I would emphasize relative to this.
First and I believe foremost, is the extreme of denial. There are many in our time who believe that institutional, systemic, and structural racism no longer exists. They believe that there may be relics or residue of individual racism, but that racism in terms of systemic or structural character has disappeared. They tend to accuse those who deal with the reality of continued racism of "playing the race card." By making such allegations, they believe that they can exonerate their guilty consciences and pretend that "every thing is okay now." In this manner, they can continue with their "blame the victim" game by saying that people who deal with and respond to racism are just "using that as an excuse to not get off their ass and not get a job, just remaining lazy by blaming the system." This position, I believe, is the epitome of denial and suppression.
At best it is naive and self-delusional, and at worst, it amounts to total dishonesty.
At the other extreme are those who tend to blame every social malady on racism. They attribute every failure and setback in their lives to racial actions, attitudes, and policy. Even when it is more than obvious that factors other than racism are present, they will, indeed, continue to "play the race card." They tend to be suspicious of all members of the oppressing community, and also believe that every Caucasian person is "out to get them." While I, as a black Puerto Rican, continue to affirm and insist that we non-Caucasian people should be cautious and suspicious of Caucasian people who agree with us, and who appear to have our best interests at heart, I do not promote the mentality of racial paranoia which leads us to live our lives as "hypocrite sniffers." As a member of the oppressed community, I know from both biblical and secular history, as well as from personal experience, that there are times, exceptional as they may be, when people from both communities (oppressing and oppressed) need to come together to form both ethical and strategic alliances. I also know from history and personal experience, that there are times when certain individuals of the oppressing community can be trusted more than members of the oppressed community.
John L. Jackson, Jr. says, "Race relations have irrevocably changed in the last, restless half century of our country's history, and this pop-cultural tidbit highlights some of the radical differences between the contemporary reality or race relations and earlier forms of American racism (John L. Jackson, Jr, Racial Paranoia. New York: Basic Civitas, 2008, p. xiv)." The basic question for Jackson would be if he means that racism has disappeared, diminished, or taken on a different form?
How does theology address the issue of racial paranoia? We can only answer that question by asking on the one hand, which socio-economic and political system is our theology aligned with, and on the other hand, how does our theology address the issue of racism? The thrust of both Scripture and theology is to identify, unmask, and denounce racism along with all other social ills. Theology calls for us to get to the root of the issue, rather than dealing with just the symptoms and different manifestations of racism, be they open or subtle. Ethical theology calls for us to confront this issue with honesty and integrity, rather than with just a superficial or "Johnny, don't do that" approach.
Please share with us what you think about how to keep in a balanced tension the reality of racism on the one hand, and the reality of continued racism on the other. Your input will be very helpful to us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
First and I believe foremost, is the extreme of denial. There are many in our time who believe that institutional, systemic, and structural racism no longer exists. They believe that there may be relics or residue of individual racism, but that racism in terms of systemic or structural character has disappeared. They tend to accuse those who deal with the reality of continued racism of "playing the race card." By making such allegations, they believe that they can exonerate their guilty consciences and pretend that "every thing is okay now." In this manner, they can continue with their "blame the victim" game by saying that people who deal with and respond to racism are just "using that as an excuse to not get off their ass and not get a job, just remaining lazy by blaming the system." This position, I believe, is the epitome of denial and suppression.
At best it is naive and self-delusional, and at worst, it amounts to total dishonesty.
At the other extreme are those who tend to blame every social malady on racism. They attribute every failure and setback in their lives to racial actions, attitudes, and policy. Even when it is more than obvious that factors other than racism are present, they will, indeed, continue to "play the race card." They tend to be suspicious of all members of the oppressing community, and also believe that every Caucasian person is "out to get them." While I, as a black Puerto Rican, continue to affirm and insist that we non-Caucasian people should be cautious and suspicious of Caucasian people who agree with us, and who appear to have our best interests at heart, I do not promote the mentality of racial paranoia which leads us to live our lives as "hypocrite sniffers." As a member of the oppressed community, I know from both biblical and secular history, as well as from personal experience, that there are times, exceptional as they may be, when people from both communities (oppressing and oppressed) need to come together to form both ethical and strategic alliances. I also know from history and personal experience, that there are times when certain individuals of the oppressing community can be trusted more than members of the oppressed community.
John L. Jackson, Jr. says, "Race relations have irrevocably changed in the last, restless half century of our country's history, and this pop-cultural tidbit highlights some of the radical differences between the contemporary reality or race relations and earlier forms of American racism (John L. Jackson, Jr, Racial Paranoia. New York: Basic Civitas, 2008, p. xiv)." The basic question for Jackson would be if he means that racism has disappeared, diminished, or taken on a different form?
How does theology address the issue of racial paranoia? We can only answer that question by asking on the one hand, which socio-economic and political system is our theology aligned with, and on the other hand, how does our theology address the issue of racism? The thrust of both Scripture and theology is to identify, unmask, and denounce racism along with all other social ills. Theology calls for us to get to the root of the issue, rather than dealing with just the symptoms and different manifestations of racism, be they open or subtle. Ethical theology calls for us to confront this issue with honesty and integrity, rather than with just a superficial or "Johnny, don't do that" approach.
Please share with us what you think about how to keep in a balanced tension the reality of racism on the one hand, and the reality of continued racism on the other. Your input will be very helpful to us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)