Doing Theology in a White Supremacist Nation-State

From its earliest days, the Christian Church has had to carve out its theology in the face of adversarial and hostile socio-political systems.  During the first four centuries, the major challenge for the Church was to affirm its belief in the Lordship of Christ in the midst of an environment where it was believed that Caesar was the final and supreme authority.  The Church's affirmation that "Jesus is Lord" was considered both a threat and an act of sedition.  The Church was persecuted by a system that had tolerance for a wide diversity of religious expressions, but that nevertheless had no tolerance for any affirmation that the authority of the Emperor was a secondary and subordinate authority.  In other words, the theology of the Church was carved out while the Church was, for lack of a better term, "on the run."

In the modern day U.S.A. the Church is faced with the challenge of carving out its theology in a white-supremacist nation-state known as a colleague of mine would call it "Slavetown, U.S.A."  Many well-meaning and well-intentioned Caucasian would take offense with both the idea that the U.S.A. is referred to as a "white supremacist nation-state," and also with the nomenclature "Slavetown, U.S.A."  This essay is not intended to overlook many of the positive things that we have in our country.  Nor is it intended to disrespect or offend any justice-loving or peace-loving Caucasian person.  This essay is designed to draw attention to certain realities that exist in our country, and that in some way, overshadow the positive things that we do have in the U.S.A.

Let me begin by saying that contrary to the notion that this nation was founded on "Christian principles," the historical reality is that it was not.  History would bring out the reality that this nation was founded on the triple pillar of genocide, slavery, and land-grabbing.  And I would add, that contrary to what many people believe, our country's supposed "greatness" is nothing more and nothing less than an empire built on the backs and the exploitation of not only the slaves, but also the working class in the U.S.A. and also the exploitation of the so-called "Third World Countries.," especially Latin America.  Neither can we overlook the fact that this white supremacy is extended into the Middle East, where our Palestinian sisters and brothers have been uprooted from their homeland due to an imposed immoral and illegal occupation by a state-terrorist government supported by the U.S.A.

There are many in our country, I'm sure that would take offense and even be incensed when confronted by these realities.  They would even get into a strong denial mode.  But to deny this reality, one would have to be either naive at best or totally dishonest at worst.  And may I add, that there are many who suffer from arthritis of the cerebellum and cannot think straight regarding the realities of this issue.

Why do I refer to our nation as a "white supremacist nation-state?"  Those who are totally familiar with American history will know that the socio-economic and political structures and policies were primarily designed to favor Caucasian people.  Some may want to argue that non-Caucasians (African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) have benefited from this system.  And others may want to argue that the limited benefits that so-called "people of color" make them "well-off" in comparison to non-Caucasians in other parts of the world.  While I would not argue that point, the reality is that the primary beneficiaries of the "good of the land," as well as political power have been Caucasians who have dominated this country for many centuries after eliminating the original inhabitants of the land, and relegating their offspring to living in reservations.
No honest person can deny that the system (including so-called "law enforcement") has been established to maintain non-Caucasians in a position of secondary and even tertiary status.  The mere fact that non-Caucasians make up the greatest number of incarcerated persons (African-Americans 60%, Hispanics 30%, others 10%) points to this reality.  And the mere fact that non-Caucasians (especially African-Americans and Hispanics) have been "the last to be hired and the first to be fired," relative to employment, is a witness of how our country is ruled and run by the preponderance of Caucasian people in power.

Why do I refer to the U.S.A as "Slavetown, U.S.A?"  I'm sure there are many who take offense at this, especially those who argue that slavery is an institution that no longer exists in the U.S.A. And while that may be true, the reality is that all U.S.A. citizens (African-American and Hispanics to a much greater degree) are enslaved by an economic system (capitalism) which is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. The majority of people in the working class work for the minority who benefit from their labor and are paid "chicken feed" in comparison to the value of the labor that they produce. Black and Hispanic people as a whole are caught up "working for the man night and day," giving their blood, sweat, and tears, and not reaping the fruit of their labor in comparison to their Caucasian counterparts.

We can, furthermore, take into consideration, our Latin-American sisters and brothers who migrate to the U.S.A. from countries that were once their own, and stolen under Spanish colonization and American neo-colonization, in order to survive with dignity.  They are forced to migrate because of our country's foreign economic policies.  Many people in the U.S.A are not even aware of how our nation has exploited the living hell of our Latin American countries by having their private corporations "set up shop," in these countries, causing uprooting and forced migration.  And just like the white slave masters who believed that their black slaves should be "grateful" that they had food on the table and a roof over their heads, the leaders of the U.S.A, and even many citizens who are not aware of what is going on, believe that our undocumented sisters and brothers who come here should be "grateful."

Now we are coming into 2017 when a President-elect who obviously shares the white-supremacist mentality,  and is naming people with white-supremacist background, will govern the U.S.A. for the next four
He has openly declared war on non-Caucasians, and like Hitler in Germany with the Jewish people, on Muslims. There are many in the U.S.A. who believe in the concept of "give the man a chance."  It takes a great deal of blindness and naivete not to see what we are headed for, and what is going "down the pike."

Meanwhile, "back at the ranch," the Church of Jesus Christ in Slavetown, U.S.A. is faced with the challenge to have a theology that will define its call and guide its mission in such an environment.  Like in Hitler's Germany, we need a Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who will be a protagonist of resistance.  Like in South Africa, we need an Archbishop Desmond Tutu who will say "hell no" to the apartheid system which is being constructed under the new incoming leadership.  Like in El Salvador, we need an Archbishop Oscar Romero who will ask the U.S.A government to stop financing injustice with military weapons.  We need a Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright who will say "God damn America," as long as she remains entrenched in its embedded institutional, structural, and systemic racism.

En fin, we, as Christians need a theology which will address both the present and the coming realities.  We need a theology which will guide us in the struggle against racial and all other forms of social injustice. We need a theology that will move us away from rhetorical noise and into concrete action that will not only identify and unmask the demonic forces, but also exorcise them, and continue to work for the creation of just social structures.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God?

Dogma and enclosed ideology is not unique to the Christian faith.  In all religions, one finds that there are a set of beliefs and practices that one must adhere to in order to be considered a bona fide member of that particular community.  In most religious communities, people believe that their particular faith group and their particular beliefs are the only way to have a valid relationship with God.

Christianity is not exempt from that display of enclosed ideology.  Christians are just as dogmatic and opinionated as people from other communities of faith.  In addition, Christians are just as closed and narrowed-minded as people from other religious traditions.  And like people from other faith groups, Christians believe that they are doing God a favor by adhering to certain affirmations of faith and excluding and rejecting all beliefs contrary to theirs.

A perfect example of Christian narrow-mindedness is the belief that Jesus is the only way to God.  They will make use of certain Scriptures in order to justify this belief.  Among other passages that they quote in support of their position are the following:

John 14:6, where Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me."

Acts 4:12, where the Apostle Peter says "There is no other name under heaven given to humans whereby we must be saved."

1 Timothy 2:5, where the Apostle Paul states "There is only one God, and one mediator between God and humans, the man Christ Jesus."

There are many other passages of Scripture that Christians base themselves on to believe that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to God. And, while this writer (yours truly) believes in the message of the Bible, I find the following difficulties in this approach.  Among the difficulties that I find, are the following:

1.  Biblical literalism- Christians tend to take every passage of Scripture literally without taking into account and weighing both the external and internal context in which those passages appear.  They believe that just by merely citing a Scripture passage, they have resolved the theological issue at hand.

2. The use of cliches-Christians believe that they are demonstrating faithfulness to God by subscribing to the cliche "The Bible says."  They equate this cliche with Scripture itself.

3.  Christians are very prone and quick to dismiss interpretations of Scriptures which do not resonate with theirs.  In other words, they treat their own understanding of Scripture as if their understanding alone were God-given

4.  Christians are very prone to judge other religions beliefs on the basis of their own Scriptures.  In other words, Christians believe that there is no divine truth, whatsoever in other sacred scriptures.

5.  Christians fail to see that though God was incarnated in a Jewish man, born in Bethlehem of Judea, that this God-man Jesus was not, is not, and cannot be restricted to a particular set of beliefs and practices.  The God of Scripture, and especially the God of the Christian Scriptures (the New Testament), is a universal God who transcends all ideologies and all systems, including those that are economic, political, religious, and social in nature.  They fail to see the Cosmic and Universal Christ who is revealed, not only in the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but also in those scriptures and faith groups which existed long before the Judaeo-Christian community came into existence, and long before the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian traditions were written.

6.  Christians fail to see that by restricting God exclusively to one mode of revelation, they are, in effect, denying and nullifying the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty, i.e. that God reveals Godself how, when, and to whom God wants.  They wish to put God "in a box" if you will, and believe that God does not exist outside of that box.

The question for us, is then, how does Jesus become the exclusive way to God?  How can we, on the one hand, affirm that Jesus is the exclusive way to God, and on the other hand not take that to mean that non-Christians cannot have a relationship with God? Jesus's own affirmation of being "the way," was not intended to exclude people of other faith traditions or to require that they affiliate with the Christian Church in order to be in a right relationship with God. Throughout the entirety of the New Testament, it is very clear that following Christ does not mean subscription to a particular set of dogmas, but rather commitment to one's neighbor, and to the pursuit of social justice.

As we remember Emmanuel (God with us), let us also remember the transcendence and universality of the God who comes to us in a variety of ways which God chooses.  Let us remember that God is over and beyond our beliefs, doctrines, and ideas.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Ecumenical Relations-Can the Church of Jesus Christ be United?

Since almost the time of its inception, the Christian Church has had to contend with the reality of division and factionalism. I remember my Church History professor at New Brunswick Theological Seminary, Dr. John Beardsley, who taught us that even in the early Church, there were "denominations, if you will."  Having experienced attendance at Lutheran (Wed. afternoons for religious instruction) and Methodist (Sunday School and worship) churches in my childhood, and then growing up in a Pentecostal church during my adolescent years, being a Pentecostal minister and Bible teacher for 11 years, and then finally being a Reformed Church  minister since 1978, I have always wondered what it would take for the Church of Jesus Christ to supersede both its external and internal divisions.

In my experience, there have been several factors that have kept the various churches apart. They are:

1.  Doctrinal and theological differences.  Each church believes that it has, not only the best, but the "correct" doctrine and theology, and that the doctrines of other churches are either false or only partially true. The Catholic and Orthodox churches claim antiquity as the basis for claiming that they are the Church that proclaims "the faith once delivered to the saints."  The Protestant churches claim to base their doctrines on Scripture, but each one has a different interpretation of Scripture which they claim to be the "correct one."

2.  Fear of compromise and doctrinal erosion.  There are many churches that fear that if they collaborate and cooperate, fellowship with others, that they will run the risk of having their particular teaching, which they consider unique, to be eroded, and that they will end up compromising what they consider to be God's truth.

3.  Loss of power.  Many Church leaders, especially those who hold positions of leadership at the upper echelons of their denominational structure, fear that if their church unites with others, they stand to lose their hold on power.  The question then becomes "Who is going to end up being Bishop or Overseer of the uniting churches?  Who is going to be the main theologian?

Is there a way out of this theological conundrum?  What can we do to bring Christians together in the unity that Christ prayed to His Father for?  There are no easy answers, as everything that can be considered as worthy of attempted unity has been tried and tested, with only limited results.  I will make some recommendations, some of which have been made and tried before, in the hope that even if we don't achieve perfect unity, we can at least keep the momentum of struggle for.

1.  Continue emphasizing the Christ, not any of us, is Lord of the Church, and that to Him and Him alone, we owe our full devotion and allegiance.  All other positions of authority within the Church are secondary and subordinate to Him.

2.  Continue the effort to achieve doctrinal clarity so that we can know not only what we believe, but why we believe it.  One of the many reasons why doctrine divides the Church of Christ is because we are careless and sloppy in our use of the Scriptures and of the traditions of the Church.

3.  Finding areas of common ground to collaborate.  The National and World Council of Churches, since their inception, have focused on areas such as global, social, and world justice.  In doing so, they put aside their doctrinal differences without abdicating or surrendering their particular theology, and focus on how we as a church can make the world a better place to live in.

These have been, but a few of the many steps that we can take to achieve unity in the Body of Christ. Our call is to march on to that perfect unity.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Futility of Theology

One of the issues that is seldom, if ever, openly discussed in church circles, is that of a perceived futility of theological discourse.  Very few people, if any, would venture to express in a public manner the belief that theological discourse is not only not interesting, but also futile and sterile.  They are afraid to be mocked for taking such a position, or afraid of being pressured into a discussion that would prove their long-held views to be wrong.

I personally do not believe that "no theology" is a better alternative to "bad theology."  But I do believe that having a definite theology has its downfalls as well as its advantages.  The downfalls that I see are the following:

1.  The danger of ideological enclosure-  Many people operate with ideology in the realm of politics, religion, and other branches of human knowledge.  The immediate danger lies in thinking that outside of our theological ideology, whatever it may be, there is no truth.  Our ideology, then, becomes our god, and we subsequently fall into the trap of ideological idolatry, i.e. deifying our ideology.

2.  The failure to acknowledge the transcendence of God-  There are many who believe that God is enclosed in and restricted to their theological dogma.  In thinking in this manner, they believe that they have a monopoly on divine truth.  When challenged by the possibility that God is not bound by or confined to their theological constructs, they get "all bent and out of shape."  They come close to having a coronary when confronted by the the truth of God's transcendence and that they cannot restrict God to their theological boxes.

3.  The distractions from life-Many people get so caught up in dogma that they become oblivious to their surroundings.  An example of this is how Christians sometimes engage doctrinal debates about one thing or another, while at the same time disregarding and ignoring that suffering that is taking place in the world.  At this point, theology becomes totally irrelevant, and as one well-known theologian said "even demonic."

What is the upside of having a theology?  Theology helps us to:

1.  Think critically and analytically about the implications of our faith. It helps us to identify not only what we believe, but also why we believe.

2.  Avoid making our faith an emotional and mindless journey.  It helps us to put our "grey matter" to work in deciphering divine truth.

3.  Avoid the hodgepodge of syncretism.  While there is an element of truth in every faith, we must seek to inquire where the basic and uncompromising truth of God lies.

The theological enterprise is not only much needed in the life of the Church, but is also part and parcel of the Church's mission in society and in the world.  We are called to have a well thought out faith. We ask how does our faith help us to be in a better relationship with God and with our neighbor.  The challenge for us, is then, acting, living, and thinking theologically.  Thank God for the theological enterprise.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Anti-Colonial Theology

In religious and theological discourse, there are expressions and sayings that after time become either cliches or slogans.  Many of these are sayings and/or statements that are parroted or merely regurgitated on the basis of habit or tradition.  Many of them are merely repeated on the basis of mechanical impulse or robotic functioning.  People use such phrases mindlessly and many times without knowing the implications of the statements and sayings.  It is almost as if the practice of their faith were mechanical in nature, and did not involve analytical and critical thinking.

Examples of these are statements such as "The Bible says," "The Lord told me," "I believe," and so on and so forth.  People repeat these phrases because they are so used to hearing them that they don't even think when they use these phrases.

The term "Post-colonial theology" is another one such term that many times is used in a rhetorical manner. It can be taken to mean different things to different people.  The definition of that term will depend on who is using it, and the angle that he/she is coming from.

In this essay, I would like to talk about "Anti-colonial theology." To me, the term means a discourse about God which denounces the colonial situation of nations.  It also means that it does not operate with the  same norms or standards that classical or "normal" theology operates with.

What is Anti-colonial theology?  To me, Anti-colonial theology is a theology which emerges from people who have been the victim of colonization, and who in turn generate a theology which reflects relevance to their situation as a colonized people.

I submit that Liberation Theology is in essence, an anti-colonial theology.  It emerges from the reality of the oppression that is imposed on social groups along ethnic/racial, class, gender, and sexual orientation lines. The theology that emerges from these oppressed groups is not a theology of convenience, expedience, or opportunism.  It is not a theology that is rooted in "sour grapes," or in being "sore losers."  It is a theology grounded in the reality of God's liberating and salvific work in history. It denounces colonialism with all its attendant characteristics of the discrimination and injustices described above.

Some may ask, "Why does theology need to have the prefix 'anti' in it?" I attach the prefix "anti" because Liberation Theology is a prophetic theology which in accordance with the Scriptures and traditions, speaks on behalf of God, and also unmasks, identifies, and denounces the social evils of colonialism as well as all other social evils imposed on people.

How does theology or "God-talk" of any kind function among colonial people?  Colonial theology, i.e.the theology of the colonizers serves to legitimize their colonizing actions, while Anti-colonial theology denounces these same actions.  Anti-colonial theology says "Hell no" in the name of the Lord to the imposition of unjust economic, political, religious, and social structures. Anti-colonial theology exorcises the demonic element in social injustice and in its place, proclaims a message of hope and liberation.

Does Anti-colonial theology have a future?  As long there continues to exist the reality of colonialism and neo-colonialism in any form, Anti-colonial theology along with Liberation Theology will continue not only exist, but also to function both faithfully and effectively in accordance with the Gospel.

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

Dr. Juan A.Carmona

What Lies Ahead for the American People?

So now, it's been almost a month since the Presidential elections.  There have been different reactions to the surprise that many experienced by having Donald Trump elected to be the next POTUS. After all the expressions, i.e. elation for some, and outright disdain and disgust for others, there now remains a fundamental question that we all have to deal with: Where do we go from here? Or we could ask, what lies ahead for the American public and for the world in the next four years?

Since none of us has a mirror that will allow us to look into the future to see every single occurrence, and since none of us has a magic wand to wave to change the course of history, no one can predict with accuracy what will happen in the next four years. And neither can any of us individually change the course of history.

My own perspective as a Christian minister and theologian is that Christ is the Lord, not only of the universe, but of history as well.  He and he alone, as God's agent of liberation in the world, will determine the future for everyone in this planet.

If I were to begin to guess what might happen, I would surmise that the new Presidential administration will institute and install a government of white supremacy where African Americans and other people "of color" will suffer a lot more than they have since the foundation of this white supremacist nation-state, i.e. "Slavetown, USA."  I suspect that there will be another Civil War based on ethnicity and race. I have a haunch that oppressed groups and social classes will suffer much, much more than they have. I also believe that oppressed groups will not tolerate the abuse and arise in opposition to fight against the abuse, and rightly so.  Some will take the attitude, "Give the guy a chance," or "let's wait and see."  I have my doubts, and as I've shared with some in a semi-humorous way, I think that God also has Her/His own doubts.

Is it possible that I could be very, very wrong?  It is possible, but not probable. As a person who looks at historical trends, not only in the USA, but also on a global scale, I make predictions that are subject to correction and revision, but that at the same time, no doubt, have elements of accuracy in them.

It is my sincere hope and prayer that as we prepare to enter 2017 under a new regime, that we carefully brace ourselves and plan for a backlash.  None of us like to be told "I told you so," but the truth of the matter is that "I told you so."

As we enter 2017, let us remember that Christ is Lord and that He and He alone, not only directs, but also determines the ultimate course and outcome of history.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Syndrome of Ethnocentrism

In my seminary days, back in the late 1970's, in a Church History course that I was taking, the professor boldly stated that during the Middle Ages, there was nothing significant taking place outside of Europe relative to Church history.  Being the curious troublemaker that I have always been, I raised my hand and asked the professor, "Is it that nothing significant was taking place outside of Europe, or is it that Church history has been written, for the most part from the ethnocentric standpoint of the European Church historians?" He responded to me and said, "I wouldn't put it that crassly."  rc

I am not sure that ethnocentrism has been totally put to rest. By ethnocentrism, I am referring to the mindset that reality is determined by and revolves around the thinking  of a certain cultural, ethnic, national, or racial group.  Subsequently, the thinking is that whatever that group says or thinks, is the "universally valid" way of thinking.  In this case, anything that was taking place in the churches outside of Europe, was considered "insignificant," or at the very least, of less importance.

In the Latin American Liberation Theology class that I am presently teaching at the Tainan Theological College and Seminary in Tainan, Taiwan, I have been emphasizing that Church History and Theology have been given to us by the "Great White Father (meaning Caucasian people from Europe and the United States)."  I have emphasized that we people from Latin American and the rest of the so-called Third World must say "hell no" to the imposition of this Western colonial theology, and come up with a theology that emerges from our own cultural, economic, national, and social context.  In other words, I am emphasizing that our theology has to reflect our existential reality and experience as an oppressed and subjugated people.

Is there a possibility that the emergence of our own contextualized theology may result in another ethnocentric theology?  That is definitely a possibility.  But I believe that the best way to prevent that from happening is to initiate a dialogue in which all theologies will engage with each other on the basis of parity. We need to avoid and eliminate the thinking that "white is right," and also the thinking that the theology that emerges from the countries of the periphery is "inferior."  In addition, we must for once and for all reject the notion that our own theology has be validated by the theology of the "Great White Father."

Our biblical hermeneutic has to be determined, not by what Euro-American theology say is right, but rather by how our situation as a dominated and subjugated people informs our thinking on the meaning of Scripture. We need to understand the biblical message through the prism of who and where we are.  No longer can it be a question of quoting biblical passages that seem to imply justification for keeping certain social groups and women in a position of inferiority.  Our theology needs to be one which is liberating, i.e. a theology, which in essence, resonates with the Gospel message of the liberating Christ in history.

En fin, we must do all that we can to avoid theological ethnocentrism, and move in the direction of a more globalized theology which enables us to speak with one another, not from the standpoint of competition or of power, but rather from the standpoint of cooperation and of commitment to alleviate the suffering which takes place in the world.

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

Dr. Juan A.Carmona

A Pastor's Take on Homosexuality

Not only because the issue of same-sex relations and same-sex lifestyles have in recent years become an issue of controversy, not only in secular society, but within the very Church of Christ, as a minister, I also struggle with the issue relative to where I stand on it.  I have a certain position on the issue, but at the same time, I realize that there are other positions which are just as valid, and that we should accord the same respect that we expect for whatever position we may adhere to.  Does this mean that we compromise our position?  Absolutely not!  What it does mean, however, is that the issue of same-sex relations and lifestyles, like many other issues, is not one of "black and white." Like other issues, such as abortion, just wars, etc., it is a very complex issue.  I will state my position and related matters on this. In doing so, I hope to learn from others who may disagree with me, and only God knows, may convince me to revise, or at the very least, reevaluate my position.  Let me state in chronological order certain things relative to this issue.  Others may have a chronological order of their own, and that is okay.

1.  To base sexual morality exclusively on the basis of the Scriptural witness is complicated.  We cannot deal with sexual morality in the Bible unless we take into consideration that the sexual morality in Scripture emerges from an agricultural context, where the woman is considered to the property of the man.  In the Bible, marriage is an economic arrangement, not only between two parties, but also between families.  The issue of arranged marriages complicates this even more.  We are then forced to ask, what aspects of biblically-based morality are culturally-based, and relevant only to the context in which it appears, and what aspects of biblically-based morality are universally applicable in all times and in all places?

2.  The rush to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Sodom and Gomorrah debacle is "off the charts." A very careful reading of the story of the angels (or men, take your pick) at Lot's house will reveal that the issue there was not homosexuality at all, but rather one of lack of hospitality towards strangers, on the one hand, and attempted rape on the other.

3.  The Scriptural injunctions against homosexuality are clearly directed towards those who go against their own nature and make homosexual relations and lifestyles a matter of choice.  In those cases where there are Scriptural arguments against choice-based homosexuality, homosexuality is a sin like any other, including greed, murder, and social injustice. In that case, it is not to be singled out any more than any other sin.

4.  To appeal to "nature," also presents a conundrum.  For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about the length of the man and the woman's hair an issue by appealing to nature.  The appeal to nature is also faulty in that it fails to take into consideration the many physical, physiological, and psychological deformities that some people are born with.  And before any of my gay sisters or brothers jump to the conclusion that I am categorizing homosexuality as a "deformity," let make very clear that this is not what I am saying at all.  What I am saying is that genetically and physiologically-based same-sex orientation should be weighed in this discussion.  And since I am not an expert in these areas, I abstain from comments on whether this type of orientation is natural or not.

What are we to do then?  How should this matter be resolved theologically?  There are no easy answers. Since all theology is tentative, my personal position on this issue is also tentative.  Based on the Scriptural injunction against choice-based homosexuality, and also on my very limited knowledge of science relative to sex, my position is as follows:

1.  Choice-based homosexuality is a sin and violation of God's will for humankind. I think that nature as a whole points to homosexuality as a deviation from God's original intention.

2.  Genetically-based homosexuality is to be evaluated on its own merits.  Since as of yet, there is no conclusion that has been absolutely proven, it remains an open-ended question.

Is my personal position subject to reevaluation and to revision?  At the present time, I am inclined to say that I probably will never change my position.  But since I am not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, I give room to the possibility that further information may arrive that might lead me to revise my stance.  If this were to happen, I would first of all, be grateful to God for making it possible for me to expand my horizons on this issue, and also to those persons whose knowledge contributes to critical analysis.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Syndrome of Screwed Up Theology

One of the many problems that we encounter in the Christian Church is that of bad theology.  In ancient times it would be referred to as "heresy" or "unsound doctrine."  Today, it is difficult to determine what is and what isn't unsound theology for the simple reason that we have layers upon layers of criteria as to what determines good theology and what constitutes bad theology.  This problem is further compounded by the fact that we look up to certain people in the Church as "the experts" on theological matters, and at the same time, tend to minimize our own ability to decipher truth. We delegate to others the task of constructing our theology so that we don't have to think through the implications of our faith.  For many of us, critical thinking is a daunting and very taxing process that we would prefer to avoid.  As one young man that I know said to me once, " I don't want to do all that work."

Examples of having what I call a "screwed up theology" are the following:

1.  A verbatim regurgitation of Scriptural texts.  Many people cite Bible verses in a verbatim manner as if that, in and of itself, elicits divine truth.  People who utilize this approach project the impression that when we do this, that we then have "biblical theology," or "a theology based on the Bible."

2.  A mechanical and robotic quoting of the Bible.  This is demonstrated by the utterance that is used commonly among Christians, "the Bible says."  The texts are quoted in a mindless and impulsive manner. Many famous preachers have resorted to this, and because they have a loud voice, they tend to attract masses of people.

3.  The adoption of a "feel good theology."  If both the content and thrust of a particular theology appeal to the emotions, then it is embraced without any further analysis or question.

4. Embracing "market-place theology."  This approach to theology entails embracing beliefs and ideologies that are based on rumors that we have heard either in the streets or in the Church itself. If plenty of "Joe Blows," and " Mary Janes," pass it off as truth, we are prone to swallow it blindly, and receive it as "Gospel truth."

What then, is the solution for getting out of this morass of hodgepodge theology?  As I stated in a previous blog post, there are no easy answers. I will not repeat the steps that I alluded to in a previous post, but I will indeed, add that among other things, we need to utilize our grey cerebral matter in the construction of a clearly defined theological system.  We can no longer afford to put our intellect in a draw and replace it with mindlessness and blind, uninformed emotions.  The Christian faith is a thinking faith.  God calls us to think, and to think critically and analytically.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Danger of Biblical Gimmickry

One of the things that churches and individual Christians are known for is biblical gimmickry.  By this I am referring to the way they use the Scriptures to make it mean what they want.  They will resort to either just quoting Bible texts without taking the social context of those texts into consideration, or giving the text a meaning which was never intended by either the Holy Spirit or by the writers themselves.

A perfect example of this is when the Old Testament is "Christianized," meaning, that people read passages from the New Testament retrospectively, and then subsequently give the Old Testament text a Christian meaning.  Instead of utilizing Old Testament revelation as a foundation for sound Christian theology, they read the Bible backwards by interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament.  This is most, I believe, irresponsible, and easily lends itself to bungled biblical hermeneutics.

A specific example of this type of gimmickry is when Christians read the book of Genesis and find God mentioned in the plural.  For example, the word for God in Hebrew (one of the languages of the Old Testament) is Elohim, which literally translated means "gods."  So in essence, in Genesis it says in the original language "In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth."  Say what?  How many gods are there? Is the writer of Genesis promoting polytheism indirectly?  Absolutely not!  The writer is using the name "Elohim" in the way that God in His/Her multiple attributes is spoken of in the culture of the Middle East. But there is definitely no intention of advocating for or promoting polygamy.

Another example is when God says in Genesis "Let us make humankind in our own image and likeness." Christians who are not familiar with the use of the multiple attributes of God in that culture, are quick to see a "Trinity" in that conversation and conclude that there was a dialogue taking place within a triune deity, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So the matter is settled for them by establishing a Trinitarian god in that conversation, and finding justification for the doctrine of the Trinity, one, which was not even officially established by the Church until the fourth century.

We are guilty of both eisegesis (reading into the text something which is not there) and gimmickry, i.e. pulling tricks "out of the hat" in order to compensate for our inability to explain the passage in question otherwise.
We become very irresponsible in our haphazard use of Scripture.

What is the solution therefore?  There is no one perfect solution to these conundrums, but we can certainly follow certain steps:

1.  Acquaint ourselves with the original languages of the Bible (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek).

2. Acquaint ourselves with the socio-cultural context in which the Bible was written.

3.  Acquaint ourselves with the various translations of the Bible in whatever language we speak.

4.  Acquaint ourselves with the various Bible commentaries that can help shed some light on the meaning of the text.

I wish you well on your journey of avoiding resorting to biblical gimmickry.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Bible: Divinely Inspired or Humanly Concocted?

For at least the last two centuries, the nature and role of the Bible has been debated in many quarters, including, but not limited to that of the Church.  While the Church as a whole has historically affirmed the "divine inspiration" of Scripture, there is no official consensus among Christians as to what "inspiration" means. There are those in the Church who hold to the traditional view that the Holy Spirit not only "inspired" the writers of Scripture, but also guided the Church to include only those books which God intended the Church, both Jewish and Christian to have in its possession as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. Those who hold to this view,  generally-speaking, do not bother with the issues of cultural influence on the writers of Scripture, variety of literary styles in the Bible, or even the issue of the different versions and translations of the Bible.  Their position, in general is, "The Bible was inspired by God, end of story.  Let's not bother with all this other razzle-dazzle."  People who adhere and subscribe to this position are known as "literalists" who take the "quick to verse" approach to Scripture, i.e. quotation of the Bible while divorcing it from its cultural and historical context.

On the other hand, there are those, who influenced by the approach of "higher criticism (dealing with authorship, date, audience, reasons for writing, sources, styles of writing, possible redaction, etc.)," tend to believe that the Bible is a humanly generated book, reflecting the mindset and values of its authors, as well as well as the mindset and values of the people living at the time that the Bible was written.  They tend to treat the Bible as just a good piece of literature with high and lofty morals. Very rarely, if ever, do they speak about "inspiration," and when they do, they are speaking about inspiration in the same vein that they would about other literary authors such as Cervantes, Milton, and Shakespeare.  They do not, like the first group mentioned above, equate the word "inspiration" with inerrancy or infallibility.  The issue of the "authority" of Scripture, to them is relevant exclusively to the context in which it was written with very little, if any, application or relevance for our time.  This group is generally known as "liberal," because they supposedly take an "open-minded" approach to the origins and formation of the Bible and its application or lack thereof for the time that we are living in. Many of them even believe that the Bible was humanly concocted in its entirety, and that subsequently, has no hold on us today.

This writer (yours truly) believes in the divine inspiration of Scripture.  By this I mean, that I believe that the initiative for the writing of Scripture is divine and not human. Subsequently, for me, the Bible has authority which is not inherent to itself, but rather a derivative authority, meaning that the authority lies with the one who inspired it.

Having said that, inspiration in my view does not cancel out in any way the reality of God using the language, the culture, the mindset, the values, and the personality of the biblical authors.  Nor does inspiration vitiate the use of different literary styles including allegory, legend, metaphor, and myth.  To me inspiration does not mean that we treat the Bible as if it were written in heaven and thrown down to earth, bypassing the process of historical mediation.  Nor does inspiration cancel out the possibility that some of the biblical content is a reflection of borrowing from and building upon previous writings.  Inspiration does not exclude the possibility that the writings of pre-Judaic and pre-Christian religions may have had some influence on the writers of Scripture.  Since God is cosmic, the workings of God go over and beyond, and indeed, do transcend the confines and limitations of all faith communities with their dogmas and standards.  Since God is sovereign, He/She works however, whenever, wherever, and He/She wants, and with whom He/She wants.

It is my hope and prayer that the readers of Scripture will discover the cosmic God who works in a variety of manners to reveal God-self.  May our reading of Scripture help us to acknowledge both the divine inspiration as well as the human role with all its frailties and limitations.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Lawlessness in the Criminal Justice System

"Black Lives Matter."  "I feared for my life."  "I thought he was reaching for a gun."

Too often, in recent times, have we encountered situations of police officers killing unarmed persons of color, especially African Americans.  Immediately after the killings take place, the attempt to justify and rationalize the killings begin to set in.  Expressions such as "I feared for my life," and/or "I thought he was reaching for a gun"  become the standard attempt to justify the actions.  As a result of these many occurrences, we now have a movement or what some might consider a mindset of "Black Lives Matter."

Those who are against the notion of "Black Lives Matter" will do everything in their power to minimize or totally dismiss the grim reality of the emerging patterns of misconduct on the part of so-called "enforcement." They will resort to one or more of the following:

1.  Give full credence and justification to the above claims of police officers relative to the action taken.

2.  Be quick to cite the criminal history (alleged or real) of the person killed.

3.  Be quick to cite alleged statistics that indicate that the number of Caucasian persons killed by police officers is much, much larger than the number of "people of color" killed by police officers.

4.  Be quick to point out that in some instances, the police officers involved in the shooting were not Caucasian, but African American, Hispanic, or members of some other ethnic or racial group.

5.  Be quick to talk about "black on black crime."

6.  Be quick to say that "if blacks got off their lazy asses and found employment," there would be less crime.

7,  Be quick to say that these incidents are the "exception to the rule," because the vast majority of police officers are good and honest people who take their job of protecting the community very seriously.

8.  Be quick to accuse "people of color" of "playing the race card."

While every one of the above-mentioned points may contain a kernel of truth, they do not constitute the fundamental problem, i.e. the existence and reality of institutional racism.  There are many sincere and well-meaning people who believe that institutional racism no longer exists.  They believe that racism is a characteristic of individual persons in all ethnic/racial communities.

I believe, with all due respect to those who think this way, that as well-meaning as they may be, that they are very naive.  They participate in a child-like innocence that sees the reality of things through the eyes of "everybody is good and nice." They believe that Caucasian people smiling at and shaking hands with non-Caucasians means that they "are no longer racist."

And then I need to add that there are some naive people in our so-called "communities of color" who believe as the Honorable Elijah Muhammad (founder of the Nation of Islam) said many decades ago, that the people who have been oppressing them are "all of a sudden their friends." They believe that because a Caucasian person invites them home to dinner, or has a beer with them, that they have shed their racist attitudes, be they conscious or sub-conscious.

The reality is, that contrary to what many, if not most people believe, so-called "law enforcement" was not established to promote or protect the interests of "people of color."  It was established to primarily promote and protect the interests and livelihood of the Caucasian power structure, and the interests and safety of the "community of color" as a secondary concern. If anyone has a disagreement with me on that, I invite them to study the history of the criminal justice system.

Why, then, is it, that if Caucasian persons are shot and killed by police officers at a higher rate than "people of color," that we never hear of police officers shooting and killing unarmed Caucasian persons? Is it a reality or figment of one's imagination that not only is there institutional and systemic racism in law enforcement, but also that there is institutional and systemic lawlessness in the criminal justice system?  I will let you the reader draw your own conclusions.

As a Christian minister who has a theological commitment to social justice, I strongly believe and am convinced that we need to keep these issues in the forefront of our agenda in both the communities of faith, and the community in general.  We do not have the luxury of "covering the sky with our hands" and pretending that this is not a problem.  We need to confront the issues head-on and realistically.

In the Name of the Creating, Liberating, and Sustaining God.  Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

The Liberation of Puerto Rico Chapter 3- The Case for Independence (Continued)

Boff makes the comparison between the socio-political situation in Jesus's day and the situation that gave rise to Liberation Theology in Latin America.  The main features that Boff mentions are a general situation of dependence, socio-economic oppression, and religious oppression (Boff in Gibellini, pp. 103-105).  He points out that in the context in which Jesus was ministering, He spoke about the reign of God not merely as something of the future, but as something present in the very midst of the audience to which He spoke (Boff in Gibellini, p. 107). In identifying certain oppressed groups in the Jewish society of that time (the impure, non-Jews, women, simple people, prostitutes, publicans, etc.),  Boff points out that Jesus had ties of solidarity with these same groups, and in fact, went so far as to state that the reign of God belonged to them (Boff in Gibellini, p.111).  In the remainder of the article, Boff describes the situation of Latin America as one of underdevelopment as compared to that of the affluent northern hemisphere.  He says that this situation is the by-product of a socio-economic system that favors a small minority with wealth, while keeping the vast majority of humanity in a state of dependence on the margins of societal life.  The majority, says Boff, are thus prevented from moving towards freedom, progress, and self-sustenance.  He believes that as long as the people of Latin America follow a purely developmental approach, that they will never be able to bridge the gap that separates the current centers of power from those on the periphery.  Boff contends that Latin Americans must look in another direction for the solution to the problem.  He states that the people of Latin America should break the ties of dependency and create new values that will allow them to structure a new form of social life for human beings.  They must, he says, stop the exploitation of some people by others, and get all people to bear their fair share of the social burden (Boff in Gibellini, p. 127).

In placing the issue of the independence of Puerto Rico within the framework of Boff's article, we see once again that the idea of "oppression" is directly connected with the state of domination and underdevelopment in which Latin America is situated.  When the situation of Puerto Rico is compared with the situation of Palestine, it is clear that Puerto Rico has been and continues to be in a state of oppression. Palestine was a colony of the Roman Empire.  Puerto Rico is a colony of U.S.A. imperialism.  The Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Graeco-Macedonian, and Roman Empires held Palestine in captivity. At the present time, Puerto Rico is held captive by the political and economic interests of the U.S.A

Boff's article can lead to the following question: What is the task of the Church in view of the situation in Puerto Rico? Boff points to the two tasks which he believes are of utmost importance.  The first task is to denounce and unmask the vaunted progress of modern times.  This progress, as well as the technology that permitted it, is indecent because it requires high human cost.  Besides operating in an ecologically irresponsible way, it generates a type of of living that is anemic, egotistical, and violent (Boff in Gibellini, p. 127).  From what Boff is saying, we can conclude that Liberation Theology calls us to denounce the notion that Puerto Rico's progress depends on the continuation of ties with the U.S.A.  The people of Puerto Rico must find a way to free themselves from a set of beliefs that only serve to maintain their uncritical support of the present arrangement.  In breaking with these beliefs, they must also create new values that will allow them to structure a new form of social life for the people of Puerto Rico.

The next task is to proclaim and anticipate a whole new meaning for human society and a whole new way of using the rich set of instruments provided by science and technology.  Instead of being used to generate some people's dominion over others, the must be used to resolve the age-old problems of hunger, illness, poverty, and discrimination.  The praxis of Jesus Himself is exemplary in this regard (Boff in Gibellini, p. 127).  While some of the social ills that Boff describes may not exist with the same intensity in Puerto Rico that they do in other areas of Latin America, I think that it is clear that we are called to work for the construction of a Puerto Rican society in which these ills can be minimized or totally eradicated.  In a politically and economically liberated Puerto Rico, we may very well see the beginning of an effort in Latin America to use scientific and technological instruments to eradicate the problems of poverty, hunger, and other ills that keep humanity in a state of oppression.  Puerto Rico may very well be the example of what a liberated Latin America would look like in the future.  This would be possible if the people of Puerto Rico take (nationalize) of those instruments that can generate a better quality of life.

I believe that I have made a valid case for the liberation of Puerto Rico in a theological framework.  The Scriptures that I have quoted and utilized are open to a variety of interpretations.  Nevertheless, they clearly indicate that colonialism was never intended by the Creator to play a part in human relations.  Liberation Theology, establishes, I believe, the basic foundation on which to continue advocating for the independence of Puerto Rico. I am sure all Liberation theologians would agree that there is a foundation in Liberation Theology to make a case for independence.

                                                             Summary

Now that I have stated my case for the independence of Puerto Rico, I would like to conclude this dissertation by stating my position in regard to the professional practice of ministry and this issue. The Church is called by God to participate in that process by which God is transforming human history.  The leaders of the Church have the primary responsibility for enabling the Church to carry out its mission in the world. As professional ministers, we cannot afford to be idle and neglect this great responsibility.  The leaders of the Church are the ones who have been entrusted  to lead the Church in direction it is supposed to be moving in.

We might ask ourselves: "What particular task is God calling us to today?"  I respond to that question as a Minister of the Gospel, and as member of the Puerto Rican community.  God is calling the Church to, among other things, to participate in the struggle of the Puerto Rican people for emancipation and sovereignty.  We can choose between responding to this call or ignoring it.  I hope that the reader of this thesis will receive the necessary enthusiasm that will motivate her/him to respond the call.

To God be the glory!

Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

August 29, 2016

The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Chapter 3-The Case for Independence (Continued)

In the mind of Liberation theologians, politics are not thought of as something that is added to the normal content of faith, but rather the very act of faith in a particular context (Assmann, p. 34).  This means that Liberation theologians believe that faith is manifested through activity in the political arena.  Assmann says, "It is ambigous to speak of the political consequences of faith since this gives a false impression that it is possible to live a life of faith in isolation from daily life (Assmann, p. 34)."  Faith, they say, is no more or less than humanity's activity which is basically political in nature (Assmann, p. 35).  Humanity's quest for the basic meaning of historical existence moves us to go so deep into our human "why" that we come up against the mystery of God working in history, but never outside it (Assmann, p. 35).

Assmann's view of the political dimension of faith indicates that the faith of the Christian community is to be demonstrated through the participation of the Church in political activities or movements that seek to enhance the dignity of human life.  It is clear that in the thinking of Liberation theologians, that faith is expressed through resistance to "development" as a means of creating a society in which the people of Latin America can find their livelihood. From this view, we can again conclude that the Christian community is called to to be immersed in the movement for the independence of Puerto Rico.

Since the faith is the faith of the Church, and not merely the faith of individual Christians, then it is not difficult to imagine that the Church will express and demonstrate its faith by involving itself in those activities that are designed to enable the people of Puerto Rico to determine their own political future.  Furthermore, we find again that the Church will express its political activity by refusing to accept the "developmentalist" approach to the creation of a new Puerto Rican society.  If the Church is to be specific in terms of how its faith is to be manifested in the world, then the present situation in Puerto Rico is one which presents a unique challenge to the Church.  Since the situation is one of oppression and domination, then it is also one which call for the Church to demonstrate its belief in the liberating work of the Christ by promoting by whatever means are at its disposal, the independence of Puerto Rico.  In essence, since the faith of the Church is political in nature, it is inevitable that the Church will not merely make verbal denouncements against the present situation in Puerto Rico, but will also make use of its strength and energy to alter the situation and produce a more just Puerto Rican society.

There is another aspect of the "political dimension of faith" in Liberation Theology.  It is the notion of a "historical project."  The notion of this historical project is essential to an understanding of any action that might be taken by those who will be responsible for initiating the process of liberation in Latin America. A close study of Liberation Theology will reveal that, in spite of the varied forms of expression that we find in Liberation Theology, most Liberation theologians conceive of this project as "a socialist project of liberation (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. 30)." Some of the basic elements of this project are the following:

1.  The project rejects developmentalist attempts to solve the Latin American problems within the international capitalist system, dependent on the relations to the Northern countries;  instead it envisages a breaking away from the domination of the empires, though not necessarily in isolation from them.

2.  It is convinced that such elimination of dependence is impossible without a parallel revolution in the social structure of Latin American societies, through which the oligarchic elites which cooperate with foreign interests are displaced from power; this is only possible through a mobilization of the people.  There are differences here as to the relative weight of the industrial proletariat, the role of the military, and of the revolutionary elite.

3.  Given the well-experienced reaction of foreign and local interests to such a program, the need for nationalization, etc., it is clear that a strong centralized state is a necessary step in the process.  This does not mean a naive attitude concerning the dangers of such a step.

4.  It is not enough to bring about change in the economic structures of society: They must be accompanied, supported, and carried out by the awakening of a sense of participation in the population, whereby they become true protagonists of their own history.

5.  Given the fact that a transfer of power is necessary, which implies a clear consciousness of the objectives involved, a sense of urgency and concentration, a serious and prolonged struggle, the political dimension becomes primary and determinant; other important aspects (technical, cultural, social, economic) become subordinate, not in the sense of neglect, but in that of relationship to the political; hence we speak of a primacy of the political in the present Latin American struggle (Bonino, p. 40).

This "historical project of liberation" indicates that there are several things which must take place if Puerto Rico is to become truly free and sovereign.  While the project is concentrated on the economic aspect of dependence, political action is obviously required.  It would be necessary for the people of Puerto Rico to be able to effect a transfer of political power from those external forces to the ones who have every right to exercise that power, i.e. the people of Puerto Rico themselves.  What this would mean is that the people of Puerto Rico would have to resort to some course of action that would result in their being the sole managers of Puerto Rican political life.  In order for this to happen, the severing of political ties with the U.S.A.would have to be carried out.  Since it is unlikely that the government of the U.S.A.will voluntarily grant the people of Puerto Rico the right to be self-governing, then it is necessary for the people to resort to other means in order to secure this right.  One alternative would be for the people of Puerto Rico to resort to war as a means to obtain their independence.  Great and many risks are involved in this option, especially when we consider among other things, the lack of highly developed and sophisticated military weapons that they would need in order to wage a successful war against the U.S.A. Another alternative would be for the people of Puerto Rico to exert pressure on those countries which are members of the United Nations to take a strong stand against the continued occupation of Puerto Rico.  Naturally, this pressure would have to come from those political parties and movements who favor independence, since the present party in power represents the interests of the government of the U.S.A.

This socialist project of liberation that Liberation theologians conceive of as the instrument or means through which Latin America will effect the break in the relations of dependency and domination reflects two things in particular.  The first thing is that they believe that Christian theology should be reformulated so as to speak on behalf of dominated and oppressed groups in the world.  It is their contention that traditional theology reflects the interests of the minority ruling classes in Latin American society as well as the interests of those countries (the U.S.A. in particular) that are holding holding Latin America in political and economic subjugation.  It is their conviction that theology should reflect the interests and aspirations of those social groups and nations are dominated.  The second thing is that Liberation theologians believe that theology should provide the groundwork or the basis on which action should be taken to alter the present arrangement in Latin America.  In other words, Liberation Theology is not limited to denouncing the present arrangement, but also calls for change which can be brought about by the actions of committed Christians.

This "socialist project of liberation" has two implications for the independence of Puerto Rico.  I have already alluded to the first, i.e. that Liberation Theology calls for political action on the part of the people of Puerto Rico to begin to take action that will result in a transfer of power.  In other words, they are called to become the protagonists of their own destiny and history.  The second implication is that in addition to the transfer of political power, the people of Puerto Rico are called to design an economic system which will benefit the people of Puerto Rico as a whole, and not merely an elite within Puerto Rican society.  While Liberation theologians do not propose any specific model of socialism, it will be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Liberation Theology, that these theologians do not believe that the present structure of North American capitalism is beneficial for the people of Latin America.  To be more specific, Liberation theologians consider capitalism an enslaving economic system from the people of Latin America need to be liberated in order to experience authentic freedom.  What this implies is that true independence will come to Puerto Rico after it has severed the ties of the political relationship with the U.S.A., and when some form of socialism is introduced as the economic system in the society of Puerto Rico.

There is a certain concept which is used frequently in Liberation Theology.  It is the notion of "oppression." This notion is central in the thinking of every Liberation theologian.  This is indicated by the fact that their theology is called "theology of liberation."  The mere fact that the term "liberation" is used, indicates that there is something to be liberated from.  The thing that requires liberation is what Liberation theologians call "a situation of oppression."  Hugo Assmann says that the starting point for theological reflection is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America (Assmann, p. 40)." The word "oppression" is normally used by Liberation theologians to refer to the state of economic and political dependency in Latin America presently exists.  In other words, it has to do with the relationship between the economic and political structures of Latin America, and the economic and political structures of those countries on which Latin America's survival depends.  A close study of any literature on Latin America will reveal that the country which is most responsible for the existence and perpetuation of those structures which the Latin American people, especially Liberation theologians, consider unjust and oppressive, is the U.S.A. This does not mean that there are not other countries involved in or responsible for the present situation of domination in Latin America. What this does mean is that the U.S.A has the primary responsibility, since their economic policies have been the most influential in that region.  This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the U.S.A has the highest standard of living in the Western hemisphere, and also to its being the most powerful country in the world.

Is it fair to say that the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed?  If the word "oppression" is associated with denying people democratic rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, then the people of Puerto Rico are not oppressed.  They enjoy these basic rights.  If by "oppression" one means being destitute of food, clothing, and shelter, then the people of Puerto Rico are not oppressed.  They do have, however inadequately, these basic means of survival.  But if the word "oppression" is used to refer to a state of domination and dependency, then the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed.  At the present time, Puerto Rico is a colony of the U.S.A.  It is politically and economically controlled by the government of the U.S.A. Because of that, it is fair to say that the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed. They do not enjoy the right to have control of the land in which they live.

Why must the notion of "oppression" be associated with the situation in Puerto Rico?  My answer to that is that the occupation of Puerto Rico has had a negative impact on the Puerto Rican people.  Compulsory U.S.A citizenship for Puerto Rico was debated as early as 1900.  By 1905, a time of progress for American economics, Theodore Roosevelt proposed the adoption of legislation which would explicitly confer U.S.A. citizenship on all the people in Puerto Rico.  In the discussion of the Olmstead Bill in 1910, the possibility of imposing citizenship was again raised, and in 1912, this discussion was resumed in the United States Senate. On March 12, 1914, the House of Delegates, at that time, the only body elected by the Puerto Rican peoples, sent a memorandum to the President and Congress of the U.S.A. rejecting the imposition of U.S.A. citizenship.  Nevertheless, the U.S.A government passed the Jones Act in 1917 by which the people of Puerto Rico became U.S.A. citizens.  This act removed the last obstacle to U.S.A. economic penetration. At that time, sixty percent of the Puerto Rican people did not understand what was happening because they were illiterate. The incapacity and vacillation of the petty bourgeiose and the traditional parties were responsible for the imposition of U.S.A. citizenship, which included the obligation to serve in the U.S.A. armed forces. Themselves bereft of an ideology, those groups had no moral banner to raise that could have aroused the masses to militant rejection (Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, The Puerto Rican Experience.  Totowa: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., 1973, p. 188)

In the first chapter, I alluded to the negative impact that industrialization has had on Puerto Rico.  Operation Bootstrap bore the kind of name that encourages Americans to believe unquestioningly in the their country's selfless generosity to other peoples.  In truth, the new program was an example of imperialism, guaranteeing tax-free investment to U.S.A firms developing the island as a market for their goods. While it fed the U.S.A.'s sense of self-righteousness and brought profits to U.S.A. investors, Operation Bootstrap left untouched the poverty of the majority of Puerto Rico's 2.5 million inhabitants.  In fact, by limiting the development of the island's economy and forcing continual dependence on the U.S.A., Operation Bootstrap deepened the cycle of poverty in Puerto Rico (Cordasco and Bucchioni, p. 116).

The human cost of dependency upon outside sources of capital and control over economic production can be measured in more tragic terms.  In the village of Barceloneta, on the Northeast coast, for example, pharmaceutical firms  from North America began to build their plants in 1967 and 1968 and bring to the area, new physical problems. In the five years following, the rate of deaths from asthma doubled, from six to twelve thousand.  Evidence has been gathered documenting the cause and effect relationship between air emission from the factories and the high incidence of respiratory problems, as well as a high index of congenital deformities and mental retardation.  At the time of this writing, fifteen percent of the first grade children were mentally retarded, and infant mortality was three times higher than in Puerto Rico as a whole (National Division Board, United Methodist Church, p. 15).

Economic dependency in the private sector of Puerto Rico is only exceeded by the Commonwealth's addiction to federally financed programs.  Since 1970, pro-Commonwealth and pro-statehood administrations in Puerto Rico have sought to ease financial pressure by turning to federal aid programs. The imposition of U.S.A. citizenship upon the Puerto Rican people led to the insistence that Puerto Ricans be given treatment equal to that of the citizens of the mainland.  Successive Commonwealth governments have managed to increase  federal outlays to Puerto Rico from seven hundred sixty-seven million in 1970 to three billion dollars in 1976.  The extension of these federal programs have turned Puerto Rico into a veritable welfare state.  The extension of the food stamp program to Puerto Rico in 1974 cost the United States Treasury six hundred million dollars a year by 1976.  More than two-thirds of Puerto Rico's people are presently eligible to participate in this program (National Division Board, p. 17).

The strategic importance of Puerto Rico to U.S.A. military planning for the Caribbean and Latin America cannot be underestimated.  Following the American invasion in 1898, Puerto Rico became the key outpost in the Caribbean for monitoring naval activities in the Atlantic.  Today, U.S.A. military operations in Puerto Rico are essential to the command of logistical and communication purposes for the armed forces in the South Atlantic, an area which extends from the tip of South Africa to South America.  Puerto Rico is then the military base for supporting military intervention strategies of the U. S.A. in Latin America (National Division Board, p. 17).

Vieques and Culebra, two small islands off the coast of Puerto Rico, had been used for many years as bombing ranges for naval maneuvers and training since World War II.  In the late years of the Vietnam wars, protestors successfully closed Culebra to military activity through non-violent demonstrations. Part of the agreement was that military use of Vieques would not be increased as a result of the closing.  This agreement was violated, and there was, until very recent years, a strong non-violent citizens action against U.S.A. naval activities on the beaches of Vieques. These activities disrupted severely disrupted civilian life and the fishing economy.  The confrontation over Vieques is symbolic of U.S,A, attitudes towards Puerto Rico in general. The military had caused destruction of reefs, the pollution of waters, and the denial of local fishermen of free access to the best fishing grounds. The rights of protesting fishermen and villagers was ignored. Their lives were placed in jeopardy as they sought to carry on daily activity in the face of escalating use of the island for bombing practice.  The residents received the support of government officials in San Juan, whose influence was seemingly powerless in changing United States Government Department of Defense policies.  Such arrogance and and defiance of local interests increased the sense of powerlessness of the islanders, and heightened the dissatisfaction of citizens within the state of U.S.A.-Puerto Rico relationships. (National Division Board, p. 18).

The dominant presence of the U.S.A economically, politically, and militarily has had a profound impact on all aspects of Puerto Rican society.  The structures of U.S.A.control in these areas set the limits by which Puerto Rican society functions.  In some instances, the presence of U.S.A. influence is subtle, and in other, it is outrightly bold and abrasive.  For example, the educational system in Puerto Rico has been dominated by U.S.A. cultural attitudes.  The government of the U.S.A. decreed at one time that all instruction should be in English.  Today classes are taught in Spanish, but English remains a requirement for better jobs.  Entrance exams to professional schools are usually given in English.  Until recently, the courts carried on most proceedings in English.  American curricular patterns have been the model for Puerto Rican elementary and secondary schools.  Courses in U.S.A. history reflect a patriotic bias for American supremacy, diminishing the self-esteem of young Puerto Ricans (National Division Board, p. 18).

Another manifestation of the oppression created by the U.S.A.-Puerto Rico relationships, has been the government policy of birth control via sterilization.  More than thirty-five percent of Puerto Rican women of child bearing age have been sterilized--the highest rate of female sterilization in the world.  Proponents of family planning who claim that population control is essential for Puerto Rico's continued economic and social development have hailed the island's record rate of sterilization as being necessary. Pro-independence groups and many Third World countries label the program a conscious effort at eliminating the Puerto Rican population.  The sterilization is carried out by public health clinics which are funded by Department of Health and Welfare appropiations.  The department makes bonus funds available to the Commonwealth based on previous years of performance, and in the island economy, which is so dependent on federal financing to stave off insolvency, this source of income is economically attractive.  The guidelines require voluntary and informed consent, but the high incidence of surgical procedures following child birth rates raises legitimate questions as to whether the decision for this irreversible form of birth control is made without coercion and free of emotional manipulation.  While the program has contributed to the reduction in fertility rates, the risks of complications and death have not been seriously dealt with.  This is another indicator of the devaluing of human life under an economic and political system of oppression (National Division Board, p. 19).

As the facts indicate, the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed.  The political, social, and economic impact of the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S,A upon the people of Puerto Rico has been negative.  These facts also indicate that the colonization of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. has placed the people of Puerto Rico in a psychological state of dependency, creating in them the internalization of feelings of subserviency.

In an article entitled "Christ's Liberation via Oppression," Leonardo Boff says that people in Latin America live in a more or less pervasive form of captivity on the outskirts of the great decision-making centers of the world, where cultural, economic, political, and religious questions are decided.  People are led to feel that they are marginal, concrete human beings who suffer from frustrated hopes.  They seek a structural change in their way of life and their relationship with worldly goods and other human beings. In addition, Boff says that they must bear the full weight of the fact that their generation will not live to see the appearance of a more just and fraternal world, and that they will have to put up with a global system that generates rich and poor, periphery and center, violence and oppression (Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 100).

To be continued.

Chapter 3- The Case for Independence

Up to this point, I have attempted to trace the history of the struggle for self-determination in Puerto Rico. I have also stated and identified my hermeneutical principles in relation to the use of the Scriptures. In addition, I have tried to clarify the canonical status of Scripture in relation to Liberation Theology.  Now I intend to state my case for the independence of Puerto Rico.  The issue of the political status of Puerto Rico has to do with whether it should be a state, a commonwealth, or an independent and sovereign nation.  The issue is not a new one.  The quest for self-determination antedates the twentieth-century.

The political status of Puerto Rico could be determined in several ways.  The people of Puerto Rico could be asked to state, as has been done already, their preference by way of a referendum.  It is possible that the government of the U.S.A. may decide to annex Puerto Rico as a state or continue the present policy by virtue of which Puerto Rico would remain a colony of the U.S.A. The matter might also be settled by a decision of the people of Puerto Rico to rebel against the imperial rule of the U.S.A. by carrying out a war of national liberation.  I do not intend to question the validity of any of these approaches.  In addition, I do not intend to propose a policy that the people of Puerto Rico should be forced to accept. My own position on this issue is not based on possible outcomes or results for the prospective status.  My position is based on the question, "What does justice require?"  The issue of justice, in turn, is based on my understanding of the Scriptural witness as interpreted through Liberation Theology.  This is not an attempt on my part, to use the Scriptures and Liberation Theology as a justification for promoting my own political convictions.  The purpose here, is to disclose the fact that the message of Scripture, in and of itself, points to the issues of political and social justice, however one might define them.  Liberation Theology will not be used as a substitute for the Gospel, but rather as a reinterpretation of the Gospel.  The use of Scripture along with the above-stated and identified hermeneutical principles are necessary for a proper interpretation and application of the Scriptures to the issue raised in this book.

Since it is, in my humble opinion, incorrect to take isolated passages from the Scriptures as "prooftexts" in support of one's position on a given issue, I have deemed it proper to examine each quoted passage in the light of the book in which the passage appears.  This approach enables one to make use of the Scriptures in a way that is consistent with a clearly defined set of hermeneutical principles. One might object to this scheme of biblical interpretation.  I would respond that it is not the intention of this book to deal with the question as to what constitutes a proper hermeneutic.  My purpose is to state a case for the independence of Puerto Rico  within the framework of a given hermeneutic and understanding of Scripture and theology.

I would like to begin this argument for Puerto Rico's right to self-determination by making reference to the book of Genesis. It is the first book of the Bible, and from its content, it seems to be written from the standpoint of the exile of the Hebrew people from Egypt.  According to Myer Pearlman, the book was written to show the people of Israel that the God of Palestine was a universal God.  He says,  "The Israelites, to whom the message of the book was first addressed, would learn that the God of Palestine was also the God of all lands, and that the God of one nation--Israel--was also the God of all nations.  Since He was the God and Creator of all the earth, He must ultimately become the Redeemer of all the earth.  The book describes how redemption became necessary because humanity had sinned and fallen into darkness; and how God prepared to choose one nation to take the light of divine truth to the other nations (Myer Pearlman, Through the Bible: Book by Book. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1935, p. 3)."

According to this interpretation of the thrust of the message in the book of Genesis, the God of the Hebrew people was as concerned for their well-being as He was for the well-being of the other nations of the earth.

The writer of Genesis informs us that at the beginning God gave the human race mastery of the earth and its resources (Genesis 1: 28-30). The author also states that along with dominion, the human race was given the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply (Ibid.)."  There is no recording of any specific commandment as to how the people were to combine the dominion of the earth and its resources with the increase in the population.  But if we accept Pearlman's interpretation of the purpose of the writing of the book of Genesis, one can then, conclude that the Creator did not intend for some to hoard the land and and its resources, while leaving others destitute of the basic means of survival.  If we apply this scheme of interpretation to the book of Genesis, then we can say that what was intended was an equitable distribution of the land in proportion to the population.  On a national scale, this would mean that the Creator intended for there to be some type of society (socialist?) where the goods of the land would be distributed and shared on a basis of equality.  When we take the international orientation of the book of Genesis, we can safely conclude that the Creator intended to have each nation be a self-governing entity without having to be the possession of other nations.

The author of Genesis also records the story of the Tower of Babel. According to the story, it was the intention of the people who were constructing the tower to be centralized in one location instead of being scattered throughout the earth (Genesis 11: 1-9).  We are told that the Creator interrupted their plans by confusing their languages and causing them to do the very same thing which they were trying to avoid doing.

There are two possible ways to interpret the results of the Creator's intervention in this activity.  We can say that the Creator intervened in their plans as a punishment or as a curse for an act of rebellion against God (Meredith Kline, "Genesis," The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthries. Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing Company,1970. pp. 91-92)." This interpretation lays emphasis on the fact that the builders were out to "make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:4)."  Those who subscribe to this interpretation would conclude that God was punishing the builders for an act of arrogance and defiance against Him.  The other interpretation would be that God was intervening in this project in order to carry out His purpose that they should be scattered throughout the earth (Pearlman, p. 12). The emphasis of this interpretation is that God did not intend for the human race to be centralized in one location of the earth, but rather to be dispersed in such a way that the earth and its resources would be made available to all its inhabitants.  The writer of Deuteronomy seems to support this latter interpretation (Deuteronomy 32: 8).

I believe that both of these interpretations are valid. By this, I mean that I do not believe that one necessarily has to cancel out or eliminate the other.  In other words, as I understand it, God's purpose for intervening was two-fold.  If we accept the second interpretation along with the first, then we can say that God intended for the human race to occupy the different countries of the earth.  The acceptance of that interpretation can lead us to conclude that God intended for each national group to have the right to be self-governing.

I now refer the reader to the book of Exodus.  Since the theme of liberation runs through the book, I believe that it is only proper that this book be utilized as part of the argument for the liberation of Puerto Rico.  According to Hywel Jones, the central theme of the book is God's deliverance of the Hebrew slaves.  Jones states the following in an article in the New Bible Commentary: " The title given to the book by the Greek version, embodies its central and inescapable theme, that of God's deliverance of slaves  in bondage that they might become a people for His own possession, service and glory (Hywel R. Jones, "Exodus."  The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthrie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, p. 115)."

The author of Exodus records the story of God's call to Moses to liberate his people from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 3: 1-12).  Because of their numerical growth, the Egyptians were fearful of the Hebrews, and as a result, made them slaves and subjected them to hard labor (Ibid., 1:1-14). God then called Moses to prepare himself to initiate the process by which the Hebrews would be liberated from this situation and enabled to enter a land in which they would be the sole owners of the resources.  They would no longer have to be subject to the domination of a foreign power.

Is there any relation between the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt and the liberation of Puerto Rico?  I can best answer that question by referring to the purpose behind God's liberation of the Hebrew people.  The purpose was to fulfill the promise which God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to form a people that would be related to God through a covenant (Ibid, 6: 1-8).  The promises that had been made were to give Abraham and his offspring the land of Canaan, and through them to bless the nations of the earth (Genesis 12: 1-3). As we can see, these promises were universal in scope.  While the promises are related to the development of a particular nation, it is clearly stated that the blessings promised to this particular nation were to made available to the other nations of the world.  On that basis, we can conclude that the liberation of the Hebrew people can be a model for the liberation of any nation that is in the same condition of slavery that the Hebrews were in.  In other words, it is proper to deduce from the story of the liberation of the Hebrews, that a nation which is dominated by another nation has the right to seek its own emancipation.  Since Puerto Rico is politically and economically controlled by the U.S.A.,  the people of Puerto Rico have the right to search for their emancipation from the political and economic slavery to which they have been subjected by the U.S.A.

It is necessary to point out that there are some differences between the situation faced by the Hebrews on the one hand, and the situation faced by the people of Puerto Rico on the other.  Unlike the Hebrews, the people of Puerto Rico do not have slavemasters watching over them with whips in their hands.  They are not subject to the same conditions of extreme hard labor that the Hebrews were subjected to.  In addition, the people of Puerto Rico live fairly well.  By this, I mean that they do not lack in an absolute way, the basic means of survival.   Those who are unable to make complete provision for their families by means of employment, can participate in the food stamps program ( National Division Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church. Puerto Rico's Search for Self-Determination. Philadelphia: 1979, p. 8). Moreover, the people of Puerto Rico have a relative degree of political autonomy within the colonial framework.  In spite of these differences, however, there are some similarities between the situation of the Hebrews and the situation of Puerto Rico.  The Hebrews did not have control over their own national destiny. This was especially true because they were not even free to be a nation.  While the people of Puerto Rico do enjoy a relative degree of autonomy, they are still under the political control of the U.S.A.

There is another area in which there is a similarity the Hebrew's experience of slavery, and the Puerto Ricans experience of being a colonized people. That similarity is in the area of economics. The labor of the Hebrew slaves benefited the Egyptian economy (Exodus 1: 1-14).  The prime beneficiaries of the labor of the Puerto Rican people are the American corporations.  At the time of this writing in 1982, eighty per cent of the Puerto Rican economy was controlled by the American multi-national corporations.  Twenty-four American-owned chain stores were responsible for all sales.  In addition, foreign capital, mostly from the U.S.A, was controlling eighty-one  percent of the manufacture, one hundred percent of the air travel, over fifty percent of the insurance companies, and over sixty percent of the financial corporations.  Ninety-percent of the industrial products for exportation are generated by foreign industries, which means, for the most part, that the profits do not enter the Puerto Rican economy (Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Frienship Press, 1980, p. 51). In the same way that the Hebrews were used for the economic interests of the Egyptians, the people of Puerto Rico and their land are being used for the economic interests of the U.S.A. In a very real sense, the people of Puerto Rico are slaves of the U.S.A. empire.

For the Puerto Rican masses, industrialization has simply been a disaster.  The monopolization of the economy has been accompanied and facilitated by the use of capital-intensive technology.  The greater amount of capital has increased output and productivity, but it has also contributed to Puerto Rico's severe unemployment problem.  Capital is more technology-directed than labor-directed, because of the increase of profits that can be brought about.  From 1962 to 1967, for firms organized under Operation Bootstrap, the average number of workers per factory declined from eighty to fifty-five.  In San Juan, the area of greatest employment, firms organized under this program have been able to provide only one job for every thirty-nine inhabitants. The entire petrochemical industry, one of the areas of heaviest investment by U.S.A. capital, has only been able to create seven thousand and seven hundred new jobs.  The petrochemical and petroleum industries, in fact, have provided only eight percent of the jobs that they promised at the beginning of their investment (James Dietz, ed., Puerto Rico: Class Struggle and National Liberation.  Riverside: Latin American Perspectives, 1976, p. 10).

Unemployment has been, and continues to be, a severe problem.  Officially, the unemployment rate is now around twenty-one percent (in a country where eleven to twelve percent is considered normal), but the actual rate may be closer to forty percent or more.  It is the large number of unemployed people which helps to keep wages in Puerto Rico relatively low.   Many Puerto Ricans cannot even be considered part of the reserve of unemployed since they are permanently unemployed.  They are among those who cannot find a productive place in society (Dietz, p. 10).

All the facts that have been cited serve to indicate and reflect the negative impact that the colonial impact has had on the people of Puerto Rico.  Undoubtedly, the economic difficulties of Puerto Rico stem from  the colonial occupation of the island by the U.S.A.  As the facts indicate, the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. is not intended to benefit the people of Puerto Rico.  The interests and well-being of the Puerto Rican people are obviously of minor concern to the U.S.A.   Therefore, it is both just and reasonable to conclude that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to initiate a process that will lead to their emancipation from the yoke of U.S.A. economic and political imperialism.  They should seek to "be brought out of the heavy work of Egypt (U.S.A. domination), and be liberated from its bondage, and be redeemed with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments (Exodus 6:6)."

The prophet Amos made announcements of judgment against those who exploited the poor and the oppressed (Amos 8:4-14).  Amos was living in a time when social injustice was prevalent in the society of Israel in his time. He denounced the people for violating the covenant which they had with the Creator.  Among other things, they were failing to do justice to those who were at a disadvantage. The widows were not being cared for, the orphans were neglected, and the workers were being robbed of their just wages. From this segment of Scriptures, one can conclude that the God who was concerned with the plight of socially handicapped in the society of Israel, is the same God that is concerned with the plight of exploited social groups and nations in our time.  The message of Amos has relevance for the people of Puerto Rico: God is on the side of those who are seeking to liberate Puerto Rico, and God is against those who are seeking to maintain Puerto Rico in a condition of subjugation.  Those who attempt to obstruct God's liberation of Puerto Rico are to be denounced and warned that their insistence on maintaining the domination of the Puerto Rican people will result in divine judgment against them.

In the time of Jesus, there was a religious group who exploited the weak in the name of religion.  It was the Pharisees who in the Jewish society of Jesus' day used religion as a means to achieve their ends.  The writers of the Synoptic Gospel accounts make it clear that Jesus did not agree with the Pharisees on many theological issues.  The Pharisees made use of their religious traditions in order to take advantage of those who were socially and economically handicapped.  Notable among them were the widows. Jesus spoke harshly against them for their treatment of the widows (Matthew 23: 1-36).  Any use of religion for personal gain or profit was severely condemned by Jesus. In the first chapter of this dissertation, I pointed out that the people of Puerto Rico have also experienced exploitation in the name of religion.  Religion, as I demonstrated, has served to justify the existing colonial situation. The words of Jesus against the Pharisees should indicate that God is not in agreement with the present political situation in Puerto Rico. especially since religion has been used to legitimize the present arrangement.  It is clear that the establishment and maintenance of an oppressed colony in the name of religion is against the divine will.  The words of Jesus indicate that He believed that religion should be used as instrument of liberation for humanity, and not one of subjugation as the Pharisees were using it.

In the Gospel according to Luke, there is a story of a man who had an encounter with Jesus (Luke 19: 1-10).  According to the story, he was a very rich man.  His conversation with Jesus implies that he had acquired his riches unjustly. He was willing to restore anything which he may have received by fraud.  In this story, there is a relation between faith and justice.  The man's faith was demonstrated in his willingness to reverse any injustice which he may have committed. From his example, way may conclude that the religious institution (the Church) demonstrates its faith by its willingness to participate in the struggle to reverse or eliminate a social injustice.  The illegal and immoral occupation of Puerto Rico is clearly an injustice.  It is a perfect example of a situation that calls for the involvement of the community of believers as a means of bringing about social change.  This is especially true when we consider that at certain points in history, the religious institution has been an instrument of exploitation and oppression.  Since that has been the case in the history of Puerto Rico, the story of the rich man should inspire the Church to show its faith by immersing itself in the struggle for the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico.

To state that the Church is called to be involved in the movement to eradicate social injustice, is to assume certain things about the nature of the Church and its role in the world.  I believe that it is proper to to see the connection between the Church and the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico.  The concept of the Church is rooted in the Old Testament notion of "the people of God (Exodus 6: 6-7)." The notion is that of a people that have been chosen from among the nations of the earth to enter into a relationship with God.  That relationship with God is not based on the decision of the people to establish that relationship, but rather on the initiative of God who chooses them to be God's people, and establishes the norms that govern that relationship.  There is no indication that this relationship is intended to be an end in itself.  The purpose of this relationship is to provide opportunity for the people of the world to be the beneficiaries of God's redemption of the world.

The Church is distinguished from the world by its faith.  It is that faith which sets the Church apart as a people of the covenant. In the New Testament, the faith of the Church is expressed as a confession of belief in Jesus the Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16: 13-20).  That confession of faith distinguishes the Christian community from those that do not choose or profess to be Christian.  The Church is an assembly of people that through their confession of faith in Jesus the Christ have become the people of God in the world.

As stated previously, the relationship between God and the people of God is not intended to be an end in itself. That relationship with God is the foundation for the role of the Church in the world.  That role is defined in the New Testament as "going out into all the world and proclaiming the good news (Mark 16:14-18)."  The good news is that reign of God is now a reality in human history (Matthew 3: 1-12). From the life and ministry of Jesus, we can learn that the Church's role is not merely fulfilled through verbal proclamation. The role is also carried out by acts of love and charity.  He healed the sick and brokenhearted (Matthew 4: 23-25). He showed concern for the poor and oppressed. He established ties of solidarity with those who were seeking to promote social justice (Matthew 5: 1-10).  In fact, Jesus said that the reign of God belongs to those who do everything possible to promote social justice (Ibid). From the life of Jesus we can see that the role of the people of God is carried out by the participation of the people in the struggle for the promotion for social justice.

A biblical understanding of the nature and role of the Church should naturally lead one to conclude that the Church should be involved in those movements which seek to carry out social justice.  As pointed out before, the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. is an example of injustice.  The land and the resources that should be used for the well-being of its inhabitants is now being used for the profit of an external power. There is no justice in the present situation.  It would not be wrong for us to conclude that the Christian Church should be doing whatever is in its power to eliminate this unjust situation.  If the Church is to be faithful to the task to which it has been called,  then it should be able to see that among other things, God is calling it to be involved in the movement for the independence of Puerto Rico.  To do otherwise would be to side with the oppressor.  To do that would be to contradict what the Church is supposed to stand for and represent in the world.  The Church is called to take a position that supports the struggle of the people of Puerto Rico to control their own national destiny.  In this way, the Church can truly be "the people of God" in the world.

Latin American Liberation Theology provides us with a framework within which a valid argument for the independence of Puerto Rico can be stated.  Since Puerto Rico is linguistically, culturally, and religiously part of Latin America, it is only proper that a theological argument for the self-determination of the Puerto Rican people should be based on the theology which has been developed in Latin America in recent years and decades.  To speak of Latin America is to speak of Puerto Rico for the reasons which I have indicated.  Latin America is in the southern realm of the Western world.  It shares the Western Hemisphere with the U.S.A., Canada, and the scattered remnants of European colonial power (Hubert Herring, History of Latin America.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968, p. 3).

As I indicated earlier, I am not using Liberation Theology as a mere "prooftext" for my political convictions. There is a definite parallel between the struggle for political independence of Puerto Rico and the biblical message of liberation.  I had noted that the liberation of the Hebrews was intended to be a model for the liberation of all oppressed and enslaved peoples.

One clear idea in Liberation Theology expressed by Gustavo Gutierrez is, "Liberation expresses the aspiration of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. 36)."

Gutierrez adds, "At a deeper level, liberation can be applied to an understanding of history. Humanity is seen as assuming conscious responsibility for its own identity.  This understanding provides a dynamic context and broadens the horizons of the desired social changes.  In this perspective, the unfolding of all of humanity's dimensions is demanded.  It is a demand for a person who makes herself/himself throughout her/his life and throughout history.  The gradual conquest of true freedom leads to the creation of a new person and a qualitatively different society. This vision provides, therefore, a better understanding of what in fact is at stake in our times (Gutierrez, p. 37)."

According to Gutierrez, "The concept of 'liberation' allows for an approach leading to the biblical sources which inspire the presence and action of humanity in history.  In the Bible, Christ is presented as the one who brings us liberation.  Christ the Savior liberates humanity from sin, which is the ultimate root of all disruption of friendship and of all injustice and oppression. Christ makes humanity truly free, that is to say, He enables humanity to live in communion with Him.  This communion with Christ is the basis for all human brotherhood/sisterhood (Gutierrez, p. 38)."

This definition of "liberation" indicates that Liberation Theology attempts to speak to a situation where nations and groups dominated by oppressive forces seek to free themselves from that situation.  As indicated, Liberation Theology seeks to apply the study of the person and work of Christ to the concrete historical reality in which Latin America exists at the present time.  Liberation Theology is the manifestation of a quest for a direct link between the Word of God as witnessed to in Scripture, and the existential reality of Latin America.  Liberation Theology speaks of a God who is concerned about the condition of dominated and oppressed people. In the thinking of Liberation theologians, God is not only concerned with the condition of oppressed people, but has also in the person of Jesus the Christ has initiated a process whereby they will be liberated from that oppression.

A better understanding of the concept of "liberation" can be provided by examining the concept of "development."  While development and liberation may be complementary in the thinking of some, in Latin American Liberation Theology, they are contradictory ideas.  By this I mean that "development" as normally defined and carried out, is precisely the reason why there is a theology of "liberation."  Gutierrez says that, "Development is normally synonymous with economic growth (Gutierrez, p. 24)."  This means that nations that are seeking self-sufficiency, will attain it by means of 'development,' such as the introduction of  modern techniques of industry and technology that are used by the more 'developed' countries.  But Liberation theologians point out that the concept of 'development' in practice is not beneficial to Latin America.  In fact, they believe that 'development' is detrimental to Latin America.  Gutierrez adds, " The poor countries are becoming ever more aware that their underdevelopment is only the by-product of the development of other countries because of the kind of relationship which exists between the rich and poor countries."  He also adds that the poor countries are realizing their own development will come about only with a struggle to break the domination of the rich countries (Gutierrez, p. 26).

As I indicated in the first chapter, the impact of industrialization as a means of economic development on Puerto Rico has been a rather negative one.  The economic policies that govern the relationship between the U.S.A. and Puerto Rico have not been designed to serve or promote the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico. But even more important than that, is that the occupation of Puerto Rico is illegal.  When the U.S.A. took possession of Puerto Rico in 1898, the people of Puerto Rico were not consulted as to what they believed the political future of Puerto Rico should be.  In other words, the U.S.A took possession of Puerto Rico without the consent of the Puerto Rican people.  Puerto Rico, then, is a dominated country which needs to be liberated from the domination of a foreign country and from the economic policies of 'development' which enable the the foreign country (U.S.A.) to tighten its control of the island.  Since that is the case, an argument for both political and economic control of Puerto Rico by the people of Puerto Rico can be made within the framework of Latin American Liberation Theology.  Liberation Theology calls for a Puerto Rico that would be governed by its owned people, and not by the people of a foreign country.  In addition, the economic development of Puerto Rico should not be based on the dependency which Puerto Rico presently has on the economic structure of the U.S.A. The people of Puerto Rico should be the ones to establish the economic system which they believe would best be suited for the well-being of the people of the island.

The case for the independence of Puerto Rico within the framework of Liberation Theology can be further developed by the political dimension of faith.  While there may be times when the Liberation theologians fail to be specific in terms of prescribing a specific program for the liberation of Latin America, this does not mean that they are abstract or that they use codes in order to avoid danger.  In fact, there are times when the content of their thinking is rather subversive in nature.  Their theology not only calls present structures in Latin America into question, but also demands an alteration in the present arrangement.  While the language of Liberation theologians may, at times, be encased in the academic language of traditional Western theology, it does not require a great amount of skill to detect that they are speaking to the "principalities and powers" in Latin America.

Hugo Assmann says that in the Third World, the struggle for liberation has now gone beyond the ideals of the revolutionary situations of France in 1789 and Russia in 1917.  In addition, he notes that in circumstances of a victorious technology in the service of domination on a world scale, the Third World revolution is anti-imperialistic (and on a national scale, anti-oligarchic ) and anti-technocratic. He says that it embraces the struggle for a universal share of goods sufficient to ensure the human dignity and the struggle for free decision-making at all social levels.  "This," says Assmann, "gives a new dimension to the primacy of politics; in Latin America, this is most evident in the resistance to development (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation.  London: Search Press, 1975, p. 34)." Other features of this urgent era of the new primacy of politics as an area of concern for Christians stem fro the circumstances directly affecting Latin America: the vulnerability of its exclusive social systems, with the need for self-preservation; the still relatively primitive organization of society; the chance for dissenting authorities to point out contradictions which the system cannot resolve, and a host of similar factors (Assmann, p. 34)."

To be continued.