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
Monday, October 31, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
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
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
Friday, October 14, 2016
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)