Theology is Oppressive, Isn´t It?

Someone looking at the title of this essay, or in other words, ¨judging the book by its cover,¨ will say ¨What?¨  They will ask how a theologian can pose such a position.  People will ask me ¨If theology is oppressive, as you say it is, why then are you engaged in it?  Why are you teaching it?  Why do you write articles, essays, and treatises on it?"  These are fair and valid questions.  I  will attempt to answer those questions in the best way I can, without having the reader conclude that what I am doing is ¨dancing around the mulberry bush¨ and dodging the questions In the vein of a well-known African-American theologian, James Cone, I would say that if theology is done independently of the situation of oppressed and suffering people, it is demonic.  Any discourse which claims to have God as its ¨center,¨ and does not involve dialogue with suffering people, is preposterous at best, and totally dishonest and pseudo at worst.  Any conversation about God or gods, religiosity, spirituality, etc., which does not take into account human suffering is ¨bull dung.¨  Not only is it a waste of time, but it is also total blasphemy.  Any religious or theological enterprise which does not have human suffering as its main agenda, is nothing more, and nothing less than a self-absorbed one which needs to be which needs to be called into question, identified, unmasked, and totally denounced.  Any theology which legitimizes any human system of colonization, classism, racism, and sexism is totally false and has no place in the Christian tradition.  Any theology which uses or hides behind the Scriptures as a cloak or mantra to justify and validate oppression of any type is demonic and must be done away with.  The God who brings about human suffering must be assassinated.  We can no longer continue to place people on the sacrificial altar of ¨doctrinal purity." Theology must be in conversation with and respondent to the  reality of human suffering.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Theology and Life

Recently, when I returned from a trip to Taipei, where I attended a theological lecture, I had a conversation with one of my colleagues, reflecting on the content and nature of the lecture.  One of the questions that I always ask after attending such informative and interesting events is ¨Okay, what is the so what of all this?  What is the big deal?  What does theology have to do with life?  What does theology have to do with people who are trying to get the proverbial ¨cheese off the trucks (survive with dignity)?¨

I´ve had my enjoyable share of questioning lecturers, raising questions and listening to others also raise challenging and pertinent questions.  I hear lecturers talk about abstractions, speculations, and how they believe theology applies or does not apply to life.  The lectures are not only informative and interesting, but also stimulating.  Nonetheless, at the end of the day, we are still left with the question of what does theology have to do with life?

Is theology a head game?  Does it, like other branches of human knowledge, constitute ¨mental gymnastics?¨  Is it what theologian James Cone calls ¨intellectual masturbation?¨  I dare to ask the question ¨what the hell is theology?¨

In my early years of my spiritual journey, I was somewhat obsessed with ¨theological purity,¨ if indeed such an animal does exist.  I was concerned with establishing ¨right doctrine,¨ and with having people subscribe to it.  I thought that if we could only assemble various passages of Scripture into a coherent system, that we would then have as a result, what some Christians call ¨sound doctrine.¨  I thought that we could come up with a set of beliefs that would be applicably ¨universal and valid in all times and in all places.¨

Was I in for a rude awakening.  The more I studied the Bible, Church History, and the traditions, I learned that classical theology had little, if anything at all, to do with life.  I learned that issues such as the Trinity, the doctrine of demons and spirits, the issue of ¨free will vs. predestination,¨ the chronological sequence of events preceding the Second Coming of Christ, the issues of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, et. al., had nothing to do with people struggling with alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.

So you ask me, then, what does theology have to do with life?  I personally come from the point of view that theology takes place where ¨shit happens,¨ where people are struggling like  hell to make sense out of life as they struggle to survive, and where injustice of all kinds prevails.  Yes, this is, indeed, where God is being manifested.  God is being revealed where people are in agony and raising the cry ¨Is there anyone out there hear us?¨  God is being manifested when and where people are putting their lives ¨on the line¨ in the struggle for human rights.  God´s presence is made known wherever and whenever people are active in dismantling structures of oppression and social injustice. God is known when people say ¨hell no!¨ to dehumanization in whatever form we encounter it.

What, then, shall we do with classical theology?  Shall we hang it on a shelf and make it moot?  Shall we put it ¨on hold¨ until these other matters are settled?  This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that our theology should be one of ¨orthopraxis¨ (integration between theory and practice), and not so much an ¨orthodoxy (correct doctrine divorced from life)."  God calls us to discover the ¨true doctrine¨ in the agony and cry of our sisters and brothers around the world who suffer from whatever their sufferings may be called.  It is not the doctrine of the academy, nor the doctrine of the institutional Church.  It is the theology of life.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Penetrating Rigidity

One of the many things that lead us to be frustrated is encountering and engaging with people who are rigid in their opinions and views.  They can be views and opinions about political and social issues, religion, and en fin, about life itself, depending on their individual philosophy.  The question then becomes, ¨How can we crack that nut of rigidity?¨  I would pose the question as to whether we should even bother trying to crack the nut.

In Spanish there is the saying ¨Cada loco con su tema (each crazy one with her/his theme).¨  On another level, it means ¨to each her/his own.¨  Should we ¨throw in the towel,¨ give up, and allow each person to draw her/his own conclusions about life and about these issues?  Or should we continue to challenge and respond, even if it comes across as ¨badgering and harassment?¨ One side of me tends to say ¨the hell with it, let each person decide for themselves what is or isn´t true and leave it at that.¨ The other side of me says that we should continue to submit data in the hope that the person´s rigidity will give way to open-mindedness.  That reminded me of a discussion in my family some years back on a given issue. My brother-in-law said to me ¨You know Juan, you get me so angry when we are discussing these types of issues, because after we discuss them, we end up thinking just like you.¨  Of course, I had to chuckle to myself because his statement was that I had an uncanny ability to sway others to my way of thinking.

One of the many problems that we find with this type of scenario is that we encounter rigidity on both sides of the discussion.  One person or one group presents their position, which more often than not, is accompanied by the baggage of certain assumptions and presuppositions.  And then the respondents in turn, bring a similar baggage of assumptions and presuppositions.  Each side believes and claims to have more ¨objectivity¨ than the other.  Each side will claim that their position is based on ¨research and scientific data,¨ and accuse the other side of speaking on the basis of ¨hearsay, market-place rumors, barber-shop talk, etc.etc.  They will even add that the other side is speaking on the basis of ¨emotions and sentimentality.¨ Each side is adept at dismissing the other side´s position without taking into consideration the possibility of a minimum of truth in the opposing view.  An example of this would be one of my favorite sayings ¨If Satan says that two and two is four, then it has to be false just because Satan said it.¨  Another example would be that if Obamacare had Donald Trump´s name on it, Trump´s supporters would be behind it simply because his name was on it, regardless of its flaws and short-comings, real or perceived.

In the Christian community we find so many examples of rigidity in function.  Those who are entrenched in a position based on ¨what the Bible says,¨ and dismiss outright any challenges to their position based on a cultural and historical study of Scripture, and also tend to dismiss any claim based on the sciences.  They will even go as far as believing that these challenges are ¨ Satanically-inspired¨ because they ¨seek to undermine the truth of God´s Word.¨  And then there are those who on the basis of ¨scientific research¨ will bring in their own biases and rigidity, dismissing any claim to truth in the Scriptures, unless the claims ¨jibe¨ with the latest scientific discoveries.

How do we, then address the issue of rigidity?  Do we take the attitude of ¨Let it be, let it be?¨  Do we crack the nut by inviting people to examine their own assumptions and presuppositions? Do we hit people over the head with our set of ¨facts¨ and ¨Alternative Facts?¨

This writer (yours truly) is a stickler for dialogue.  This is not to say that dialogue is a panacea for the illness of rigidity.  But I strongly believe on the basis of experience and observation that dialogue can help us to break down the walls of defense, and subsequently minimize our rigidity.  In the areas of religion and theology, we need, in my humble opinion, to keep issues ¨on the table¨ in order to help us take a more open-minded approach to the issues.  We may never attain a full consensus on the issues themselves, but, at the very least, we can attain a consensus on the willingness to continue having what my wife Ruth calls ¨these hard conversations.¨

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Does God Give a Damn?

One of the many things that has happened in my spiritual journey is that I have gotten sick and tired.  Say what?  What do you mean, Juan, when you say ¨sick and tired?¨  I have become sick and tired of people insisting on things that God Herself/Himself does not insist on.  I am sick and tired of Christians who insist that we have to become enslaved to a sacred text called ¨the Bibe.¨  I am also sick and tired of Christians who insist on subscribing to their particular hermeneutic (interpretation) of the Bible.  I am even more sick and tired of Christians who believe that in order for us to have what they call a ¨saving relationship¨ with God that we have to subscribe to certain creeds and doctrines which, in turn, are based on their particular biblical hermeneutic.  Does this sound peculiar and strange for a Christian preacher/theologian?  No doubt, it does. But the fact remains that I am just plainly speaking, ¨sick and tired.¨

Nowhere in the Scriptures do I read that we need to become enslaved to the Scriptures themselves in order to have a relationship with God.   What I do read in Scriptures is that God allures us to Herself/Himself through love and not through fear of punishment or reprisal.  What I also find in Scripture is that we are drawn to the God who inspired the Scripture and not to the Scripture itself as a dead and lifeless text.

Nowhere do I find in Scripture that one must subscribe to a particular interpretation of the Bible in order to have a relationship with God.  As a matter of fact, the Scriptures do not lay out any particular procedure in order to establish and form a biblical hermeneutic.  That would be very difficult, given the diverse literary styles that we find in the Bible, as well as the variety of theological perspectives that we encounter in Scripture reading.

Nowhere do I find in Scripture that one must adhere or subscribe to a particular creed, doctrine, dogma, or statement of faith in order to have a relationship with God.  I will grant that in the Scriptures we find allusion to ¨sound doctrine¨ or ¨sound teaching.¨  Nevertheless, we face some problems relative to that.  For example, what do we mean when we speak about ¨sound doctrine?¨  Who establishes sound doctrine?  By what criteria does one determine what is or isn´t ¨sound doctrine?¨

At the end of the day, I find myself concluding that in essence, God does not give a damn about these things. What then, say ye, is God concerned about you ask?  The biblical witness points to ¨taking care of business.¨ Say what? What God calls is to do is to work for social justice, i.e. taking care of the orphan, the poor, the widow, the homeless, the unemployed, the underemployed, and en fin, all who are are on a continuous basis being destroyed by oppressive human policies and structures.  God wants us to dismantle structures of institutional classism, racism, sexism, also to dismantle those policies which result in the destruction of God´s creation, i.e. the environment.   These are the things that God gives a damn about. Get on board.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary

The Scriptures: Original or Borrowed?

One of the issues which is rarely, if ever, payed attention to by readers of the Bible is that of whether the writings of Scripture were original with the authors, or whether the authors borrowed from previous writings. For the person who takes a ¨literalist" approach to the Bible and believes that the Bible is the ¨inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God," the notion of borrowing from previous writings sounds like pure blasphemy.  Their view of inspiration does not leave much room for such a thing, especially if the previous writing or writings are not considered ¨divinely inspired," and if anything, to be attributed to a demonic or diabolical source.  Many people who read the Bible and claim to ¨believe in its message¨ ignore the fact that the sacred texts of other religions were written long before the Bible.  They also tend to ignore and overlook the fact that some of these previously written texts have contents similar to that of what we find in the Bible. The Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood are very similar, in some respects, to that of the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood.

In the Gospel accounts, we find that the writers who narrate the birth of Jesus, quote passages from the Old Testament and apply them to the things that occurred when Jesus was born.  When one examines these passages, one will find that what the writer intended (or for those who are strong in their beliefs, what the Holy Spirit intended through the writers) was far from the way it was understood and subsequently interpreted by the writers of the New Testament.

A question for those of us who take a faith approach rather than a literary approach would be ¨Does it really make any difference whether the writers borrowed from previous writings?¨  Would borrowing from previous writings vitiate the doctrine of divine inspiration?  Would it detract us from learning the lesson that God wants us to learn from the reading?  Does God´s sovereignty allow room for borrowing while being ¨inspired¨ and ¨supervised" by the Holy Spirit, or does believing in divine inspiration require us to assume that what the authors wrote was given directly to them by God without the filtering and mediation of culture, language, and history?

In the Doctoral-level classes which I am teaching at the Tainan Theological College/Seminary, I urge the students to be both creative and original in their writings.  I encourage them to write on a topic which has not been written on before.  Nevertheless, they know that when they write, they will have to demonstrate rigorous and serious research by quoting previously written documentation that supports their position.

Borrowing does not cancel out creativity as long as the writer is quick to document her/his sources of information.  At times we hear in Scripture the saying ¨As was said by the prophet.¨  Even when Jesus picked up the scroll of the book of Isaiah and said ¨This day the Scripture is fulfilled right before your very eyes,"  He did not attempt to deny or cover up the fact that He was quoting from a previously written text.

The Apostle Paul quoted from previously written poems that the people in his time were familiar with.  He utilized something that would appeal to his audience in order to effectively and faithfully get the message of the Gospel across.

Let us continue to search the Scriptures to ¨see if these things are so.¨  In the process, let us also check out previously written material, compare it with Scripture, and determine both the differences and the similarities. The study of comparative literature just might turn out to be a task enjoyable without measure.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary