In these next three essays, I will be focusing on the three largest groups of Hispanics in the U.S.A. It has been previously indicated that by and large, Hispanic-Americans prefer to be identified with their country of origin. And though there are at least three generations of Hispanics, in general, they tend to hold on to their roots and cultural perspectives. We will begin with Mexican Americans, the oldest and largest group of Hispanics in the U.S.A.
We might begin by posing the question "How did Mexicans originate in the U.S.A.? Why did they come here in the first place?" The truth of the matter is that Mexicans have always been here. They did not originate in the U.S.A. per se, but indeed, originated in the land, much of which was stolen from them by the U.S.A. The mentality is, as pointed out in a previous essay, "We never crossed the border. The border crossed us."
The presence of Mexican in the U.S.A. is due primarily to the conquest and subsequent occupation of Mexico by Spain, beginning in 1519, and also the westward movement, or expansion across North America by English-speaking people not long after the thirteen British colonies on the continent's eastern seaboard won their independence from Britain. With the exhortation "Go west young man," ringing in their ears, the Anglo colonists settled the territory up to the banks of the Mississippi River between 1776 and 1800. A track of land extending from British North America, and from the Mississippi Rivers to the Rockies caused the American republic to double in size. The young nation was well on its way to consummating a mission in the making, a mission that would later be called "Manifest Destiny," an expansion westward to spread democracy and freedom which would culminate in the occupation by Anglo-Saxon Americans of a territory stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latin History. New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p. 66).
It is ironic that this westward expansion and subsequent land-theft took place soon after the thirteen colonies gained their independence and sovereignty, while at the same time, repeating the very same colonial history that they had been subjected to. It was truly a case of formerly occupied people now becoming the occupiers. It was the historical repetition of the oppressed become the oppressors. At his juncture, we can truly allude to the saying that those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat its errors.
A good deal of that territory between the Atlantic and the Pacific belonged to Mexico, and thus it was not long before the Anglos came into contact with the Mexicans. Around 1790, Kentucky mountain men came trespassing on Spanish-American land to trap beavers which were coveted for their furs. They trapped without licenses, and they traveled wherever they pleased. Sometimes their loot was confiscated, but no matter, they kept coming back for more. These frontier beaver trappers were grubby, bearded, and uncouth; they cussed and spat and picked fights nilly-willy. Often the native peoples and mestizos of New Mexico would hold perfumed to their noses if they had to stand next to the Anglo trappers. And so, the relationship between the fledgling United States and Mexico got off to a rough start (Novas, p. 66).
In an editorial he wrote in support of the annexation of Texas that ran in the July-August 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic review, a political and literary journal that was published in Washington beginning in 1837, John O'Sullivan, the magazine's cofounder and editor, put into words what the citizens of the nascent American republic had been feeling right from the start and coined "Manifest Destiny." In his editorial, O'Sullivan maintained that "our manifest destiny" is to overspread the continent alloted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." In a nutshell, Manifest Destiny was an Anglo-American version of the national supremacy theory and justified the aspirations of the United States to extend its borders "from sea to shining sea." The phrase took, and so did the sentiment. Politicians of all persuasions made mention of Manifest Destiny in articles and speeches everywhere, and they felt as full of imperialist zeal and purpose as the Spanish conquistadores had (Ibid, p. 67).
In the first half of the nineteenth century, the American republic would work especially hard at manifesting its destiny. Acquiring Mexican territory seemed like a logical step in American expansion, although the more extreme opponents of Manifest Destiny spoke of pushing America's borders as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far as Tierra del Fuego. Several Mexican observers have remarked that viewed from a different perspective, Manifest Destiny could have been called "The Mexican Fate,"since the nation that suffered the most from this doctrine was Mexico (Ibid).
In the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, some undocumented Mexicans crossed the border without guides, an extremely dangerous undertaking, then roamed the Southwest and California until finding work. Others were led or transported across the border after paying a large sum to smugglers, known as "coyotes," who profited in the millions in this human traffic. These practices continued until the 1990's, and are still prevalent today, but a policy of stricter law enforcement in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, first implemented in 1994 under Operation Gatekeeper, forced border crossers farther and farther of the beaten path and into remote desert areas of Eastern California and Arizona to avoid detection, making the crossing all the more perilous. In the years, 1993-96, almost 1,200 persons by official counts, lost their lives in border crossings due to exposure to heat and cold, dehydration, snakebites, injury, and murder (Ibid, p. 102).
Some with border crossing cards have managed to remain in the United States by buying round-trip airlines tickets to a destination far from the border as soon as they enter the country. Once in Chicago, Detroit, or some other place, they join friends or relatives who may have found them a job. In the old days, when security at U.S. ports was lax, they would sell their return airline tickets which provided enough income until the first paycheck. The new arrivals would then lose themselves in the crowd and join the vast underground economy- but, of course, without legal recourse, and always under the threat of discovery, arrest, and deportation (Ibid, p. 103).
From this history of land-theft, economic havoc, forced migration, and second-class treatment in the Diaspora of the U.S.A., we are confronted with the need for a theology which will be relevant in addressing the needs of our Mexican-American sisters and brothers. The theology needs to emerge from their historical and present-day experiences. It cannot be a "top-down" theology imported by the colonizers, who in fact, have forced them to migrate to the U.S.A. It has to be a theology that in essence says that God has heard the cry of the people. It must be a theology that puts God in solidarity with these victims of injustice and oppression.
Out of this reality, Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) will have to insist on their theology recognizing the process of liberation. This theology will have to introduce the concept of "mestizaje." Mexican-Americans have been discriminated against and considered inferiors because of the three races, indigenous, African, and Spanish. Chicano theology must take a new positive by using mestizaje symbolically to reinforce their identity, and their positive cultural attributes. This will have to be done in the same word "Black" once negative and derogatory, was symbolically given a positive and liberating meaning by black leaders (Aime Cesaire, Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972. p. 74).
Chicano leaders have to redirect the phenomenon of mestizaje strengthening their identity, toward letting the phenomenon give rise to to the struggle for equality and dignity. No one can do this for them; they must do it themselves (Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 160).
Theologically speaking, Mexican Americans must look for some alternatives for strengthening their history, culture, language, and dignity as human beings. The Church is one vehicle they can utilize provided they see the process of liberation taking place concerning education. There is a need to organize or institutionalize endeavor to move leadership back into the barrios of the Southwest and wherever Mexican Americans live in the Diaspora.
Only as long as theology addresses the condition of our Mexican American sisters and brothers in the Diaspora, can it be considered faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any theology which disregards or ignores these conditions and existential realities, is a "pseudo-theology," to which the Church must not adhere. The theology has to be a liberating theology which stresses God's salvific activity in the midst of agony, injustice, oppression, and suffering.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Monday, October 23, 2017
The Role of the Trinity in Hispanic-American Theology
Some years ago, a resident of the prison where I served as the Protestant chaplain, share with me the story of a young priest who was assigned to give religious instruction to the youth in the parish. On one particular occasion, he was to explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to them. He thought that hae would try to explain it to them in terms that they could understand. Subsequently, he used the terms "Dad, Junior, and the Spook" thinking that they would understand this as the equivalent of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. An equivalent attempt to do this in the Spanish language would be "Papa, Junior, y el Cuco."
Well, how do we explain the Trinity to people living in a situation of oppression and suffering, where those categories mean little, if anything? To people who are the victims of colonization, second-class citizenship and residency, facing inferior wages in the employment market, living in substandard conditions, and living in fear of does not matter whether God is one,two, or three persons. What matters to them is the relevance or non-relevance of God-talk to the socio-economic and political conditions in which they live in the Diaspora of the U.S.A. As one of my colleague theologian friends put it, Hispanic people in the U.S.A. are not concerned with theological abstractions and speculation, but rather with basic survival, or as he put it, "with getting the cheese off the trucks."
Just to briefly put things into historical perspective, the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. It came into vogue after the fourth century, during which time the Church was embroiled in a controversy concerning the nature of God and Jesus. The word "Trinity" was used to explain the relationship which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had with each other, without losing their distinct identities as individual persons.
This controversy became more complicated by the teachings of Arius, who believed that Jesus was created by God. In other words, he did not believe that Jesus was part of the Godhead or divine nature. He taught, based on his understanding of the New Testament, that Jesus was both inferior and subservient to God the Father. In essence, his theology made Jesus an inferior god, which in a sense, established a form of polytheism, which the Church was trying to avoid in its doctrinal formulations, and which he also, ironically enough was trying to avoid. The Arian doctrine strongly resembles the teachings of the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, who also believe that Jesus is subordinate to God, not only by role, but by nature.
Another complication was that of the teachings of Sabellious, who taught that God was revealed to humankind in three different modes or forms. Sabellius taught that at one time in history, God was revealed as Father, at another time as Son, and finally as Holy Spirit. In essence, Sabellian doctrine, or as it came to be known "Sabellian Modalism," promoted the idea of a trinity of roles, rather than a trinity of persons.
Finally, after the Emperor Constantine called for the Church to huddle and lay this matter to rest, the Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine states that God has been revealed to humankind in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are distinct as to person, but not as to nature. In other words, by nature, all three of them are divine, and can properly-speaking, be called "God." Needless to say, this position of the Church led to the allegation that the Christian religion is one of polytheism.
The systemic theological reflections on the Trinity of European or North American origins have traditionally drawn from biblical (mostly New Testament), patristic, scholastic, and contemporary sources, mediated by the philosophical and historical categories of each age. Within the advent of political theology in Europe and liberation-oriented theologies in the Third World within the last decades, contemporary trinitarian theologies address questions formerly regarded by theologians and non-theologians alike as the exclusive domain of the political sciences (Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. New York: Seabury Press, 1988, pp. 130-132).
This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the doctrines of the Church are a reflection of how in its thinking society should be arranged. Is the ancient doctrine of the Trinity one which at a certain period in history legitimized the gradual development of Christendom, i.e. a system where the Church governed society? Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, one which reflects the legitimization of a male-dominated society? With the advent of inclusive language in Scripture and in Christian theology, one wonders if the theological stance of the contemporary Church would be reflective of a different social order.
Hispanic theologians seek to develop their own trinitarian structure. Subsequently, they must take into account what other contemporary and past trinitarians have said. The Hispanic theologians cannot evade the toil and sweat of scholarly research and reflection. To pretend to replace the required intensity and level of scholarship with ill-conceived and pseudo-spiritual or practical theologies would amount to an escapist, non-professional theological praxis that would disqualify the Hispanic theologian as a responsible practitioner of the profession (Roberto Goizueta, Inaugural Presidential Discourse, Third Annual Meeting of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologian of the United States, 3-5 June 1990, Berkley, California).
Hispanic theologians retrieve and reformulate into their own theological milieu all that they see as true and methodologically sound; the theologians allow First World theological systems to stand critically before their belief system. They have also become acutely aware that their theology must be an even sharper critique of bourgeois and non-committed theologies that arise from a fatigued, post-modern North-hemispherical Western society (Metz, pp. 88-99).
Hispanic theologians know that their own methodology has to offer many elements, forgotten or utterly unknown, for the most part, to First World Western Colleagues. Although some of these elements are common to all theological latitudes, they all are more intensely lived and reflected upon within the Hispanic domain. This applies to Hispanic trinitarian theology (Sixto Garcia, "A Hispanic Approach to Trinitarian Theology: The Dynamics of Celebration, Reflection and Praxis" in We Are A People. Roberto S. Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 110).
A question that comes into play is whether or not Hispanic theology should be a trinitarian theology in the classical sense of the word? Should Hispanic-American theology reflect the contents of the historic creeds and doctrinal formulations of the Church? This theologian (yours truly) believes that since Hispanic-American and Latin-American theology is an anti-colonial theology which is not based on a Western biblical hermeneutic, that Hispanic-American theologians should develop their own conception of the nature and work of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, not based on a supposed Western cultural and theological superiority, but rather, within a framework of relationships of people engaged in the struggle for liberation from domination and dependency. The notion of God should reflect the just society that Liberation Theology, on the basis of its understanding of the Gospel, seeks to create.
The construction of a Hispanic-American trinitarian system begins, like any other Hispanic theological project, with the popular religious faith of the community. That community, in turn, reflects a faith which utilizes its situation of domination and oppression as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection (Garcia in Goizueta, p. 118).
A challenge for Hispanic-American theology lies in the following question: Should our theology follow the Catholic and Orthodox models of including experiences (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early Church), tradition, and Scripture in its formulations, or should it subscribe to the Reformation model of "Sola Scriptura?" Another possible model might be that of "Prima Scriptura," where the traditions and experiences in the Church carry weight, not unlike that of Scripture, but rather enough weight to be included in the formation of dogma.
This theologian, though Protestant, believes that if one is to be intellectually honest, that he/she must acknowledge that both the experiences and traditions of the Church gave way to the Scriptures, i.e. that the Scriptures came as a result of the presence of the Holy Spirit in and the traditions of the Church. To subscribe to the "Sola Scriptura" paradigm, is to deny the Spirit's role in the formation of the Church, and to invalidate or minimize the tradition, would be tantamount to believing and affirming that the Scriptures developed in a historical vacuum. Biblical theology, itself points to revelation coming to us through the mediation and the filtering of human experience.
In Roman Catholic theology, the role of Marianism is the hermeneutical key to the trinitarian experience of the Holy Spirit. Theologians from different Christian traditions agree that the biblical role of Mary as disciple, as hearer of the Word, and as the receptor of the Holy Spirit, can offer common points of ecumenical discussion and theologizing (Bertrand Buby, Mary: The Faithful Disciple. Mahwah, New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1985, p. 67).
This particular discussion underscores the role of Mary in the Hispanic perception of the unity and trinity in God. It is superfluous to be reminded of the traditionally seminal role that Mary has played through the centuries in Hispanic prayer, and liturgy. This reality springs from an old tradition that associates Mary with the salvific activity of Jesus and through Jesus with the Father and the Spirit. This Hispanic tradition can claim a foundational New Testament background, especially though not exclusively in the Gospel according to Luke ( Garcia in Goizueta, pp. 121-122).
In Hispanic Protestant theology, what we find is a conception of the Trinity which is based on an assemblage of Scripture passages. Very little, if any attention is given to the cultural and social contexts from which those particular Scripture passages emerged. Even less attention is paid to the literary form of those books in which those passages appear. The tendency in Protestant theology is to quote the Scriptures verbatim, and at the same time, disregard how the context colors the content of Scripture.
The future of the theology of the Trinity in the Hispanic churches will depend on the attitude of the Church. If the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches overemphasize the role of the tradition, then their trinitarian will be based on decisions that the Church made at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.; merely for the sake of antiquity in thinking that this position is preserving "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." On the other hand, if the Protestant churches continue to rely on the "Sola Scriptura" model in order to define the Trinity, then they will just end up recycling and regurgitating the mechanical and robotic citation of Scripture which do not lead to a well-thought-out theology.
The future of Hispanic-American "God-talk" will always depend on how the Church as the custodian of theology, interacts with its immediate environment, and how what is taking place in that environment, leads the Church in developing its self-understanding of God's revelation in Christ. The trinitarian theology of the Church must reflect the Church's engagement in the struggle for justice and liberation in the world. It cannot not be Nicene for the sake of being Nicene. Its trinitarian theology must reflect a God who has heard the cry of the people and descended to help them and deliver them from bondage.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Well, how do we explain the Trinity to people living in a situation of oppression and suffering, where those categories mean little, if anything? To people who are the victims of colonization, second-class citizenship and residency, facing inferior wages in the employment market, living in substandard conditions, and living in fear of does not matter whether God is one,two, or three persons. What matters to them is the relevance or non-relevance of God-talk to the socio-economic and political conditions in which they live in the Diaspora of the U.S.A. As one of my colleague theologian friends put it, Hispanic people in the U.S.A. are not concerned with theological abstractions and speculation, but rather with basic survival, or as he put it, "with getting the cheese off the trucks."
Just to briefly put things into historical perspective, the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. It came into vogue after the fourth century, during which time the Church was embroiled in a controversy concerning the nature of God and Jesus. The word "Trinity" was used to explain the relationship which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had with each other, without losing their distinct identities as individual persons.
This controversy became more complicated by the teachings of Arius, who believed that Jesus was created by God. In other words, he did not believe that Jesus was part of the Godhead or divine nature. He taught, based on his understanding of the New Testament, that Jesus was both inferior and subservient to God the Father. In essence, his theology made Jesus an inferior god, which in a sense, established a form of polytheism, which the Church was trying to avoid in its doctrinal formulations, and which he also, ironically enough was trying to avoid. The Arian doctrine strongly resembles the teachings of the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, who also believe that Jesus is subordinate to God, not only by role, but by nature.
Another complication was that of the teachings of Sabellious, who taught that God was revealed to humankind in three different modes or forms. Sabellius taught that at one time in history, God was revealed as Father, at another time as Son, and finally as Holy Spirit. In essence, Sabellian doctrine, or as it came to be known "Sabellian Modalism," promoted the idea of a trinity of roles, rather than a trinity of persons.
Finally, after the Emperor Constantine called for the Church to huddle and lay this matter to rest, the Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine states that God has been revealed to humankind in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are distinct as to person, but not as to nature. In other words, by nature, all three of them are divine, and can properly-speaking, be called "God." Needless to say, this position of the Church led to the allegation that the Christian religion is one of polytheism.
The systemic theological reflections on the Trinity of European or North American origins have traditionally drawn from biblical (mostly New Testament), patristic, scholastic, and contemporary sources, mediated by the philosophical and historical categories of each age. Within the advent of political theology in Europe and liberation-oriented theologies in the Third World within the last decades, contemporary trinitarian theologies address questions formerly regarded by theologians and non-theologians alike as the exclusive domain of the political sciences (Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. New York: Seabury Press, 1988, pp. 130-132).
This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the doctrines of the Church are a reflection of how in its thinking society should be arranged. Is the ancient doctrine of the Trinity one which at a certain period in history legitimized the gradual development of Christendom, i.e. a system where the Church governed society? Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, one which reflects the legitimization of a male-dominated society? With the advent of inclusive language in Scripture and in Christian theology, one wonders if the theological stance of the contemporary Church would be reflective of a different social order.
Hispanic theologians seek to develop their own trinitarian structure. Subsequently, they must take into account what other contemporary and past trinitarians have said. The Hispanic theologians cannot evade the toil and sweat of scholarly research and reflection. To pretend to replace the required intensity and level of scholarship with ill-conceived and pseudo-spiritual or practical theologies would amount to an escapist, non-professional theological praxis that would disqualify the Hispanic theologian as a responsible practitioner of the profession (Roberto Goizueta, Inaugural Presidential Discourse, Third Annual Meeting of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologian of the United States, 3-5 June 1990, Berkley, California).
Hispanic theologians retrieve and reformulate into their own theological milieu all that they see as true and methodologically sound; the theologians allow First World theological systems to stand critically before their belief system. They have also become acutely aware that their theology must be an even sharper critique of bourgeois and non-committed theologies that arise from a fatigued, post-modern North-hemispherical Western society (Metz, pp. 88-99).
Hispanic theologians know that their own methodology has to offer many elements, forgotten or utterly unknown, for the most part, to First World Western Colleagues. Although some of these elements are common to all theological latitudes, they all are more intensely lived and reflected upon within the Hispanic domain. This applies to Hispanic trinitarian theology (Sixto Garcia, "A Hispanic Approach to Trinitarian Theology: The Dynamics of Celebration, Reflection and Praxis" in We Are A People. Roberto S. Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 110).
A question that comes into play is whether or not Hispanic theology should be a trinitarian theology in the classical sense of the word? Should Hispanic-American theology reflect the contents of the historic creeds and doctrinal formulations of the Church? This theologian (yours truly) believes that since Hispanic-American and Latin-American theology is an anti-colonial theology which is not based on a Western biblical hermeneutic, that Hispanic-American theologians should develop their own conception of the nature and work of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, not based on a supposed Western cultural and theological superiority, but rather, within a framework of relationships of people engaged in the struggle for liberation from domination and dependency. The notion of God should reflect the just society that Liberation Theology, on the basis of its understanding of the Gospel, seeks to create.
The construction of a Hispanic-American trinitarian system begins, like any other Hispanic theological project, with the popular religious faith of the community. That community, in turn, reflects a faith which utilizes its situation of domination and oppression as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection (Garcia in Goizueta, p. 118).
A challenge for Hispanic-American theology lies in the following question: Should our theology follow the Catholic and Orthodox models of including experiences (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early Church), tradition, and Scripture in its formulations, or should it subscribe to the Reformation model of "Sola Scriptura?" Another possible model might be that of "Prima Scriptura," where the traditions and experiences in the Church carry weight, not unlike that of Scripture, but rather enough weight to be included in the formation of dogma.
This theologian, though Protestant, believes that if one is to be intellectually honest, that he/she must acknowledge that both the experiences and traditions of the Church gave way to the Scriptures, i.e. that the Scriptures came as a result of the presence of the Holy Spirit in and the traditions of the Church. To subscribe to the "Sola Scriptura" paradigm, is to deny the Spirit's role in the formation of the Church, and to invalidate or minimize the tradition, would be tantamount to believing and affirming that the Scriptures developed in a historical vacuum. Biblical theology, itself points to revelation coming to us through the mediation and the filtering of human experience.
In Roman Catholic theology, the role of Marianism is the hermeneutical key to the trinitarian experience of the Holy Spirit. Theologians from different Christian traditions agree that the biblical role of Mary as disciple, as hearer of the Word, and as the receptor of the Holy Spirit, can offer common points of ecumenical discussion and theologizing (Bertrand Buby, Mary: The Faithful Disciple. Mahwah, New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1985, p. 67).
This particular discussion underscores the role of Mary in the Hispanic perception of the unity and trinity in God. It is superfluous to be reminded of the traditionally seminal role that Mary has played through the centuries in Hispanic prayer, and liturgy. This reality springs from an old tradition that associates Mary with the salvific activity of Jesus and through Jesus with the Father and the Spirit. This Hispanic tradition can claim a foundational New Testament background, especially though not exclusively in the Gospel according to Luke ( Garcia in Goizueta, pp. 121-122).
In Hispanic Protestant theology, what we find is a conception of the Trinity which is based on an assemblage of Scripture passages. Very little, if any attention is given to the cultural and social contexts from which those particular Scripture passages emerged. Even less attention is paid to the literary form of those books in which those passages appear. The tendency in Protestant theology is to quote the Scriptures verbatim, and at the same time, disregard how the context colors the content of Scripture.
The future of the theology of the Trinity in the Hispanic churches will depend on the attitude of the Church. If the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches overemphasize the role of the tradition, then their trinitarian will be based on decisions that the Church made at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.; merely for the sake of antiquity in thinking that this position is preserving "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." On the other hand, if the Protestant churches continue to rely on the "Sola Scriptura" model in order to define the Trinity, then they will just end up recycling and regurgitating the mechanical and robotic citation of Scripture which do not lead to a well-thought-out theology.
The future of Hispanic-American "God-talk" will always depend on how the Church as the custodian of theology, interacts with its immediate environment, and how what is taking place in that environment, leads the Church in developing its self-understanding of God's revelation in Christ. The trinitarian theology of the Church must reflect the Church's engagement in the struggle for justice and liberation in the world. It cannot not be Nicene for the sake of being Nicene. Its trinitarian theology must reflect a God who has heard the cry of the people and descended to help them and deliver them from bondage.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Women in Latin American Theology
One of the many issues in focusing on Hispanic-American theology is that of women. Since Liberation Theology, of which Hispanic-American theology is a part, focuses specifically on oppression and suffering, our attention here is given to women as an oppressed and suffering group. Whereas, in Latin America, women are oppressed on the basis of both gender and social class, in the U.S.A., women are oppressed on the basis of ethnic/racial discrimination as well as on the basis of gender and class. And for those Hispanic-American women who have an African background, the ethnic/racial discrimination constitutes a fourth layer of oppression.
Every kind of human thought maintains an intrinsic relation to the historical context in which it originates and to which it seeks to respond, whether to transform or to legitimize the context. Theology is not exempt from this principle, even when one acknowledges the internal structure of theology as a discipline that reflects upon the experience of faith in the light of revelation (Maria Pilar Aquino, "Doing Theology from the Perspective of Latin American Women," in We Are A People. Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p.79.
Theology, "try as it might to flee from historical objectivity, and to isolate itself in inter-religious discourse," almost always performs a historical function and enters into a relationship with the surrounding culture. At times, it is offering resistance to new cultural categories and legitimizing the established order against which those who struggle for a new order. At other times, it is receiving with approval the new cultural climates, reformulating the faith in accord with these new climates, exercising a critical and evangelical function, and making possible or supporting changes in the direction of greater justice (J.J. Tamayo-Acosta, Para Comprender la Teologia de la Liberacion. Estrella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 1989, p. 53).
In this sense, the theology articulated from the perspective of women commits itself to the needs, interests, and hopes of oppressed women who join their energies to those of other women and men in the construction of new social and ecclesial realities where egalitarian participation, human integrity, and life for all will be possible, and where women and men will be able to realize their full potential, thus foreshadowing the New Creation initiated by Jesus Christ. Our reflection is based on women's physical and spiritual experiences of oppression-liberation; it understands the historical present as the place where God's manifestation takes place, and it wants to respond to that manifestation within the horizon of the Christian faith. We are thus speaking here of a task that is undertaken out of these experiences of the Christian communities that struggle for their liberation and for an end to the age-old history of exploitation, colonial oppression, increasing impoverishment, and inhuman subjugation to which the great majority of Latin Americans, especially women, are exposed. The existence of these women is also affected by the patriarchal structures and the systemic machismo that relegate them to a subordinate place. This clarification will help the reader to understand the framework and emphases of women's contribution to this issue (Pilar Aquino in Goizueta, p. 80).
The second point refers to the limit and challenges one confronts when doing theology from the perspective of women. Since this is a perspective only recently explored in the history of the Church and theology, Latin Americans and Hispanics in the U.S.A believe that in our context, though there have already been significant contributions, this is a task yet to be more fully undertaken. Latin American and Hispanic-American women ought to engage in this task with all their energies alongside women from every corner of the earth, since they share the most profound longings of the oppressed in their eagerness to renew all things, i.e. to incorporate in the social and ecclesial orders, and in the processes of knowledge, the constitutive expression of humanity, women and men, both destined to enjoy the fullness of life in communion with the earth and with the whole of creation (Ibid.,p 81).
Discrimination against women in the Church is one of the most clear examples of the violation of human rights. Women make up at least half of the faithful and women religious are ten times the number of their male counterparts. However (from a Catholic standpoint), they are juridically considered to incapable of almost any leadership function, rarely present in secretariats, commissions, and sacred congregations. Due to cultural tradition as well as the historical expression of the Word of God, they are excluded from ministerial duties associated with the sacraments of orders (Leonardo Boff, Church: Charism & Power, Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985, p.35).
In his book, A Chicano Theology, Andres Guerrero makes reference to Dolores Huerta, who at the time of writing was the vice-president of the United Farm Workers, and together with Cesar Chavez, devoted her life to the fight for justice and dignity for farm workers. She says "The Church has been responsible for a lot of the machismo because it does not do anything to counteract it. I think it is important that the Church take a role and make moral statement which has not been done. It's a male-dominated Church. The churches are all male-dominated, and the roles they have for women are all male-dominated roles, in spite of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Even in the whole idea of children-which I think is very important-the Church as done nothing in terms of helping women with these children. The Catholic Church should be number one in terms of setting up educational facilities for children, and they should be helping Latina women who have such tremendous cultural problems in this country with their kids. Yet, the Church is doing very little (Dolores Huerta in Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 40)."
Kortright Davis alludes to this issue of women leadership. While his focus is on the English-speaking Caribbean, much of what he says is also applicable to the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, which is culturally-speaking, part of Latin America and of the Hispanic Diaspora of the U.S.A. He says "Women are by far the more dominant sector, numerically in the life of the Church in the Caribbean, just as they are in other areas of the Christian world. The lifeblood of the church would be seriously malnourished if women were to withdraw their full participation and support. Yet church leaders continue to be ambivalent and hesitant about the significance of such participation and about the value of women in the leadership structures of the Christian movement. Can women be ordained? Some people in the Caribbean doubt it. Many more are decidedly against such a proposition. Caribbean society has been overwhelmingly a matriarchal society. Women have played the dominant and leading roles in the survival and shaping of the Caribbean. They have been the shapers of the Caribbean conscience, for they have nurtured most of these consciences singlehandedly, or carried many on their backs and cradled them in their arms (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin': Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 90-91)."
Davis adds: "Caribbean women have indeed been the major preservers of the Caribbean cultural foundations. They have even provided most of the plantation labor, especially in the export crops that have provided bread for the region and profits for the wealthy outside the region. Their ministry and service in the Church and society are without question. The Church has an inescapable obligation to improve the lot of women in every possible way-not only through ordination, but also through a recognition of the significance of motherhood and feminine strength, and a determination to secure the rights and privileges of women (Ibid, p. 91)."
Latin American women doing theology of liberation attempt to recover a right that has been usurped: the right to reflect upon their unique way of expressing revelation and living their faith as a liberating force rather than as a source of oppression. They want to recover the right to express their experience of faith out of the integrity of their being so that the theological intelligence in its configuration, structure, method, and contents will promote the fulfillment of women as subjects in their own right. This enterprise, though not unique to women, is required of them in the face of the male-centered focus of theology currently articulated by men, including those who take a liberationist perspective (Pilar Aquino in Goizueta, p. 83).
Latin American feminist Liberation Theology assumes the option for the poor as its hermeneutical perspective and the social location for its theological task. This option is the fundamental and necessary principle for articulating the intelligibility of the faith in a way that will remain open to the actual reality and the divine manifestations it contains. The existence of massive poverty, the immeasurable suffering of whole peoples, and the longstanding oppression of women cannot but influence this theology at its very core. The option for the poor is demanded by reality itself and represents the necessary, honest, and appropriate response to reality. At a more fundamental level, such an option is demanded by the sources of biblical liberating traditions, the praxis of Jesus, the early Christian movement, and the prophetic movements that have occurred in the history of the Church and society. As an enterprise that articulates the language of faith, theology from the perspective of women understands itself as tied to the great current of popular movements that seek to eradicate existing inequalities; it is based on the experiences of this people in search of alternative realities, and seeks to contribute, from the horizon of the Christian faith, to this people's liberating journey (Ibid, p. 95).
En fin, what we are faced with is the reality that the Church has to address issues of oppression of women within its ranks. The Church cannot afford to "sweep under the rug" the issues of the theological justification and rationales for maintaining women in subservient roles. The Church is called to be proactive in seeking to dismantle within itself, all the structures of injustice. In order to do this, the Church needs to construct and adopt a biblical hermeneutic that will enable it to be faithful, effective, and responsible in carrying out its task of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Every kind of human thought maintains an intrinsic relation to the historical context in which it originates and to which it seeks to respond, whether to transform or to legitimize the context. Theology is not exempt from this principle, even when one acknowledges the internal structure of theology as a discipline that reflects upon the experience of faith in the light of revelation (Maria Pilar Aquino, "Doing Theology from the Perspective of Latin American Women," in We Are A People. Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p.79.
Theology, "try as it might to flee from historical objectivity, and to isolate itself in inter-religious discourse," almost always performs a historical function and enters into a relationship with the surrounding culture. At times, it is offering resistance to new cultural categories and legitimizing the established order against which those who struggle for a new order. At other times, it is receiving with approval the new cultural climates, reformulating the faith in accord with these new climates, exercising a critical and evangelical function, and making possible or supporting changes in the direction of greater justice (J.J. Tamayo-Acosta, Para Comprender la Teologia de la Liberacion. Estrella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 1989, p. 53).
In this sense, the theology articulated from the perspective of women commits itself to the needs, interests, and hopes of oppressed women who join their energies to those of other women and men in the construction of new social and ecclesial realities where egalitarian participation, human integrity, and life for all will be possible, and where women and men will be able to realize their full potential, thus foreshadowing the New Creation initiated by Jesus Christ. Our reflection is based on women's physical and spiritual experiences of oppression-liberation; it understands the historical present as the place where God's manifestation takes place, and it wants to respond to that manifestation within the horizon of the Christian faith. We are thus speaking here of a task that is undertaken out of these experiences of the Christian communities that struggle for their liberation and for an end to the age-old history of exploitation, colonial oppression, increasing impoverishment, and inhuman subjugation to which the great majority of Latin Americans, especially women, are exposed. The existence of these women is also affected by the patriarchal structures and the systemic machismo that relegate them to a subordinate place. This clarification will help the reader to understand the framework and emphases of women's contribution to this issue (Pilar Aquino in Goizueta, p. 80).
The second point refers to the limit and challenges one confronts when doing theology from the perspective of women. Since this is a perspective only recently explored in the history of the Church and theology, Latin Americans and Hispanics in the U.S.A believe that in our context, though there have already been significant contributions, this is a task yet to be more fully undertaken. Latin American and Hispanic-American women ought to engage in this task with all their energies alongside women from every corner of the earth, since they share the most profound longings of the oppressed in their eagerness to renew all things, i.e. to incorporate in the social and ecclesial orders, and in the processes of knowledge, the constitutive expression of humanity, women and men, both destined to enjoy the fullness of life in communion with the earth and with the whole of creation (Ibid.,p 81).
Discrimination against women in the Church is one of the most clear examples of the violation of human rights. Women make up at least half of the faithful and women religious are ten times the number of their male counterparts. However (from a Catholic standpoint), they are juridically considered to incapable of almost any leadership function, rarely present in secretariats, commissions, and sacred congregations. Due to cultural tradition as well as the historical expression of the Word of God, they are excluded from ministerial duties associated with the sacraments of orders (Leonardo Boff, Church: Charism & Power, Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985, p.35).
In his book, A Chicano Theology, Andres Guerrero makes reference to Dolores Huerta, who at the time of writing was the vice-president of the United Farm Workers, and together with Cesar Chavez, devoted her life to the fight for justice and dignity for farm workers. She says "The Church has been responsible for a lot of the machismo because it does not do anything to counteract it. I think it is important that the Church take a role and make moral statement which has not been done. It's a male-dominated Church. The churches are all male-dominated, and the roles they have for women are all male-dominated roles, in spite of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Even in the whole idea of children-which I think is very important-the Church as done nothing in terms of helping women with these children. The Catholic Church should be number one in terms of setting up educational facilities for children, and they should be helping Latina women who have such tremendous cultural problems in this country with their kids. Yet, the Church is doing very little (Dolores Huerta in Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 40)."
Kortright Davis alludes to this issue of women leadership. While his focus is on the English-speaking Caribbean, much of what he says is also applicable to the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, which is culturally-speaking, part of Latin America and of the Hispanic Diaspora of the U.S.A. He says "Women are by far the more dominant sector, numerically in the life of the Church in the Caribbean, just as they are in other areas of the Christian world. The lifeblood of the church would be seriously malnourished if women were to withdraw their full participation and support. Yet church leaders continue to be ambivalent and hesitant about the significance of such participation and about the value of women in the leadership structures of the Christian movement. Can women be ordained? Some people in the Caribbean doubt it. Many more are decidedly against such a proposition. Caribbean society has been overwhelmingly a matriarchal society. Women have played the dominant and leading roles in the survival and shaping of the Caribbean. They have been the shapers of the Caribbean conscience, for they have nurtured most of these consciences singlehandedly, or carried many on their backs and cradled them in their arms (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin': Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 90-91)."
Davis adds: "Caribbean women have indeed been the major preservers of the Caribbean cultural foundations. They have even provided most of the plantation labor, especially in the export crops that have provided bread for the region and profits for the wealthy outside the region. Their ministry and service in the Church and society are without question. The Church has an inescapable obligation to improve the lot of women in every possible way-not only through ordination, but also through a recognition of the significance of motherhood and feminine strength, and a determination to secure the rights and privileges of women (Ibid, p. 91)."
Latin American women doing theology of liberation attempt to recover a right that has been usurped: the right to reflect upon their unique way of expressing revelation and living their faith as a liberating force rather than as a source of oppression. They want to recover the right to express their experience of faith out of the integrity of their being so that the theological intelligence in its configuration, structure, method, and contents will promote the fulfillment of women as subjects in their own right. This enterprise, though not unique to women, is required of them in the face of the male-centered focus of theology currently articulated by men, including those who take a liberationist perspective (Pilar Aquino in Goizueta, p. 83).
Latin American feminist Liberation Theology assumes the option for the poor as its hermeneutical perspective and the social location for its theological task. This option is the fundamental and necessary principle for articulating the intelligibility of the faith in a way that will remain open to the actual reality and the divine manifestations it contains. The existence of massive poverty, the immeasurable suffering of whole peoples, and the longstanding oppression of women cannot but influence this theology at its very core. The option for the poor is demanded by reality itself and represents the necessary, honest, and appropriate response to reality. At a more fundamental level, such an option is demanded by the sources of biblical liberating traditions, the praxis of Jesus, the early Christian movement, and the prophetic movements that have occurred in the history of the Church and society. As an enterprise that articulates the language of faith, theology from the perspective of women understands itself as tied to the great current of popular movements that seek to eradicate existing inequalities; it is based on the experiences of this people in search of alternative realities, and seeks to contribute, from the horizon of the Christian faith, to this people's liberating journey (Ibid, p. 95).
En fin, what we are faced with is the reality that the Church has to address issues of oppression of women within its ranks. The Church cannot afford to "sweep under the rug" the issues of the theological justification and rationales for maintaining women in subservient roles. The Church is called to be proactive in seeking to dismantle within itself, all the structures of injustice. In order to do this, the Church needs to construct and adopt a biblical hermeneutic that will enable it to be faithful, effective, and responsible in carrying out its task of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Friday, October 20, 2017
The Role of Marianism in Hispanic-American Theology
One of the many areas that needs to be examined in both Latin-American and Hispanic-American theology is that of Marianism. Many in the Protestant tradition are hesitant to even talk about this because they believe that Marianism (veneration and respect for Mary the mother of Jesus) borders on Mariolatry (the deification and worship of Mary). In this essay, I seek to make a distinction between the two, and also to explore the role that Marianism plays in the Hispanic community in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.
We begin with the issue of the "Theotokos." In the Greek language, this word means "God-bearer." In the theology of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, the theology of the Theotokos is that in her human body, the Virgin Mary bore the incarnate Son of God. In some cases, this concept of "God-bearer" has been conceptually translated as "Mother of God." The concept of "Mother of God" alienates Protestant Christians, because in their minds, Mary is being elevated to the status of God, and therefore, resulting in worship of Mary. They ask "How can Mary be the Mother of God if God created us all, and in chronological order precedes us all?" In asking these types of questions, and in closing off further discussion on the matter, they fail to realize that what their Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers are saying is that Mary is the Mother of the incarnate God. But then, in saying this, Protestants fail to realize that the Scriptures affirm the idea of the "God-Man," that we cannot divide the human from the divine nature of Jesus. The fact that the Scriptures emphasize that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), and that "God was manifest in the flesh" ( 1 Timothy 3:16) is a strong indication that biblically-speaking, we cannot separate the divine from the human nature in Jesus.
In Hispanic-American theology, popular religiosity is a praxis that in reenacting the suffering of our people, simultaneously reminds us that suffering is not the last word. It is no coincidence that the crucified Jesus and the Virgin Mary are so central to U.S. Hispanic popular religiosity. By identifying with the anguish of the Crucified, we recall the anguish of our people, which like the cross, is the seedbed of our our liberation. By identifying with Mary, especially in her various manifestations, we likewise recall her special concern for the downtrodden, reflected in the fact that those whom she chooses as her messengers are usually poor people of indigenous, mestizo, or mulatto background. When we look at Mary, we see the visage of our people (Roberto Goizueta, "Rediscovering Praxis: The Significance of U. S. Hispanic for Theological Method," in We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology. Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 68).
One of the examples of how Mary plays a role in the history and theology of Hispanic people (especially those of Mexican origin) is pronouncements by the Catholic Church and its leaders. In 1660, the Catholic Church declared that " Our Lady of Guadalupe is the Blessed Virgin Mary" (Helen Behrens, America's Treasure: The Virgin of Guadalupe. Mexico, 1955, p. 18). In 1574, Pope Benedict XIV said of Mexico "God has not done likewise with any other nation. We declare Our Lady of Guadalupe to be recognized, invoked, and venerated Patroness and Protector of Mexico (Ibid)."
To understand the symbol of Guadalupe is to understand the essence of being Mexican. Traditionally, this essence carried over to Chicanos in the American Southwest, where the symbol of Guadalupe exists vividly. Almost every Chicano city has a church named Guadalupe. A major river in Texas is named the Guadalupe River. Many Chicanos, both male and female, bear her name Guadalupe, who like Jesus, is very real to us. We are constantly reminded of her presence by the names of our relatives and friends ( Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 96).
The claim is made that Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego, an Aztec, on December 9, 1531. Every Saturday after his and his wife's baptism, Juan would pass by the hill of Tepeyac as he walked the two miles from Tolpetiac to Tlatelolco to hear our Blessed Lady's Mass sung at dawn. One morning he heard music coming from the top of the hill. As he approached to investigate, a young woman, an Aztec appeared to him. She asked that a temple be built in her honor. She also said "I will give all my love and motherly compassion for those who seek my aid (Behrens, p. 18)."
La Virgen de Tepeyac is the very core to understanding the struggle of the contemporary Mexican, born out of the violent intercourse of Spain and Mexico-of the Old World father and the New World mother. Each generation of Mexicans has been able to see mirrored in tilma (cloak) the reflections of its sufferings, struggles, and ideals (Virgilio Elizondo, La Morenita: Evangelizer of the Americas. San Antonio: Mexican American Cultural Center, 1980, p. 34).
Like Mary, we suffer at the foot of the cross, and like Mary, we are emboldened by the news that "He is risen." Our solidarity with Jesus is thus, at the same time, the source of the hope that compels us to struggle for justice (Goizueta, p. 6).
Now, the above-mentioned talks about the role that Mary plays among the oppressed of Latin America in general, and the people of Mexico in particular. The information demonstrates how she is seen in Latin American Catholicism.
We might ask, "How about the role of Mary in Scripture and in Protestant theology?" In the story of the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 2), it is mentioned that when the wine had run out, Mary took advantage of the situation to display the power of her son. After some apparent tension between her and Jesus relative to His display of power, Mary said to the people present "Do whatever He tells you." It was like she was not only exercising her role as Jesus's mother, but also assuming authority for herself by telling the people what to do. This brings us to the issue of the writer of Hebrews referring to Jesus as our "Elder Brother (Hebrews: 2: 11-15)." It raises the question that if Mary was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is then our brother, does that not imply that Mary is also our mother? Protestants would give a resounding "No!" because in their mind, that would be elevating Mary above even Jesus. Again, they fail to differentiate between Marianism and Mariolatry. If the Scriptures inform us that Jesus is God incarnate, and that we cannot separate His two natures, can we not then make room for Mary being more than merely the earthly mother of Jesus? And in the same way that we revere our earthly mothers, a responsible biblical theology would call for us to venerate and give special respect to the Mother of God without falling into the trap of Mariolatry. As we continue to pursue how theology is done among Hispanic-Americans, we will also pursue a study of the theological implications of engaging in responsible "God-talk" in the context of a subjugated and oppressed people in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
We begin with the issue of the "Theotokos." In the Greek language, this word means "God-bearer." In the theology of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, the theology of the Theotokos is that in her human body, the Virgin Mary bore the incarnate Son of God. In some cases, this concept of "God-bearer" has been conceptually translated as "Mother of God." The concept of "Mother of God" alienates Protestant Christians, because in their minds, Mary is being elevated to the status of God, and therefore, resulting in worship of Mary. They ask "How can Mary be the Mother of God if God created us all, and in chronological order precedes us all?" In asking these types of questions, and in closing off further discussion on the matter, they fail to realize that what their Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers are saying is that Mary is the Mother of the incarnate God. But then, in saying this, Protestants fail to realize that the Scriptures affirm the idea of the "God-Man," that we cannot divide the human from the divine nature of Jesus. The fact that the Scriptures emphasize that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), and that "God was manifest in the flesh" ( 1 Timothy 3:16) is a strong indication that biblically-speaking, we cannot separate the divine from the human nature in Jesus.
In Hispanic-American theology, popular religiosity is a praxis that in reenacting the suffering of our people, simultaneously reminds us that suffering is not the last word. It is no coincidence that the crucified Jesus and the Virgin Mary are so central to U.S. Hispanic popular religiosity. By identifying with the anguish of the Crucified, we recall the anguish of our people, which like the cross, is the seedbed of our our liberation. By identifying with Mary, especially in her various manifestations, we likewise recall her special concern for the downtrodden, reflected in the fact that those whom she chooses as her messengers are usually poor people of indigenous, mestizo, or mulatto background. When we look at Mary, we see the visage of our people (Roberto Goizueta, "Rediscovering Praxis: The Significance of U. S. Hispanic for Theological Method," in We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology. Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 68).
One of the examples of how Mary plays a role in the history and theology of Hispanic people (especially those of Mexican origin) is pronouncements by the Catholic Church and its leaders. In 1660, the Catholic Church declared that " Our Lady of Guadalupe is the Blessed Virgin Mary" (Helen Behrens, America's Treasure: The Virgin of Guadalupe. Mexico, 1955, p. 18). In 1574, Pope Benedict XIV said of Mexico "God has not done likewise with any other nation. We declare Our Lady of Guadalupe to be recognized, invoked, and venerated Patroness and Protector of Mexico (Ibid)."
To understand the symbol of Guadalupe is to understand the essence of being Mexican. Traditionally, this essence carried over to Chicanos in the American Southwest, where the symbol of Guadalupe exists vividly. Almost every Chicano city has a church named Guadalupe. A major river in Texas is named the Guadalupe River. Many Chicanos, both male and female, bear her name Guadalupe, who like Jesus, is very real to us. We are constantly reminded of her presence by the names of our relatives and friends ( Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 96).
The claim is made that Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego, an Aztec, on December 9, 1531. Every Saturday after his and his wife's baptism, Juan would pass by the hill of Tepeyac as he walked the two miles from Tolpetiac to Tlatelolco to hear our Blessed Lady's Mass sung at dawn. One morning he heard music coming from the top of the hill. As he approached to investigate, a young woman, an Aztec appeared to him. She asked that a temple be built in her honor. She also said "I will give all my love and motherly compassion for those who seek my aid (Behrens, p. 18)."
La Virgen de Tepeyac is the very core to understanding the struggle of the contemporary Mexican, born out of the violent intercourse of Spain and Mexico-of the Old World father and the New World mother. Each generation of Mexicans has been able to see mirrored in tilma (cloak) the reflections of its sufferings, struggles, and ideals (Virgilio Elizondo, La Morenita: Evangelizer of the Americas. San Antonio: Mexican American Cultural Center, 1980, p. 34).
Like Mary, we suffer at the foot of the cross, and like Mary, we are emboldened by the news that "He is risen." Our solidarity with Jesus is thus, at the same time, the source of the hope that compels us to struggle for justice (Goizueta, p. 6).
Now, the above-mentioned talks about the role that Mary plays among the oppressed of Latin America in general, and the people of Mexico in particular. The information demonstrates how she is seen in Latin American Catholicism.
We might ask, "How about the role of Mary in Scripture and in Protestant theology?" In the story of the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 2), it is mentioned that when the wine had run out, Mary took advantage of the situation to display the power of her son. After some apparent tension between her and Jesus relative to His display of power, Mary said to the people present "Do whatever He tells you." It was like she was not only exercising her role as Jesus's mother, but also assuming authority for herself by telling the people what to do. This brings us to the issue of the writer of Hebrews referring to Jesus as our "Elder Brother (Hebrews: 2: 11-15)." It raises the question that if Mary was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is then our brother, does that not imply that Mary is also our mother? Protestants would give a resounding "No!" because in their mind, that would be elevating Mary above even Jesus. Again, they fail to differentiate between Marianism and Mariolatry. If the Scriptures inform us that Jesus is God incarnate, and that we cannot separate His two natures, can we not then make room for Mary being more than merely the earthly mother of Jesus? And in the same way that we revere our earthly mothers, a responsible biblical theology would call for us to venerate and give special respect to the Mother of God without falling into the trap of Mariolatry. As we continue to pursue how theology is done among Hispanic-Americans, we will also pursue a study of the theological implications of engaging in responsible "God-talk" in the context of a subjugated and oppressed people in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Issues in Hispanic-American Theology: The Role of Scripture Among Hispanic Americans
One of the various issues to be dealt with in Hispanic-American theology is that of the role of the Bible. We begin by acknowledging that in both the Catholic and the Protestant traditions, as well as in other independent Christian communities of the Hispanic-American Diaspora, that the Bible plays a very important role. Up until the time of Vatican II, Hispanics in the U.S.A. had to content with the issue of language. To begin with, up until that time, the Mass in the Catholic churches was conducted in Latin. Secondly, the language spoken by the majority of Hispanics in the U.S.A. especially by those of of the first and second generations was Spanish. And thirdly, many of the Hispanic Catholic parishes were shepherded by non-Spanish-speaking priests, so that the congregants celebrated in English, a language which they had a difficult time understanding and becoming accustomed to.
In the Protestant churches (especially the Pentecostal churches), the worship services were conducted in the Spanish language. Second-generation Hispanic youth (including yours truly) learned how to read Spanish by reading the Bible. Our world revolved around the Bible and around how the particular church understood its message. In the Baptist and Pentecostal churches, Bible institutes were established to prepare pastors and other church leaders. Many of the second and third-generation Hispanics (including yours truly) attended and graduated from these schools and were subsequently appointed, commissioned, and ordained to leadership positions in the Church.
Like it happens in the churches of other cultures, ethnic groups, nationalities, and races, Hispanic churches have sometimes fallen into the trap of bibliolatry, i.e. worship of the Bible. There is a tendency to read the Bible superficially, and literally, without paying much attention to the linguistic and cultural origins of the Scriptures, the context (both external and internal), the history of how we got the Bible, the issues of date, authorship, audience, reason for writing, styles of writing, types of literature in the Bible, matters of different translations, etc. The mindset has been "The Bible says so, end of story." The basic belief is that the Bible is "the Word of God," and therefore, we should not bother with all this other "razzle dazzle." One radio preacher once said "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover and I even believe the cover." Added to that is the idea that in order to do theology, it is not necessary to read or study any book other than the Bible. Any reading of additional literature (with the exception of devotional books and commentaries), will result, according to this thinking, in having the message of Scripture clouded, distorted, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and that eventually the authority of Scripture will not only be called into question, but also undermined.
Regarding the last sentence, I will never forget, and often tend to quote an experience which I had back in the 1970's in a Hispanic Pentecostal church in Staten Island, New York. One Sunday morning, I was asked to conduct the adult class in the Sunday School because the teacher for that class was absent. In those days, a Sunday School lesson book (a devotional commentary) was used alongside the Bible. There was a heated discussion about a particular issue. One of the members of the church insisted that his point of view on the subject was the correct one, because his position was supported by the lesson book. When I showed him that the lesson book contradicted the Scriptures, his response was that "whoever inserted that in the Bible was wrong." Needless to say, I as the teacher for the day, was both flabbergasted and shocked! I could not believe for one single second that this individual was giving more authority and more weight to the lesson book than he was to the Bible.
Fernando Segovia reminds us that neither the task of theologizing, nor the task of interpretation, both highly interrelated and interdependent activities take place in a social vacuum. Such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it came into much greater prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before (Fernando F. Segovia, "Hispanic-American Theology and the Bible: Effective Weapon and Faithful Ally," in We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology: Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 21).
Since the beginning of the 1970's, theological studies have seen the explosion of a number of movements that have called into question the established theological methods, with their often implicit claims to universality and objectivity. Similarly, the end of the 1970's, witnessed the displacement of the long-reigning and universally accepted paradigms of historical criticism within biblical studies, with its implicit search for a sole, definitive, and objective meaning of the biblical text-a meaning that was usually located in either the world represented by the text or in the intention of the author of the text. Both of these shifts were fundamental in character, involving profound and far-reaching theoretical and methodological changes (Segovia, p. 23).
In the field of theological studies, this shift was in part represented by a deliberate and explicit attention to the role of context in the theological task, with a wide variety of contextual theologies emerging as a result, for example, liberation theologies of the Third World, feminist theology, and so-called minority theologies of the First World (Susan Brooks and Mary Potter Engel, "Introduction: Making the Connection Among Liberation Theologies Around the World," in Lift Every Voice: Constructing Theologies from the Underside. Thislethwaite and Engel, eds. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990, pp. 1-15).
In the field of biblical studies, this shift was characterized by a full return to social criticism, involving a wide range of the theoretical spectrum, e.g. sectarianism, millenarianism, social dynamics and roles, sociology of knowledge. Mediterranean studies, and literary criticism, again covering a wide range of theoretical spectrum, e.g., narratology, rhetorical theory, communication theory, feminist criticism, reader response (Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?: Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990, pp. 1-21). This approach seeks to interpret and understand the Bible in its cultural and social context.
For the purposes of this segment of the essay, Hispanic-Americans are considered as a distinct and identifiable configuration of social location, specifically circumscribed in terms of both ethnic background and sociopolitical status, and on the readings of the Bible that emerge out this group. This approach includes the following observations:
1. The issue of nomenclature is complex and should be approached with care, subject to ongoing revision. The term "Hispanic-Americans" is used to designate those individuals of Hispanic descent, associated in one way or another with the Americas, i.e South, Central, North and the Caribbean who now live permanently, for whatever reason in the U.S.A. (Segovia, p. 25).
2. Members of the group hail from any different quarters, and many different cultures, usually identifying themselves in terms of their country of origin, whether immediate (as in the case of immigrants) or remote (as in the case of later generations or those born in territories annnexed by the U.S.A. (Segovia, p. 26).
3. The group as a whole has experienced phenomenal growth in the last several decades-a 53% increase from 1980-1990 alone-largely as a result of continuing immigration and a higher than average birthrate. Their presence is clearly significant, and now, since the end of the 20th century, Hispanic-Americans have become the largest minority in the country (Segovia, p. 28).
4. At the same time, from both a socioeconomic and educational point of view, the group as whole shows a considerable lag with the rest of the population. This is true of such economic indexes such as median income, unemployment, business ownership, and home ownership. In fact, approximately 23% of Hispanic-Americans were found to be living in poverty in 1990, as defined by government figures. It is also true of educational attainment at all levels from primary school to university, the dropout rate among Hispanic-Americans is close to a truly alarming 35%. In addition, from a socio-political point of view, political representation has remained meager and ineffective, a definite drawback with the American political system.. Despite its significant presence and growth in American society, therefore, the group's overall situation has remained neutral (Segovia, p. 29).
5. Despite their divergent backgrounds and natural tendency to identify themselves in terms of their country of origin, Hispanic-Americans have more recently begun to see themselves as a distinctive group with common needs and goals, with a specific and urgent agenda within the American political and cultural scene. To be sure, their social situation of marginalization as well as the general tenor of outside reaction toward the group may also be seen at work in the American theological scene. In effect, the theological voice of Hispanic-Americans has begun to make itself heard as a new and ironic kind of "Manifest Destiny,"from different quarters, but with fundamental themes in common (Fernando F. Segovia, "A New Manifest Destiny: The Emerging Theological Voice of Hispanic-Americans," Religious Studies Review 17, 1991, pps. 101-109).
En fin, we examine the use of the Bible in the Hispanic-American community in different forms. At one point, we witness the aformentioned literal and superficial use of the Bible, without much regard to biblical history or biblical context. Normally, this particular usage of Scripture is geared towards an eschatological moment in history, i.e. "when Jesus comes." This use of the Bible is designed to help Christians prepare for the "hereafter." At another point, we witness the interpretation and use of Scripture in the Hispanic- American community within a framework of socio-economic and political marginalization. The secondary and subservient role that the Hispanic-Americans play to the "powers that be" in U.S.A. society, together with all the injustices and oppression that accompany that role, constitute the basic biblical hermeneutic in that group. In other words, oppression and subservience become, then, the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In one given moment, the Bible is used to shed light on their situation. In the next moment, their understanding of the biblical message is derived from their existential reality. Like in other oppressed communities, both of these hermeneutical approaches will continue to operate simultaneously in the Hispanic community, and in turn determine how the Hispanic church makes use of the Scripture in its task of proclaiming the message of the Gospel.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
In the Protestant churches (especially the Pentecostal churches), the worship services were conducted in the Spanish language. Second-generation Hispanic youth (including yours truly) learned how to read Spanish by reading the Bible. Our world revolved around the Bible and around how the particular church understood its message. In the Baptist and Pentecostal churches, Bible institutes were established to prepare pastors and other church leaders. Many of the second and third-generation Hispanics (including yours truly) attended and graduated from these schools and were subsequently appointed, commissioned, and ordained to leadership positions in the Church.
Like it happens in the churches of other cultures, ethnic groups, nationalities, and races, Hispanic churches have sometimes fallen into the trap of bibliolatry, i.e. worship of the Bible. There is a tendency to read the Bible superficially, and literally, without paying much attention to the linguistic and cultural origins of the Scriptures, the context (both external and internal), the history of how we got the Bible, the issues of date, authorship, audience, reason for writing, styles of writing, types of literature in the Bible, matters of different translations, etc. The mindset has been "The Bible says so, end of story." The basic belief is that the Bible is "the Word of God," and therefore, we should not bother with all this other "razzle dazzle." One radio preacher once said "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover and I even believe the cover." Added to that is the idea that in order to do theology, it is not necessary to read or study any book other than the Bible. Any reading of additional literature (with the exception of devotional books and commentaries), will result, according to this thinking, in having the message of Scripture clouded, distorted, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and that eventually the authority of Scripture will not only be called into question, but also undermined.
Regarding the last sentence, I will never forget, and often tend to quote an experience which I had back in the 1970's in a Hispanic Pentecostal church in Staten Island, New York. One Sunday morning, I was asked to conduct the adult class in the Sunday School because the teacher for that class was absent. In those days, a Sunday School lesson book (a devotional commentary) was used alongside the Bible. There was a heated discussion about a particular issue. One of the members of the church insisted that his point of view on the subject was the correct one, because his position was supported by the lesson book. When I showed him that the lesson book contradicted the Scriptures, his response was that "whoever inserted that in the Bible was wrong." Needless to say, I as the teacher for the day, was both flabbergasted and shocked! I could not believe for one single second that this individual was giving more authority and more weight to the lesson book than he was to the Bible.
Fernando Segovia reminds us that neither the task of theologizing, nor the task of interpretation, both highly interrelated and interdependent activities take place in a social vacuum. Such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it came into much greater prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before (Fernando F. Segovia, "Hispanic-American Theology and the Bible: Effective Weapon and Faithful Ally," in We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology: Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 21).
Since the beginning of the 1970's, theological studies have seen the explosion of a number of movements that have called into question the established theological methods, with their often implicit claims to universality and objectivity. Similarly, the end of the 1970's, witnessed the displacement of the long-reigning and universally accepted paradigms of historical criticism within biblical studies, with its implicit search for a sole, definitive, and objective meaning of the biblical text-a meaning that was usually located in either the world represented by the text or in the intention of the author of the text. Both of these shifts were fundamental in character, involving profound and far-reaching theoretical and methodological changes (Segovia, p. 23).
In the field of theological studies, this shift was in part represented by a deliberate and explicit attention to the role of context in the theological task, with a wide variety of contextual theologies emerging as a result, for example, liberation theologies of the Third World, feminist theology, and so-called minority theologies of the First World (Susan Brooks and Mary Potter Engel, "Introduction: Making the Connection Among Liberation Theologies Around the World," in Lift Every Voice: Constructing Theologies from the Underside. Thislethwaite and Engel, eds. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990, pp. 1-15).
In the field of biblical studies, this shift was characterized by a full return to social criticism, involving a wide range of the theoretical spectrum, e.g. sectarianism, millenarianism, social dynamics and roles, sociology of knowledge. Mediterranean studies, and literary criticism, again covering a wide range of theoretical spectrum, e.g., narratology, rhetorical theory, communication theory, feminist criticism, reader response (Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?: Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990, pp. 1-21). This approach seeks to interpret and understand the Bible in its cultural and social context.
For the purposes of this segment of the essay, Hispanic-Americans are considered as a distinct and identifiable configuration of social location, specifically circumscribed in terms of both ethnic background and sociopolitical status, and on the readings of the Bible that emerge out this group. This approach includes the following observations:
1. The issue of nomenclature is complex and should be approached with care, subject to ongoing revision. The term "Hispanic-Americans" is used to designate those individuals of Hispanic descent, associated in one way or another with the Americas, i.e South, Central, North and the Caribbean who now live permanently, for whatever reason in the U.S.A. (Segovia, p. 25).
2. Members of the group hail from any different quarters, and many different cultures, usually identifying themselves in terms of their country of origin, whether immediate (as in the case of immigrants) or remote (as in the case of later generations or those born in territories annnexed by the U.S.A. (Segovia, p. 26).
3. The group as a whole has experienced phenomenal growth in the last several decades-a 53% increase from 1980-1990 alone-largely as a result of continuing immigration and a higher than average birthrate. Their presence is clearly significant, and now, since the end of the 20th century, Hispanic-Americans have become the largest minority in the country (Segovia, p. 28).
4. At the same time, from both a socioeconomic and educational point of view, the group as whole shows a considerable lag with the rest of the population. This is true of such economic indexes such as median income, unemployment, business ownership, and home ownership. In fact, approximately 23% of Hispanic-Americans were found to be living in poverty in 1990, as defined by government figures. It is also true of educational attainment at all levels from primary school to university, the dropout rate among Hispanic-Americans is close to a truly alarming 35%. In addition, from a socio-political point of view, political representation has remained meager and ineffective, a definite drawback with the American political system.. Despite its significant presence and growth in American society, therefore, the group's overall situation has remained neutral (Segovia, p. 29).
5. Despite their divergent backgrounds and natural tendency to identify themselves in terms of their country of origin, Hispanic-Americans have more recently begun to see themselves as a distinctive group with common needs and goals, with a specific and urgent agenda within the American political and cultural scene. To be sure, their social situation of marginalization as well as the general tenor of outside reaction toward the group may also be seen at work in the American theological scene. In effect, the theological voice of Hispanic-Americans has begun to make itself heard as a new and ironic kind of "Manifest Destiny,"from different quarters, but with fundamental themes in common (Fernando F. Segovia, "A New Manifest Destiny: The Emerging Theological Voice of Hispanic-Americans," Religious Studies Review 17, 1991, pps. 101-109).
En fin, we examine the use of the Bible in the Hispanic-American community in different forms. At one point, we witness the aformentioned literal and superficial use of the Bible, without much regard to biblical history or biblical context. Normally, this particular usage of Scripture is geared towards an eschatological moment in history, i.e. "when Jesus comes." This use of the Bible is designed to help Christians prepare for the "hereafter." At another point, we witness the interpretation and use of Scripture in the Hispanic- American community within a framework of socio-economic and political marginalization. The secondary and subservient role that the Hispanic-Americans play to the "powers that be" in U.S.A. society, together with all the injustices and oppression that accompany that role, constitute the basic biblical hermeneutic in that group. In other words, oppression and subservience become, then, the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In one given moment, the Bible is used to shed light on their situation. In the next moment, their understanding of the biblical message is derived from their existential reality. Like in other oppressed communities, both of these hermeneutical approaches will continue to operate simultaneously in the Hispanic community, and in turn determine how the Hispanic church makes use of the Scripture in its task of proclaiming the message of the Gospel.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Constructing a Diasporic Theology
We might begin this essay by asking "How can theology (God-talk) take place in the context of an exiled community living in a different country and under difficult conditions?" The answers to that are quite complex and difficult. Our history is a complex one. The factors leading to our presence here are numerous. The Hispanic community in the U.S.A. is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination. There is diversity among our Hispanic people, i.e. different customs and traditions, as well as different mindsets. We are one, yet many.
I make an analogy between the historical situation of the Hebrew/Jewish people in both Egypt and Babylon, as depicted in the books of Exodus, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra on the one hand, and on the other, the historical situation of Hispanics in the U.S.A. The Hebrews had left Canaan for Egypt be cause of a famine in the land. Jacob's descendants settled in Egypt after migrating from Canaan. Initially for them, Egypt was the "house of abundance" because of the resources and the amounts of food available there. Eventually, because of the xenophobic mindset of the Egyptian king, the "house of abundance" became the "house of bondage." Because of this xenophobic hysteria, the Hebrews were enslaved and subjected to agony, cruelty, and misery. They were eventually, through the liberating and salvific acts of Yahweh God, mediated through the leadership of Moses, liberated from that bondage and returned to their land.
The Hebrews/Jews were exiled to Babylon. They spent 70 years in that new country. There they were exposed to a new language (Aramaic, a cognate language of their own Hebrew). There is no doubt that the religious mindset of the Babylonians had an impact on Jewish theology, even extending to the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Issues such as angeology and demonology crept into their sacred texts.
During their time in Babylon, the Jews also came under the rule of the Persian and Greek Empires. Under the Greeks, they were exposed to philosophy, especially to the philosophy of Plato, which undoubtedly had the result of their engaging with the mindset of the "immortality of the soul."
The Hispanic colonial and diasporic experiences carry certain similarities with the diasporic experiences of the Jews. For one, Hispanics, among all things, have come here as a result of U.S.A. imperialistic activities in their countries of origin. This imperialistic activity has in turn, generated economic, political, and social conditions that have made it necessary for Hispanics to migrate to the "house of abundance (the U.S.A.). Eventually, as we shall see later, the "house of abundance" becomes the "house of bondage" for Hispanics in the U.S.A.
Now, there is a caveat in understanding Hispanic migration history. Hispanic roots in what is now the U.S.A. are more ancient than the Anglo-American ones. To the extent that the immigrant analogy is appropriate, it must be nuanced by such significant facts as the symbiotic relationship of Hispanic immigrants, at least the largest groups of them-the Mexicans and the Puerto Ricans-with their homeland (Allan Figueroa-Deck, S. J. "At the Crossroads: North American and Hispanic," in We Are A People, Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 3).
It is also relevant to note that the Spanish language, unlike the language of other immigrant or migrant groups is not "foreign." Spanish is the second language of the U.S.A. and has been continuously spoken in the American Southwest from the sixteenth century onwards (Alfredo Mirande, The Chicano Experience: An Alternative Perspective. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp. 185-200).
The marginality of Hispanics within North American society is a complex matter that needs to be understood at the outset. Certainly, one of the factors is the strong anti-Hispanic bias of Anglo-American culture. Linked to this, of course, were the bitter polemics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth century. Spain herself had become marginalized from the modern world through the strident identification with Catholicism, especially the distinctive Spanish brand from the Reconquest. Hispanic Catholicism, moreover, rooted itself to the indigenous cultures of the Americas in the sixteenth century before Anglo-American Protestants or Catholics set foot on North American soil. Already, in the sixteenth century, Spain and Portugal were importing slaves from Africa. Another important branch of Hispanic-American culture was born in the Antilles and the Coast of Central and South America as the Spaniards and the Africans forged a new mulatto race. Such an intense miscegenation never occurred in the Anglo-American colonies, where colonization involved the transfer preexisting European patterns upon a wilderness. In Hispanic America, by contrast, a complex hybrid was being forged. Hence, the starting points for these two cultures-the Hispanic-American, and the Anglo-American are drastically different (Deck, in Goizueta, p. 4).
A key issue in doing theology from the Hispanic-American standpoint is to know and understand that theology has to take into account the history of land-grabbing colonization and exile. This theology or discourse about God has to emerge from and be constructed by those who have been victims of colonization and forced exile. It cannot be a theology which is imposed by the conquering colonizer.
Liberation Theology, both Latin-American and Hispanic-American begins with the assumption that oppression and suffering (in this case, colonization and exile) are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In subsequent essays, we will discover how this theology is done and carried out in the Hispanic-American community.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
I make an analogy between the historical situation of the Hebrew/Jewish people in both Egypt and Babylon, as depicted in the books of Exodus, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra on the one hand, and on the other, the historical situation of Hispanics in the U.S.A. The Hebrews had left Canaan for Egypt be cause of a famine in the land. Jacob's descendants settled in Egypt after migrating from Canaan. Initially for them, Egypt was the "house of abundance" because of the resources and the amounts of food available there. Eventually, because of the xenophobic mindset of the Egyptian king, the "house of abundance" became the "house of bondage." Because of this xenophobic hysteria, the Hebrews were enslaved and subjected to agony, cruelty, and misery. They were eventually, through the liberating and salvific acts of Yahweh God, mediated through the leadership of Moses, liberated from that bondage and returned to their land.
The Hebrews/Jews were exiled to Babylon. They spent 70 years in that new country. There they were exposed to a new language (Aramaic, a cognate language of their own Hebrew). There is no doubt that the religious mindset of the Babylonians had an impact on Jewish theology, even extending to the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Issues such as angeology and demonology crept into their sacred texts.
During their time in Babylon, the Jews also came under the rule of the Persian and Greek Empires. Under the Greeks, they were exposed to philosophy, especially to the philosophy of Plato, which undoubtedly had the result of their engaging with the mindset of the "immortality of the soul."
The Hispanic colonial and diasporic experiences carry certain similarities with the diasporic experiences of the Jews. For one, Hispanics, among all things, have come here as a result of U.S.A. imperialistic activities in their countries of origin. This imperialistic activity has in turn, generated economic, political, and social conditions that have made it necessary for Hispanics to migrate to the "house of abundance (the U.S.A.). Eventually, as we shall see later, the "house of abundance" becomes the "house of bondage" for Hispanics in the U.S.A.
Now, there is a caveat in understanding Hispanic migration history. Hispanic roots in what is now the U.S.A. are more ancient than the Anglo-American ones. To the extent that the immigrant analogy is appropriate, it must be nuanced by such significant facts as the symbiotic relationship of Hispanic immigrants, at least the largest groups of them-the Mexicans and the Puerto Ricans-with their homeland (Allan Figueroa-Deck, S. J. "At the Crossroads: North American and Hispanic," in We Are A People, Roberto Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 3).
It is also relevant to note that the Spanish language, unlike the language of other immigrant or migrant groups is not "foreign." Spanish is the second language of the U.S.A. and has been continuously spoken in the American Southwest from the sixteenth century onwards (Alfredo Mirande, The Chicano Experience: An Alternative Perspective. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp. 185-200).
The marginality of Hispanics within North American society is a complex matter that needs to be understood at the outset. Certainly, one of the factors is the strong anti-Hispanic bias of Anglo-American culture. Linked to this, of course, were the bitter polemics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth century. Spain herself had become marginalized from the modern world through the strident identification with Catholicism, especially the distinctive Spanish brand from the Reconquest. Hispanic Catholicism, moreover, rooted itself to the indigenous cultures of the Americas in the sixteenth century before Anglo-American Protestants or Catholics set foot on North American soil. Already, in the sixteenth century, Spain and Portugal were importing slaves from Africa. Another important branch of Hispanic-American culture was born in the Antilles and the Coast of Central and South America as the Spaniards and the Africans forged a new mulatto race. Such an intense miscegenation never occurred in the Anglo-American colonies, where colonization involved the transfer preexisting European patterns upon a wilderness. In Hispanic America, by contrast, a complex hybrid was being forged. Hence, the starting points for these two cultures-the Hispanic-American, and the Anglo-American are drastically different (Deck, in Goizueta, p. 4).
A key issue in doing theology from the Hispanic-American standpoint is to know and understand that theology has to take into account the history of land-grabbing colonization and exile. This theology or discourse about God has to emerge from and be constructed by those who have been victims of colonization and forced exile. It cannot be a theology which is imposed by the conquering colonizer.
Liberation Theology, both Latin-American and Hispanic-American begins with the assumption that oppression and suffering (in this case, colonization and exile) are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In subsequent essays, we will discover how this theology is done and carried out in the Hispanic-American community.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Hispanics in the U.S.A.
This is the first of a series of essays designed to help us explore what it means to do theology from the standpoint of Hispanics (or Latinos/as) living in the Diaspora of the U.S.A. There are certain issues that come along with dealing with Hispanic-Americans. We will explore some of these issues. A discussion of these issues entails the following:
1. Who are Hispanic-Americans? Himilce Novas says "Over the centuries many people from Spanish-speaking Latin America have either made their way to the United States to forge a brand-new life or found themselves citizens due to shifting U.S. borders and imperialistic pursuits. For the sake of clarity, Spanish-speaking Latin America is comprised of Cuba, Puerto Rico (which is a U.S. commonwealth, not a sovereign nation), the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. All U.S. citizens and residents of the United States who originated from these nations, or from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or whose ancestors did, are known as Hispanics. The U.S. Census Bureau also includes Spanish-speaking Americans, i.e Americans whose forebears came directly from Spain among Hispanics, but many scholars limit the definition only to include those of Spanish-speaking Latin American origin (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latinos. New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p. 3).
2. Why are people of Latin American origin present in the U.S.A.? There are no easy answers to that question as there are a variety of factors that contribute to that reality. Among the factors are the following:
a. Land-grabbing. There was land-grabbing by the Spaniards in the 15th century, and then by the U.S.A. in the nineteenth century. Much of what now constitutes the southwestern part of the U.S.A. at one time belonged to Mexico. As Novas informs us, "The history of Mexico and that of the United States are so inextricably linked that these nations have been compared to Siamese twins who, before enduring a radical and painful separation, shared the same heart. Mexican-Americans are not an ethnic minority who merely crossed the U.S.-Mexico borders and then by slow assimilation, become incorporated into the great American mosaic. They have ancestral roots in part of the territory within the boundaries of what now constitutes the United States, that is, the areas that formerly belonged to Mexico. As the saying goes among Tejanos, i.e. Texans of Mexican origin, 'we never crossed a border: the border crossed us." (Novas, p. 49). We can also add to this history, the neo-colonization of the three nations of the Caribbean, i.e. Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, two of which were taken over by the U.S.A. in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898.
b. U.S.A. imperialism-When James Monroe was elected President of the U.S.A. in 1817, U.S. industry prospered, and the concept of Manifest Destiny reared its head beyond the nation's borders. On December 2, 1823, he delivered a message to Congress, in which he declared that the United States would not tolerate European intervention and expansion in the Americas. The issuance of this declaration, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine, was motivated by the concern that certain European nations wee planning to use military force to restore to Spain the colonies that recently gained their independence. There was also concern that England was flexing too much muscle in the hemisphere, having seized territory by nibbling off Belize and the Mesquito Coast of Nicaragua, and that France, under Napoleon the III, had designs on Mexico and intended to turn it into a client state. The Monroe Doctrine sent a clear message to the empires of Europe to cease and desist (Novas, p. 138).
However, the Monroe Doctrine did not contain any language about the United States doing the same thing, i.e. refraining from interfering in colonies and nations in the Americas that were not its own. In fact, the Monroe Doctrine clearly implied that the United States had designated itself "protector" of the Americas. Thus, while it appeared, at first glance, to be a straightforward exercise in isolationism and good-neighbor policy toward the fledgling new republics to the south, such as Mexico, the Monroe Doctrine actually paved the way for the free ride U.S. imperialism was to take throughout the Western Hemisphere for many decades to come. Puerto Rico was one of those stops along the way (Novas, pp. 138-139).
c. Economics- U.S.A. imperialism, together with land-grabbing, contributed to the present day economic problems of Latin America. Many, if not most of those problems were generated by the foreign economic policies of the U.S.A. Those policies wreaked havoc in the Latin American countries, widening the chasm between rich and poor, creating dire misery and poverty for the masses of these countries. These conditions, in turn, generated massive immigration to the north (U.S.A.). I refer the reader to the book "Open Veins in Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of the Continent," by Eduardo Galeano, for further and more extensive research on these matters.
How then, is theology in the Diaspora supposed to be done and carried out? The three above-mentioned factors, in turn, generated certain living conditions for those Hispanics who migrated to the U.S.A. The socio-economic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A., and the theology emerging from those conditions will be addressed in the subsequent essays.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
1. Who are Hispanic-Americans? Himilce Novas says "Over the centuries many people from Spanish-speaking Latin America have either made their way to the United States to forge a brand-new life or found themselves citizens due to shifting U.S. borders and imperialistic pursuits. For the sake of clarity, Spanish-speaking Latin America is comprised of Cuba, Puerto Rico (which is a U.S. commonwealth, not a sovereign nation), the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. All U.S. citizens and residents of the United States who originated from these nations, or from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or whose ancestors did, are known as Hispanics. The U.S. Census Bureau also includes Spanish-speaking Americans, i.e Americans whose forebears came directly from Spain among Hispanics, but many scholars limit the definition only to include those of Spanish-speaking Latin American origin (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latinos. New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p. 3).
2. Why are people of Latin American origin present in the U.S.A.? There are no easy answers to that question as there are a variety of factors that contribute to that reality. Among the factors are the following:
a. Land-grabbing. There was land-grabbing by the Spaniards in the 15th century, and then by the U.S.A. in the nineteenth century. Much of what now constitutes the southwestern part of the U.S.A. at one time belonged to Mexico. As Novas informs us, "The history of Mexico and that of the United States are so inextricably linked that these nations have been compared to Siamese twins who, before enduring a radical and painful separation, shared the same heart. Mexican-Americans are not an ethnic minority who merely crossed the U.S.-Mexico borders and then by slow assimilation, become incorporated into the great American mosaic. They have ancestral roots in part of the territory within the boundaries of what now constitutes the United States, that is, the areas that formerly belonged to Mexico. As the saying goes among Tejanos, i.e. Texans of Mexican origin, 'we never crossed a border: the border crossed us." (Novas, p. 49). We can also add to this history, the neo-colonization of the three nations of the Caribbean, i.e. Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, two of which were taken over by the U.S.A. in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898.
b. U.S.A. imperialism-When James Monroe was elected President of the U.S.A. in 1817, U.S. industry prospered, and the concept of Manifest Destiny reared its head beyond the nation's borders. On December 2, 1823, he delivered a message to Congress, in which he declared that the United States would not tolerate European intervention and expansion in the Americas. The issuance of this declaration, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine, was motivated by the concern that certain European nations wee planning to use military force to restore to Spain the colonies that recently gained their independence. There was also concern that England was flexing too much muscle in the hemisphere, having seized territory by nibbling off Belize and the Mesquito Coast of Nicaragua, and that France, under Napoleon the III, had designs on Mexico and intended to turn it into a client state. The Monroe Doctrine sent a clear message to the empires of Europe to cease and desist (Novas, p. 138).
However, the Monroe Doctrine did not contain any language about the United States doing the same thing, i.e. refraining from interfering in colonies and nations in the Americas that were not its own. In fact, the Monroe Doctrine clearly implied that the United States had designated itself "protector" of the Americas. Thus, while it appeared, at first glance, to be a straightforward exercise in isolationism and good-neighbor policy toward the fledgling new republics to the south, such as Mexico, the Monroe Doctrine actually paved the way for the free ride U.S. imperialism was to take throughout the Western Hemisphere for many decades to come. Puerto Rico was one of those stops along the way (Novas, pp. 138-139).
c. Economics- U.S.A. imperialism, together with land-grabbing, contributed to the present day economic problems of Latin America. Many, if not most of those problems were generated by the foreign economic policies of the U.S.A. Those policies wreaked havoc in the Latin American countries, widening the chasm between rich and poor, creating dire misery and poverty for the masses of these countries. These conditions, in turn, generated massive immigration to the north (U.S.A.). I refer the reader to the book "Open Veins in Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of the Continent," by Eduardo Galeano, for further and more extensive research on these matters.
How then, is theology in the Diaspora supposed to be done and carried out? The three above-mentioned factors, in turn, generated certain living conditions for those Hispanics who migrated to the U.S.A. The socio-economic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A., and the theology emerging from those conditions will be addressed in the subsequent essays.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)