The next three essays will focus on the three largest groups of Latinx people in the U.S.A. Hispanics in the U.S.A. prefer to be identified by their country of origin. And though there are at least three generations of Hispanics, in general, they tend to hold on to their national roots and cultural perspectives. We will begin with Mexican Americans, the oldest and largest groups of Hispanics in the U.S.A.
We might begin by asking, "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 someone has said "We never crossed the border: The border
crossed us."
The presence of Mexicans in the U.S.A. is due primarily to the conquest and subsequent occupation of Mexico by Spain 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 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 River to the Rockies caused the American republic to be doubled 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 Latino 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 becoming the oppressor. At this juncture, we can truly allude to the saying that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed 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 trespassed on Spanish-American land in New Mexico to trap beavers, which were coveted for their fur. They trapped without licenses, and they traveled where 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 willy-nilly. Often, the native peoples and mestizos of New Mexico would hold perfume 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, op. cit.).
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 monthly 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 from the start and coined "Manifest Destiny." In his editorial, O'Sullivan maintained that "our manifest destiny is to overspread the continent allotted 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 aspiration 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 that 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 in 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 to 1996, almost 1,200 persons by official counts, lost their lives in border crossings because of 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 airline tickets to a destination far from the border 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 money 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 faced with the need for a theology which will be relevant in addressing the needs of our Mexican sisters and brothers. The theology needs to emerge from their historical and present-day experiences. It cannot be a "top-down" theology imposed 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 and include the concept of "mestizaje (cultural/racial blend)." Mexican-Americans have been discriminated against and considered inferior because of the mixtures 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 way that "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 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 going on 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 (Ibid., p. 162).
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 experiential realities, is a "pseudo-theology," to which the Church cannot 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.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Monday, August 26, 2019
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
The Role of the Trinity in Hispanic American Theology
One of the major doctrines of the Christian faith is that of the Trinity. The doctrine states in the most simplest terms that God has been revealed to humankind in the relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we find an implicit statement that God is a trinity. As a matter of fact, the word "Trinity" does not even appear in the Scripture.
How did the doctrine of the Trinity become incorporated into Christian theology? Placing it into historical perspective, the doctrine of the Trinity came into vogue during the fourth century when the Church was embroiled in a controversy concerning the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. While the Church of the first two centuries struggled with the humanity of Jesus, the Church of the fourth century struggled with His divine nature. The Church wanted to uphold the deity of Jesus while at the same time distinguishing Him from God the Creator. The word "Trinity (from Tri-unity)" was used to explain the relationship which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had with each other without losing their distinct identities as individual persons. In other words, the Church wanted to affirm that all three were divine and shared the divine essence and nature, but that they were distinct from each other. To put it simply, the doctrine states that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. And, according to this doctrine, all three are God (in other words, divine) by nature.
This controversy was generated, in part, by one of the leaders of the Church (Arius) who believed that Jesus was created by God. According to Arius, Jesus was not part of the Godhead. Based on his understanding of the New Testament, he believed that Jesus was both inferior by nature and subsequently subservient to God the Father. In essence, Arian theology made Jesus an inferior god, which in a sense, established a form of polytheism (belief in many gods), a doctrine which the Church was trying to avoid, 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 believe that Jesus is subordinate to God, not only in role, but also in nature.
Another complication was that of the teaching of another leader (Sabellious). He taught that God was revealed to humankind in three different modes or forms. Sabellious taught that at one time in history God was revealed as Father, at another time as Son, and finally in this present-day era, 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. This teaching is reflected in the teachings of the so-called "Oneness" Pentecostal (wrongly referred to as "Jesus only") movement, which deemphasizes the Trinity and upholds the notion of "God in three forms."
The Roman Emperor Constantine, who by this time had become at least, nominally speaking, a "Christian," felt that the Church's controversy presented a threat to the Empire. Consequently, he called the leaders of the Church and convoked a gathering (Council of Nicea) in 325 A.D. At this gathering, the Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity as the official doctrine of the Church, in spite of the fact that some in the Church continued to subscribe to Arianism and to Sabellianism. The Church stated that since all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are divine, each could be called "God." Of course the doctrine of Jesus being divine was a threat to the authority of the Emperor, because it stated that "Jesus is Lord," even over the Emperor himself.
How do we explain the Trinity to people living in a situation of oppression and suffering? These categories mean very little, if anything to these people. 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 deportation, it 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 are living in the Diaspora of the U.S.A. As one of my colleague theologian friends puts it, Latinx people in the U.S..A. are not concerned with theological abstractions and speculation, but rather with basic survival, or as he puts it, "getting the cheese off the trucks."
The systematic theological reflections of European or North American origin concerning the Trinity, have been traditionally been drawn from biblical (mostly New Testament), patristic, scholastic, and contemporary sources mediated by the philosophical and historical categories of each age. With 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 socio-political sciences (Johannes B. Metz, Faith in History: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. New York: Seabury Press, 1988, pps.130-132).
This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the doctrines of the Church are a reflection of how in its belief and 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 also 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 trinitarian theologians have said. The Hispanic theologians cannot evade the toil and sweat of scholarly research and reflection. To pretend to replace 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 Theologians of the United States, 3-5 June, 1990, Berkeley, California).
Hispanic theologians retrieve and reformulate into their own theological milieu all that they see as true and methodologically sound; these theologians allow First World theological systems to stand critically before their belief systems. They have also become 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, op. cit., pps. 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 the Hispanic domain. This applies to Hispanic trinitarian theology (Sixto Garcia, "A Hispanic Approach to Trinitarian Theology: The Dynamics of Celebration, Reflection and Praxis." Roberto S. Goizueta, ed. We Are A People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 110).
A question that comes into play is whether or not Hispanic American 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 formulations of the Church? This writer (yours truly) believes that since Hispanic American and Latin American Theology are anti-colonial theologies which are not based on a Western biblical hermeneutic, that Hispanic Americans theologians should develop their own conception of the nature and work of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, not based on the notion of 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 message, 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, op.cit., p.118).
This theologian (yours truly), 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 and the traditions of the Church, in that order. 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 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 throughout 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, op. cit., pps. 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 Scriptures 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 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 theology will be based on the decisions that the Church took at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. merely for the sake of antiquity in thinking that this position is "preserving the faith which 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 be Nicean for the sake of being Nicean. 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.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
How did the doctrine of the Trinity become incorporated into Christian theology? Placing it into historical perspective, the doctrine of the Trinity came into vogue during the fourth century when the Church was embroiled in a controversy concerning the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. While the Church of the first two centuries struggled with the humanity of Jesus, the Church of the fourth century struggled with His divine nature. The Church wanted to uphold the deity of Jesus while at the same time distinguishing Him from God the Creator. The word "Trinity (from Tri-unity)" was used to explain the relationship which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had with each other without losing their distinct identities as individual persons. In other words, the Church wanted to affirm that all three were divine and shared the divine essence and nature, but that they were distinct from each other. To put it simply, the doctrine states that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. And, according to this doctrine, all three are God (in other words, divine) by nature.
This controversy was generated, in part, by one of the leaders of the Church (Arius) who believed that Jesus was created by God. According to Arius, Jesus was not part of the Godhead. Based on his understanding of the New Testament, he believed that Jesus was both inferior by nature and subsequently subservient to God the Father. In essence, Arian theology made Jesus an inferior god, which in a sense, established a form of polytheism (belief in many gods), a doctrine which the Church was trying to avoid, 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 believe that Jesus is subordinate to God, not only in role, but also in nature.
Another complication was that of the teaching of another leader (Sabellious). He taught that God was revealed to humankind in three different modes or forms. Sabellious taught that at one time in history God was revealed as Father, at another time as Son, and finally in this present-day era, 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. This teaching is reflected in the teachings of the so-called "Oneness" Pentecostal (wrongly referred to as "Jesus only") movement, which deemphasizes the Trinity and upholds the notion of "God in three forms."
The Roman Emperor Constantine, who by this time had become at least, nominally speaking, a "Christian," felt that the Church's controversy presented a threat to the Empire. Consequently, he called the leaders of the Church and convoked a gathering (Council of Nicea) in 325 A.D. At this gathering, the Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity as the official doctrine of the Church, in spite of the fact that some in the Church continued to subscribe to Arianism and to Sabellianism. The Church stated that since all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are divine, each could be called "God." Of course the doctrine of Jesus being divine was a threat to the authority of the Emperor, because it stated that "Jesus is Lord," even over the Emperor himself.
How do we explain the Trinity to people living in a situation of oppression and suffering? These categories mean very little, if anything to these people. 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 deportation, it 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 are living in the Diaspora of the U.S.A. As one of my colleague theologian friends puts it, Latinx people in the U.S..A. are not concerned with theological abstractions and speculation, but rather with basic survival, or as he puts it, "getting the cheese off the trucks."
The systematic theological reflections of European or North American origin concerning the Trinity, have been traditionally been drawn from biblical (mostly New Testament), patristic, scholastic, and contemporary sources mediated by the philosophical and historical categories of each age. With 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 socio-political sciences (Johannes B. Metz, Faith in History: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. New York: Seabury Press, 1988, pps.130-132).
This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the doctrines of the Church are a reflection of how in its belief and 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 also 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 trinitarian theologians have said. The Hispanic theologians cannot evade the toil and sweat of scholarly research and reflection. To pretend to replace 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 Theologians of the United States, 3-5 June, 1990, Berkeley, California).
Hispanic theologians retrieve and reformulate into their own theological milieu all that they see as true and methodologically sound; these theologians allow First World theological systems to stand critically before their belief systems. They have also become 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, op. cit., pps. 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 the Hispanic domain. This applies to Hispanic trinitarian theology (Sixto Garcia, "A Hispanic Approach to Trinitarian Theology: The Dynamics of Celebration, Reflection and Praxis." Roberto S. Goizueta, ed. We Are A People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 110).
A question that comes into play is whether or not Hispanic American 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 formulations of the Church? This writer (yours truly) believes that since Hispanic American and Latin American Theology are anti-colonial theologies which are not based on a Western biblical hermeneutic, that Hispanic Americans theologians should develop their own conception of the nature and work of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, not based on the notion of 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 message, 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, op.cit., p.118).
This theologian (yours truly), 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 and the traditions of the Church, in that order. 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 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 throughout 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, op. cit., pps. 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 Scriptures 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 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 theology will be based on the decisions that the Church took at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. merely for the sake of antiquity in thinking that this position is "preserving the faith which 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 be Nicean for the sake of being Nicean. 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.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Monday, August 12, 2019
Women In Latin 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. Hispanic-American women have an African background, therefore, experience 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 Latina Women." Roberto Gozuieta, ed., We Are A People. Minnesota, Fortress Press, 1992, p. 79).
Theology, "try as it might to flee from historical objectivity and to isolate itself from inter-religious discourse," almost always performs a historical function and enters into a relationship with the surrounding culture. At times it is offering assistance to the new cultural categories and legitimizing the established order against which these 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 already 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 horizons of the Christian faith. We are thus speaking here of a task that is undertaken out of the experience of those Christian communities that struggle for their liberation and for an end to the age-old history of exploitation, colonial oppression, increasing impoverishment, and human subjugation to which the great majority of Latin Americans, especially women are exposed. The existence of these women is also affected by the patriarchal structure 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 (Aquino, op. cit. p. 80).
The second point refers to the limits and challenges one confronts when doing theology from the perspective of women. Since this is a perspective only recently in the history of the Church and theology, Latin American and Hispanic women in the U.S.A 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; that is, 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 fulness 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 violations of human rights. Women make up at least half of the faithful and women are ten times the number of their male counter parts. However (from a Catholic standpoint), they are juridically considered to be 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 and 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 that it is important that the Church take a role and make a moral statement, which it has not done. The Church really contributes to the oppression of women. 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 has done nothing in terms of helping women with those 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 (Korthright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin: Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 90-91)."
Caribbean women have indeed, been the major preserves of the Caribbean cultural foundations. They have even provided most of the plantation labor, especially for 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 rights and privileges of women (Ibid., p. 91).
Latin American and Hispanic women doing theology of liberation attempt to recover a right that has been usurped: the right to reflect upon their unique way of experiencing 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 (Aquino, op. cit., p. 83).
Latin American and Hispanic feminist liberation theology assume the option for the poor as their 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 social 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 as to address issues of oppression of women within its ranks. The Church cannot afford to "sweep under the rug" the issues of the theological justifications and rationales for maintaining women in subservient roles. The Church is called to be proactive in seeking to dismantle all the structures of injustice within its very life and within its ranks. 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 Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
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 Latina Women." Roberto Gozuieta, ed., We Are A People. Minnesota, Fortress Press, 1992, p. 79).
Theology, "try as it might to flee from historical objectivity and to isolate itself from inter-religious discourse," almost always performs a historical function and enters into a relationship with the surrounding culture. At times it is offering assistance to the new cultural categories and legitimizing the established order against which these 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 already 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 horizons of the Christian faith. We are thus speaking here of a task that is undertaken out of the experience of those Christian communities that struggle for their liberation and for an end to the age-old history of exploitation, colonial oppression, increasing impoverishment, and human subjugation to which the great majority of Latin Americans, especially women are exposed. The existence of these women is also affected by the patriarchal structure 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 (Aquino, op. cit. p. 80).
The second point refers to the limits and challenges one confronts when doing theology from the perspective of women. Since this is a perspective only recently in the history of the Church and theology, Latin American and Hispanic women in the U.S.A 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; that is, 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 fulness 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 violations of human rights. Women make up at least half of the faithful and women are ten times the number of their male counter parts. However (from a Catholic standpoint), they are juridically considered to be 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 and 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 that it is important that the Church take a role and make a moral statement, which it has not done. The Church really contributes to the oppression of women. 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 has done nothing in terms of helping women with those 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 (Korthright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin: Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 90-91)."
Caribbean women have indeed, been the major preserves of the Caribbean cultural foundations. They have even provided most of the plantation labor, especially for 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 rights and privileges of women (Ibid., p. 91).
Latin American and Hispanic women doing theology of liberation attempt to recover a right that has been usurped: the right to reflect upon their unique way of experiencing 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 (Aquino, op. cit., p. 83).
Latin American and Hispanic feminist liberation theology assume the option for the poor as their 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 social 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 as to address issues of oppression of women within its ranks. The Church cannot afford to "sweep under the rug" the issues of the theological justifications and rationales for maintaining women in subservient roles. The Church is called to be proactive in seeking to dismantle all the structures of injustice within its very life and within its ranks. 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 Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Thursday, August 8, 2019
The Role of Marianism in Hispanic-American Theology
One of the many areas that needs to be examined in 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, we will seek to make a distinction between the two, and also, explore the role that Marianism plays in the Latinx community in 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 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 what their Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers are saying is that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate God. But Protestants will retort "Mary was only the mother of His human nature." But in saying this, Protestants fail to realize that the Scriptures affirm the idea of the "God-Man," i.e. 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 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." Roberto Goizueta, ed., We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. 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 background), 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, 1995, 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 Proctress of Mexico (Ibid.)."
To understand the symbol of Guadalupe is to understand the essence of being Mexican. Traditionally, this essence has 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. We are constantly reminded of her presence by the names of our relatives and friends (Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: 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 Tolpetlac 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, op. cit.)."
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, op. cit., p. 6).
Now, the above made mention of the role that Mary plays among the oppressed people of Latin America, especially of Mexico, and also among the Latinx community of the U.S.A. Diaspora. 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 of the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 3), 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 who were present "Do whatever He tells you." It was like she was not only exercising her role as Jesus's mother, but also taking authority upon herself by telling the people what to do. It reminds us of the issue of the writer of Hebrews referring to Jesus as "our Elder Brother (Hebrews 2: 11-15)."
This brings us to 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 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.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
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 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 what their Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers are saying is that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate God. But Protestants will retort "Mary was only the mother of His human nature." But in saying this, Protestants fail to realize that the Scriptures affirm the idea of the "God-Man," i.e. 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 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." Roberto Goizueta, ed., We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. 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 background), 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, 1995, 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 Proctress of Mexico (Ibid.)."
To understand the symbol of Guadalupe is to understand the essence of being Mexican. Traditionally, this essence has 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. We are constantly reminded of her presence by the names of our relatives and friends (Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: 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 Tolpetlac 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, op. cit.)."
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, op. cit., p. 6).
Now, the above made mention of the role that Mary plays among the oppressed people of Latin America, especially of Mexico, and also among the Latinx community of the U.S.A. Diaspora. 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 of the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 3), 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 who were present "Do whatever He tells you." It was like she was not only exercising her role as Jesus's mother, but also taking authority upon herself by telling the people what to do. It reminds us of the issue of the writer of Hebrews referring to Jesus as "our Elder Brother (Hebrews 2: 11-15)."
This brings us to 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 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.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
The Role of Scripture Among Hispanic Americans
One of the various issues to be dealt with in the theology of the Latinx community in the U.S.A 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, Latinos in the U.S.A. had to contend with issue of language. To begin with, up until that time, the Mass in the Catholic churches was conducted in the Latin language. Secondly, the language spoken by the majority in the U. S. A., especially by the first and second generations, was Spanish (a derivative of Latin). And thirdly, many of the Hispanic Catholic parishes were shepherded by non-Spanish speaking priests, so that the congregants heard the Mass celebrated in English, a language which they had a difficult time understanding and becoming accustomed to.
In the mainline 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 (myself included) attended and graduated from these schools and were subsequently appointed, commissioned, and ordained to leadership position 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 idolatry, i.e worship of the Bible. There is a tendency to read the Bible superficially and literally, without paying attention to the linguistic origin 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 the different translations, etc. 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." As 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 possible 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 would be only 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 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 mini-commentary) was used alongside the Bible. There was a heated discussion about a particular issue. One of the students 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 how the lesson book contradicted the Scripture, his response was that "whoever inserted that into the Scripture was wrong." Needless to say, I, as that teacher for that 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 Scripture.
Fernando Segovia reminds us that neither the task of theologizing, nor the task of interpretation-both highly interrelated and interdependent activities-takes place in a social vacuum, independent of the social location, however defined, of the theologian or interpreter in question. Such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it came into prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before (Fernando Segovia, "Hispanic American Theology and the Bible: Effective Weapon and Faithful Ally." Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. 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 with 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 change (Ibid., 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 Thistlethwaite and Mary Potter Engel, "Introduction: Making the Connection Among Liberation Theologies Around the World." Thistlethwaite and Engel, eds., Lift Every Voice: Constructing Theologies from the Underside. 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 purpose of this segment of the essay, Hispanic Americans ae 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 of 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. "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, op. cit., p. 25).
2. Members of the group hail from many 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 annexed by the U.S.A. (Ibid, p. 26).
3. The group as a whole as experienced phenomenal growth in the last several decades-a 53 per cent increase from 1980 to 1990 alone-largely as a result of continuing immigration and higher than average birthrate. Their presence in the country is clearly significant, and now, since the end of the 20th century, Hispanic Americans have become the largest minority group in the country (Ibid. p. 28).
4. At the same time, from both a socioeconomic and educational point of view, the group as a whole shows a considerable lag with the rest of the population. This is true of such economic indexes as median income, unemployment, business ownership, and home ownership; in fact, approximately 23 percent 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 percent. In addition, from a socio-political point of view, political representation has remained meager and ineffective, a definite drawback within the American political system. Despite its significant presence and growth in American society, therefore, the group's overall situation has remained neutral (Ibid., p. 29).
5. Despite their divergent backgrounds and natural tendency to define themselves in terms of their country of origin, Hispanic American 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, marked by widespread and sustained discrimination,, have played a key role in this regard. This same development of conscientization and consolidation within 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 many different quarters, but with fundamental themes common (Fernando F. Segovia, A New Manifest Destiny: The Emerging Theological Voice of Hispanic Americans. Religious Studies Review 17, 1991, pp. 101-9).
En fin, we examine the use of the Bible in the Hispanic American community in different forms. At one point, we witness the aforementioned 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 Christian 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 Hispanic American play to the "powers that be" in U.S.A. society, together with all the injustices and oppression that accompany that role, constitute the biblical hermeneutic in that group. In other words, like in the case of their forefathers and foremothers in Latin America, oppression and subservience become, then, the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In one given moment, the Bible is used to shed light on their situation. In another given moment, their understanding of the biblical message is derived from their existential reality of alienation and marginalization.
The particular biblical hermeneutical approach in the Latinx community is not monolithic. The hermeneutical approach used will depend on both geography and socio-economic condition. One thing remains for sure, i.e. the biblical hermeneutic of the Latinx community in the U.S.A. will always tend to be somewhat different than the hermeneutical approach of the Anglo-American and Euro-American society in general.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
In the mainline 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 (myself included) attended and graduated from these schools and were subsequently appointed, commissioned, and ordained to leadership position 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 idolatry, i.e worship of the Bible. There is a tendency to read the Bible superficially and literally, without paying attention to the linguistic origin 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 the different translations, etc. 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." As 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 possible 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 would be only 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 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 mini-commentary) was used alongside the Bible. There was a heated discussion about a particular issue. One of the students 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 how the lesson book contradicted the Scripture, his response was that "whoever inserted that into the Scripture was wrong." Needless to say, I, as that teacher for that 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 Scripture.
Fernando Segovia reminds us that neither the task of theologizing, nor the task of interpretation-both highly interrelated and interdependent activities-takes place in a social vacuum, independent of the social location, however defined, of the theologian or interpreter in question. Such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it came into prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before (Fernando Segovia, "Hispanic American Theology and the Bible: Effective Weapon and Faithful Ally." Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are A People: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. 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 with 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 change (Ibid., 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 Thistlethwaite and Mary Potter Engel, "Introduction: Making the Connection Among Liberation Theologies Around the World." Thistlethwaite and Engel, eds., Lift Every Voice: Constructing Theologies from the Underside. 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 purpose of this segment of the essay, Hispanic Americans ae 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 of 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. "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, op. cit., p. 25).
2. Members of the group hail from many 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 annexed by the U.S.A. (Ibid, p. 26).
3. The group as a whole as experienced phenomenal growth in the last several decades-a 53 per cent increase from 1980 to 1990 alone-largely as a result of continuing immigration and higher than average birthrate. Their presence in the country is clearly significant, and now, since the end of the 20th century, Hispanic Americans have become the largest minority group in the country (Ibid. p. 28).
4. At the same time, from both a socioeconomic and educational point of view, the group as a whole shows a considerable lag with the rest of the population. This is true of such economic indexes as median income, unemployment, business ownership, and home ownership; in fact, approximately 23 percent 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 percent. In addition, from a socio-political point of view, political representation has remained meager and ineffective, a definite drawback within the American political system. Despite its significant presence and growth in American society, therefore, the group's overall situation has remained neutral (Ibid., p. 29).
5. Despite their divergent backgrounds and natural tendency to define themselves in terms of their country of origin, Hispanic American 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, marked by widespread and sustained discrimination,, have played a key role in this regard. This same development of conscientization and consolidation within 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 many different quarters, but with fundamental themes common (Fernando F. Segovia, A New Manifest Destiny: The Emerging Theological Voice of Hispanic Americans. Religious Studies Review 17, 1991, pp. 101-9).
En fin, we examine the use of the Bible in the Hispanic American community in different forms. At one point, we witness the aforementioned 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 Christian 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 Hispanic American play to the "powers that be" in U.S.A. society, together with all the injustices and oppression that accompany that role, constitute the biblical hermeneutic in that group. In other words, like in the case of their forefathers and foremothers in Latin America, oppression and subservience become, then, the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In one given moment, the Bible is used to shed light on their situation. In another given moment, their understanding of the biblical message is derived from their existential reality of alienation and marginalization.
The particular biblical hermeneutical approach in the Latinx community is not monolithic. The hermeneutical approach used will depend on both geography and socio-economic condition. One thing remains for sure, i.e. the biblical hermeneutic of the Latinx community in the U.S.A. will always tend to be somewhat different than the hermeneutical approach of the Anglo-American and Euro-American society in general.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Constructing a Diasporic Theology
We might begin this essay by asking a question. The question is "How can theology (God-talk) take place in the context of an exiled community living in a different country and under difficult conditions?" In other words, "How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" There are no easy answers to that question in that we are dealing with a very complex situation. Our history is a complex one. The factors leading to our presence here are numerous. The Hispanic (or Latino) community in the U.S.A. is not a monolithic community. 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 to us 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 because of a famine in the land. Jacob's descendants settled in Egypt after migrating from Canaan. Initially for them, Egypt was the "land of abundance" because of the resources and the amounts of food available. Eventually, because of the xenophobic mindset of the Egyptian king, the "house of plenty" 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 Yahweh God's intervention and salvific activity, mediated through the leadership of Moses, liberated from that bondage and were able to return to their land.
The 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), a new culture, and a different religious outlook. There is no doubt that the religious mindset of the Babylonians had an impact on Hebrew/Jewish theology, even extending to the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). The belief in angels and demons, previously unheard of in Hebrew/Jewish theology, crept into their Scriptures and theology. During their time in Babylon, they also came under the rule of the Persian and Greek Empires. Under the influence of the Greeks, they were exposed to philosophy, especially that of Plato. Plato's idea of the body-soul dichotomy and the "immortality of the soul" was embraced by the Jews and later on by the Christians who inherited Jewish biblical theology.
The Hispanic colonial and diasporic experiences carry certain similarities. For one, Hispanics, among other things, have come here as a result of U.S.A. imperialistic activity in their countries of origin. This imperialistic activity has in turn, generated economic conditions that have made it necessary to migrate to the "land of plenty." Eventually, as we shall see much later, the "house of abundance" has become the "house of bondage."
Now, there is a caveat in understanding Hispanic/Latinx migration history. Hispanic/Latinx 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, SJ, "At the Crossroads: North American and Hispanic." Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are a People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 3).
It is also relevant to note that the Spanish language, unlike the language of other immigrant groups, is not "foreign." It was spoken here long before English was, and has become, by default, the second language of the U.S.A. and has been continuously spoken in the American Southwest from the sixteenth century onwards (Alfredo Miranda,, 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. Spain herself had become marginalized from the modern world through her strident identification with Catholicism, especially the distinctive Spanish brand formed in in the Reconquest. Hispanic Catholicism, moreover, rooted itself to the indigenous cultures of the Americas in the sixteenth century, a century before Anglo-American Protestants 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 Africans forged a new mulatto race. Such an intense miscegenation never occurred in the Anglo-American colonies, where colonization involved the transfer of 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, op. cit. p. 4).
A key issue in doing theology from the Hispanic-American standpoint is to know and understand that theology has to take into consideration land-grabbing colonization and exile into account. The 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 Latinx community of the Diaspora in the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
I make an analogy between the historical situation of the Hebrew? Jewish people in both Egypt and Babylon, as depicted to us 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 because of a famine in the land. Jacob's descendants settled in Egypt after migrating from Canaan. Initially for them, Egypt was the "land of abundance" because of the resources and the amounts of food available. Eventually, because of the xenophobic mindset of the Egyptian king, the "house of plenty" 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 Yahweh God's intervention and salvific activity, mediated through the leadership of Moses, liberated from that bondage and were able to return to their land.
The 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), a new culture, and a different religious outlook. There is no doubt that the religious mindset of the Babylonians had an impact on Hebrew/Jewish theology, even extending to the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). The belief in angels and demons, previously unheard of in Hebrew/Jewish theology, crept into their Scriptures and theology. During their time in Babylon, they also came under the rule of the Persian and Greek Empires. Under the influence of the Greeks, they were exposed to philosophy, especially that of Plato. Plato's idea of the body-soul dichotomy and the "immortality of the soul" was embraced by the Jews and later on by the Christians who inherited Jewish biblical theology.
The Hispanic colonial and diasporic experiences carry certain similarities. For one, Hispanics, among other things, have come here as a result of U.S.A. imperialistic activity in their countries of origin. This imperialistic activity has in turn, generated economic conditions that have made it necessary to migrate to the "land of plenty." Eventually, as we shall see much later, the "house of abundance" has become the "house of bondage."
Now, there is a caveat in understanding Hispanic/Latinx migration history. Hispanic/Latinx 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, SJ, "At the Crossroads: North American and Hispanic." Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are a People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 3).
It is also relevant to note that the Spanish language, unlike the language of other immigrant groups, is not "foreign." It was spoken here long before English was, and has become, by default, the second language of the U.S.A. and has been continuously spoken in the American Southwest from the sixteenth century onwards (Alfredo Miranda,, 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. Spain herself had become marginalized from the modern world through her strident identification with Catholicism, especially the distinctive Spanish brand formed in in the Reconquest. Hispanic Catholicism, moreover, rooted itself to the indigenous cultures of the Americas in the sixteenth century, a century before Anglo-American Protestants 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 Africans forged a new mulatto race. Such an intense miscegenation never occurred in the Anglo-American colonies, where colonization involved the transfer of 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, op. cit. p. 4).
A key issue in doing theology from the Hispanic-American standpoint is to know and understand that theology has to take into consideration land-grabbing colonization and exile into account. The 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 Latinx community of the Diaspora in the U.S.A.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)