In many religious communities, there is the concept of evil forces vs. good forces. In the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition there is the notion of God vs. the Devil or Satan. It is not my purpose here to deny outright the existence of spirit-beings that are devoted to evil and to the destruction of humankind, but rather to put these things into proper perspective for our consideration.
The Christian Church has for centuries believed in the existence of evil spirit beings. In order to support this belief, they have used certain passages of the Bible to justify holding on to these ideas.
Some Christians believe that the reference to the earth being "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 refers to a cataclysmic destruction brought on by an evil force against God's creation. In their thinking, since God does not make anything imperfect, that chaos spoken of in Genesis has to be attributed to a destructive evil spirit hell-bent (no pun intended) on opposing God and God's creation. Interestingly enough, the Babylonian account of Creation, which has similarities with the biblical account of creation, contains the myth that the earth was in a state of disorder because the evil god Marduk invaded it and wreaked havoc. Christians who hold on to this view do not consider the alternative possibility, i.e. that God's creation process was not finalized, and that this is the reason why Genesis speaks about the earth being without form and void.
Then as the story moves on, we are told about a serpent (snake) in the Garden of Eden who seduces the woman to eat of the fruit which God had prohibited her and her husband to eat of. It is to be noted that some interpretations of this story are very sexist in nature, in that they suggest that the reason why the snake approached the woman instead of the man was because the woman supposedly was more susceptible and vulnerable to temptations. Another interpretation of this would be that the man was a "dud," because he was standing right there and was not smart enough to resist eating the fruit when his wife offered it to him. In either case, the Church has taken the historical stance that this snake was the Devil. Nowhere in Scripture do we find support for this notion
In the book of Job, we find Satan (from the Hebrew "Ha Satan," the adversary) being part of the Council of God. He is reported to have reported to God along with the other "sons of God." Here again, the Church has misused Scripture to make it sound like this story is about an evil spirit being, when it is very clear that here Satan is the prosecuting attorney of God's Assembly.
In Isaiah 14:12 there is a reference to Lucifer (from the Hebrew word "Helel" which means angel of light). For whatever reason the Church has used this passage to explain the origin of evil, i.e. that Lucifer was an angel given much glory by God, and who got carried away with it, and as a result was demoted by God and relegated to the lower regions of the universe. However, a very close reading of the book of the prophet Isaiah will reveal this passage was an oracle against the king of Babylon, and not against any spirit-being.
We find reference again to Satan in the book of Daniel, where it is mentioned that this spirit-being was successful in delaying the angel of God from coming to Daniel's help. Since the book of Daniel is part of the literature which was written during the Babylonian and Persian captivity, one can't help but wonder where Daniel, as a literary document, reflected Persian influence regarding the existence of spirit-beings, as appears in Persian literature.
And then of course, in the Gospel accounts, we find reference to the Devil tempting and engaging in conversation with Jesus. It is possible that the Gospel writings reflected post-Exilic Judaism, which no doubt, was influenced by Babylonian and Persian spirituality. The references to the Devil in the book of Revelation are part of the use of cryptic code language to disguise the diatribe against the Roman Empire.
What do we then do with the Devil and the demons as actual entities? Do we believe in them because we take a literal approach to what the Bible says about them? Do we classify them as literary myths borrowed from pre-Christian spirituality? Or do we just ask if it makes any difference?
This writer is not concerned with whatever position people take. If people, for whatever reason, wish to hold on the traditional belief in the existence of evil spirit-beings, that is their choice to which they are entitled. If any one opts for any of the other possibilities, that is also their choice to which they are entitled. No one should impose their belief on others because they believe that their position is the absolute truth. This writer happens to believe that regardless of what position one takes, the message of the Gospel is very clear, i.e. in Christ all evil will be conquered and vanquished. The writer of Revelation tells us of the scenario where the voice is heard "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever."
I humbly and respectfully submit this to you for your comments and input. Your contribution will be very, very valuable.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Thinking "Outside the Box"
One of the main issues that causes divisions among us is that of ideological differences. We cannot avoid having ideological differences, as we all, for a variety of reasons, believe the way we do. We all have a set of beliefs in the area of politics, social issues, and religion. Some of our beliefs are shaped and formed in our home environments, others in our communities of faith, and yet others, through the educational system.
It is my purpose here, not to advocate for a particular ideology, but rather, to have us examine and question ourselves as to why we believe the way we do. In the area of religious and theological belief systems, we tend to become defensive, and even at some points aggressive when confronted with a set of beliefs that is different from ours. We tend to demonize people whose ideology is contrary to ours, and we dismiss them with derogatory terms as "apostate, heretical, false, etc." A common cliché and slogan of dismissal among conservative evangelical Christians is the term "liberal." It is used to dismiss outright any belief system that does not conform to the traditional view of an "inspired" book such as the Bible. So-called "liberals," in turn, dismiss conservative evangelicals as "obscurantists," i.e. living in the Dark Ages or living with outmoded ideas.
How can we bridge the ideological gap that exists between Christians? I am not a proponent of any one abdicating or surrendering their beliefs just for the sake of accommodation. That would not be ethical. One has to hold on to beliefs which emerge out of true conviction, and not out of accommodation to social or popular expectations. I propose the following, though not expecting that it will be a perfect solution to the problem of ideological barriers.
1. Examine thoroughly the background of those beliefs which are different from yours. In other words, acquaint yourself with the historical emergence of those beliefs, in terms of how they started, with whom, where, and the reasons for them. In this way, you will have a better idea why people believe the way they do.
2. Examine your own belief system in the same way as above, i.e. who, why, what, when, how, and where, rather than just accept or hold on to them blindly.
3. Give room to the possibility that there is truth outside of your theological "box," i.e. don't be so bigoted and narrow-minded, and dogmatic. If you stay stuck in your ideological box, you will miss out on the opportunity to find great truths in other boxes.
4. If you use the Bible as the main source of your beliefs and practices, do not simply quote it or use it for proof-texting. Acquaint yourself with the cultural and historical background of each biblical segment that you read. Identify that background and it will help you to see what you read in a much broader light.
5. Be willing to engage in open dialogue with others, especially with those whose beliefs are different. Since none of us has monopoly on the truth, we all have a lot to learn from each other.
6. Respect the right of others to believe as they do. Give them the same respect that you expect from them for your beliefs.
7. Be "liberal" in the strictest sense of the word. By this I mean be open to a wide variety of perspectives. If the sacred text that we revere and honor so much, itself reflects a variety of theological perspectives, who are we, then to be adverse and closed to different perspectives.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your input will really be valuable and appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
It is my purpose here, not to advocate for a particular ideology, but rather, to have us examine and question ourselves as to why we believe the way we do. In the area of religious and theological belief systems, we tend to become defensive, and even at some points aggressive when confronted with a set of beliefs that is different from ours. We tend to demonize people whose ideology is contrary to ours, and we dismiss them with derogatory terms as "apostate, heretical, false, etc." A common cliché and slogan of dismissal among conservative evangelical Christians is the term "liberal." It is used to dismiss outright any belief system that does not conform to the traditional view of an "inspired" book such as the Bible. So-called "liberals," in turn, dismiss conservative evangelicals as "obscurantists," i.e. living in the Dark Ages or living with outmoded ideas.
How can we bridge the ideological gap that exists between Christians? I am not a proponent of any one abdicating or surrendering their beliefs just for the sake of accommodation. That would not be ethical. One has to hold on to beliefs which emerge out of true conviction, and not out of accommodation to social or popular expectations. I propose the following, though not expecting that it will be a perfect solution to the problem of ideological barriers.
1. Examine thoroughly the background of those beliefs which are different from yours. In other words, acquaint yourself with the historical emergence of those beliefs, in terms of how they started, with whom, where, and the reasons for them. In this way, you will have a better idea why people believe the way they do.
2. Examine your own belief system in the same way as above, i.e. who, why, what, when, how, and where, rather than just accept or hold on to them blindly.
3. Give room to the possibility that there is truth outside of your theological "box," i.e. don't be so bigoted and narrow-minded, and dogmatic. If you stay stuck in your ideological box, you will miss out on the opportunity to find great truths in other boxes.
4. If you use the Bible as the main source of your beliefs and practices, do not simply quote it or use it for proof-texting. Acquaint yourself with the cultural and historical background of each biblical segment that you read. Identify that background and it will help you to see what you read in a much broader light.
5. Be willing to engage in open dialogue with others, especially with those whose beliefs are different. Since none of us has monopoly on the truth, we all have a lot to learn from each other.
6. Respect the right of others to believe as they do. Give them the same respect that you expect from them for your beliefs.
7. Be "liberal" in the strictest sense of the word. By this I mean be open to a wide variety of perspectives. If the sacred text that we revere and honor so much, itself reflects a variety of theological perspectives, who are we, then to be adverse and closed to different perspectives.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your input will really be valuable and appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 6, 2015
Theology of Hope
Theology of Hope is a school of thought (some might think of it as a movement) that is part of the politically oriented theologies that emerged in the era of the Confessing Church, during the time that Adolf Hitler ruled in Germany. Christians who protested against the Hitler regime reflected on the meaning of what it meant to be a Christian in the face of injustice and state-sponsored terrorism. Like pastors Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom led the church in prophetically denouncing Hitler and his policy of dehumanization, Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg spoke of hope in the midst of the despair that was enveloping Europe. Moltmann wrote his three books, Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, and The Church in the Power of the Spirit.
Theology of Hope focused on the Resurrection as the starting point for building up enthusiasm for the final moment in history (the eschaton). Both Moltmann and Pannenberg were convinced that the atrocities being imposed on humanity through the Hitler regime would eventually come to an end like all other evils. The Resurrection was the central point of hope, not only for the Jews living in Germany and other parts of Europe, but also for all of humanity who suffered from whatever their sufferings could be named. The final moment of history should serve as an encouragement and inspiration to those who fought and struggled against an evil system. Unlike another theology which would emerge later, and which will be the focus of my next essay on a series of theological schools (Liberation Theology) and used the sufferings of the Hebrews under Egyptian bondage and Babylonian captivity as a starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, Theology of Hope focused more on the end of history. The central biblical motif was the Resurrection in that it represented life conquering over death.
I should note that Theology of Hope is not a "pie in the sky by and by" type of thinking. Neither is it a theology which merely speaks about "On the other side of Jordan." It does not cater to the notion that we should sit with our hands crossed "waiting for Jesus to come." Theology of Hope does not encourage passivity. If anything, it promotes the notion that the Church should immerse itself in the struggle for justice, not only on a national basis, but on a global basis as well. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Theology of Hope, is considered the driving force of the Church's political and social involvement, leading to transformation. Unlike Liberation Theology, Theology of Hope does not make as much use of critical and social analysis in order to initiate structural change. Some might consider the "hope" in the Theology of Hope to be an "elusive" reality which is not manifested in the present moment, but rather as one that will emerge as a concrete reality in the not too distant future. Theology of Hope finds signs of encouragement for the future "here and there," but does not hail any movement or accomplishment as the arrival of the kingdom of God
I invite and encourage you, the reader, to engage in the literature of the Theology of Hope, and to come up with your own evaluation. I highly recommend acquaintance with Moltmann's book, The Crucified God, so that you can have a clearer idea of the central motifs of Theology of Hope. Please feel free to share your perspectives and views with us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Theology of Hope focused on the Resurrection as the starting point for building up enthusiasm for the final moment in history (the eschaton). Both Moltmann and Pannenberg were convinced that the atrocities being imposed on humanity through the Hitler regime would eventually come to an end like all other evils. The Resurrection was the central point of hope, not only for the Jews living in Germany and other parts of Europe, but also for all of humanity who suffered from whatever their sufferings could be named. The final moment of history should serve as an encouragement and inspiration to those who fought and struggled against an evil system. Unlike another theology which would emerge later, and which will be the focus of my next essay on a series of theological schools (Liberation Theology) and used the sufferings of the Hebrews under Egyptian bondage and Babylonian captivity as a starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, Theology of Hope focused more on the end of history. The central biblical motif was the Resurrection in that it represented life conquering over death.
I should note that Theology of Hope is not a "pie in the sky by and by" type of thinking. Neither is it a theology which merely speaks about "On the other side of Jordan." It does not cater to the notion that we should sit with our hands crossed "waiting for Jesus to come." Theology of Hope does not encourage passivity. If anything, it promotes the notion that the Church should immerse itself in the struggle for justice, not only on a national basis, but on a global basis as well. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Theology of Hope, is considered the driving force of the Church's political and social involvement, leading to transformation. Unlike Liberation Theology, Theology of Hope does not make as much use of critical and social analysis in order to initiate structural change. Some might consider the "hope" in the Theology of Hope to be an "elusive" reality which is not manifested in the present moment, but rather as one that will emerge as a concrete reality in the not too distant future. Theology of Hope finds signs of encouragement for the future "here and there," but does not hail any movement or accomplishment as the arrival of the kingdom of God
I invite and encourage you, the reader, to engage in the literature of the Theology of Hope, and to come up with your own evaluation. I highly recommend acquaintance with Moltmann's book, The Crucified God, so that you can have a clearer idea of the central motifs of Theology of Hope. Please feel free to share your perspectives and views with us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, April 2, 2015
What is this about Easter?
Here comes Peter Cotton Tail, hopping down the bunny trail. Put on your Easter bonnets, and prepare for the Easter parade. Egg hunts, really? Spring flowers? Hum! Easter's on its way. Wow!
Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. So we are told. The tradition has been handed down from one generation to the other. But with all the glamor and celebrations going on, you would think that the resurrection is the last thing on people's minds. After singing Christ the Lord is Risen Today, or another related hymn, Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Sunday morning, what do we do when we leave church and go home? Do we continue to rejoice in the good news of the resurrection, or do we leave that behind at church just to go home and have a ham dinner with our family and/or friends? What is Easter really about? Is it about wearing our "Sunday best?" Is it an occasion for a fashion show? Is it a continuation of Saturday night at the Apollo?
This writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the historical event of the resurrection. The Apostle's Creed reminds us of that when it reads "The third day He rose again from the dead." I also believe in the power of the resurrection to transform lives, both individually and collectively. I also believe in the challenge that a certain theologian, Rudolf Bultmann presents. Bultmann spoke about the resurrection in terms of our dying to our selfishness and sense of inadequacy and rising to the maximum of our potential. Bultmann apparently was not concerned, as many of us would be with whether or not the resurrection was a literal historical event. In fact, Bultmann believed that for us to understand and apply the message of the Gospel in our time, we would have to "demythologize" the New Testament, i.e. strip it of its mythical elements, and reinterpret it in the light of today's reality. I would like to invite you to participate in demythologizing the story of the resurrection. In saying that, I am not denying the historicity of the resurrection. As I said, I take it to be a literal historical event which has historical implications.
If the resurrection is merely an event of the past, it is myth and has no relevance for us today. But if that event of the past energizes us to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation, then it is a powerful event. If we leave it in the past, it is just an encrusted and stale legend. It would then, force us to ask what is the "so what" of a past historical event?
Precisely because God's action in resurrecting the crucified Lord is so powerful, I humbly and respectfully submit the challenge for all of us to be immersed in this wonderful power. I submit that this power should be a motor force that drives us into the struggle against all forms of human injustice, whether it be classism, racism, sexism, or any other type of "ism" that destroys God's creation. Because Christ is risen, we say "hell no" to all types of dehumanization. May the power of the Risen Lord motivate us to go out and combat everything and everyone that seeks to destroy all the good things which God has made. May the Risen Lord empower us through the Holy Spirit to engage in liberating and redemptive task. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. So we are told. The tradition has been handed down from one generation to the other. But with all the glamor and celebrations going on, you would think that the resurrection is the last thing on people's minds. After singing Christ the Lord is Risen Today, or another related hymn, Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Sunday morning, what do we do when we leave church and go home? Do we continue to rejoice in the good news of the resurrection, or do we leave that behind at church just to go home and have a ham dinner with our family and/or friends? What is Easter really about? Is it about wearing our "Sunday best?" Is it an occasion for a fashion show? Is it a continuation of Saturday night at the Apollo?
This writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the historical event of the resurrection. The Apostle's Creed reminds us of that when it reads "The third day He rose again from the dead." I also believe in the power of the resurrection to transform lives, both individually and collectively. I also believe in the challenge that a certain theologian, Rudolf Bultmann presents. Bultmann spoke about the resurrection in terms of our dying to our selfishness and sense of inadequacy and rising to the maximum of our potential. Bultmann apparently was not concerned, as many of us would be with whether or not the resurrection was a literal historical event. In fact, Bultmann believed that for us to understand and apply the message of the Gospel in our time, we would have to "demythologize" the New Testament, i.e. strip it of its mythical elements, and reinterpret it in the light of today's reality. I would like to invite you to participate in demythologizing the story of the resurrection. In saying that, I am not denying the historicity of the resurrection. As I said, I take it to be a literal historical event which has historical implications.
If the resurrection is merely an event of the past, it is myth and has no relevance for us today. But if that event of the past energizes us to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation, then it is a powerful event. If we leave it in the past, it is just an encrusted and stale legend. It would then, force us to ask what is the "so what" of a past historical event?
Precisely because God's action in resurrecting the crucified Lord is so powerful, I humbly and respectfully submit the challenge for all of us to be immersed in this wonderful power. I submit that this power should be a motor force that drives us into the struggle against all forms of human injustice, whether it be classism, racism, sexism, or any other type of "ism" that destroys God's creation. Because Christ is risen, we say "hell no" to all types of dehumanization. May the power of the Risen Lord motivate us to go out and combat everything and everyone that seeks to destroy all the good things which God has made. May the Risen Lord empower us through the Holy Spirit to engage in liberating and redemptive task. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Human Language About God
Language is our way of communicating with each other and with all other creatures that we believe have the ability to understand what we are trying to convey. Without language, it would be difficult to live in this world in that we could not express or say what we want or need. Yes, some will say that we can use sign language or physical motions. While that is true, the efficacy of our communications would be very limited.
For those of us who believe in God, we have nothing other than our language to communicate and express what we think about God. Through language we express whether God-talk or engaging with God are even important. Through language, we express what our ideas and thoughts about God are.
The Bible uses a lot of anthropomorphic language. This means that the biblical language about God attributes human-like qualities to God. In other words, the language that we hear in the Bible concerning God give the impression that God is like us.
We're told that in the beginning God said "Let us make humankind in our own image and in our own likeness." If we were to take that passage literally, we would have to conclude, then, that humankind has similarities with God and vice-versa. We also hear of God "repenting" of having made humankind. We read about the "wrath of God." We are informed about God "sitting on a throne, surrounded by angels." We also read about God asking humans questions, such as "Adam, where are you?" The Psalm writers speak about God in terms of majesty and power. The Scriptures speak about Jesus sitting "at the right hand" of God. For those who believe in the divine nature of Jesus, we hear of God referred to as "Father and Son."
Can we avoid human language about God? I would say that it is impossible. We have finite and very limited human minds. Subsequently, our ability to communicate is also very limited, and therefore we are left with no choice but to communicate in the language or languages with which we are most familiar. Our mentality generates images of God. Instead of God creating humankind in God's image and likeness, humankind creates God in its image and likeness.
While we cannot avoid human language about God, we can live with the realization that our language does not even begin to "scratch the surface." God is much greater than anything that we can express about God. Our mental constructs of God reflect our assumptions, biases, prejudices about God. We speak about God as if God were a reflection of ourselves with our tendency to anger and temper tantrums. When we pout, shout, and act in an infantile manner, we sometimes project those actions and attitudes towards God, as if God had nothing better to do.
A closing question of reflection for you and for all of us would be, "Are we made in the image and likeness of God, or is God make in our image and likeness?" Please share with us and tell us what your thoughts are on this.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
For those of us who believe in God, we have nothing other than our language to communicate and express what we think about God. Through language we express whether God-talk or engaging with God are even important. Through language, we express what our ideas and thoughts about God are.
The Bible uses a lot of anthropomorphic language. This means that the biblical language about God attributes human-like qualities to God. In other words, the language that we hear in the Bible concerning God give the impression that God is like us.
We're told that in the beginning God said "Let us make humankind in our own image and in our own likeness." If we were to take that passage literally, we would have to conclude, then, that humankind has similarities with God and vice-versa. We also hear of God "repenting" of having made humankind. We read about the "wrath of God." We are informed about God "sitting on a throne, surrounded by angels." We also read about God asking humans questions, such as "Adam, where are you?" The Psalm writers speak about God in terms of majesty and power. The Scriptures speak about Jesus sitting "at the right hand" of God. For those who believe in the divine nature of Jesus, we hear of God referred to as "Father and Son."
Can we avoid human language about God? I would say that it is impossible. We have finite and very limited human minds. Subsequently, our ability to communicate is also very limited, and therefore we are left with no choice but to communicate in the language or languages with which we are most familiar. Our mentality generates images of God. Instead of God creating humankind in God's image and likeness, humankind creates God in its image and likeness.
While we cannot avoid human language about God, we can live with the realization that our language does not even begin to "scratch the surface." God is much greater than anything that we can express about God. Our mental constructs of God reflect our assumptions, biases, prejudices about God. We speak about God as if God were a reflection of ourselves with our tendency to anger and temper tantrums. When we pout, shout, and act in an infantile manner, we sometimes project those actions and attitudes towards God, as if God had nothing better to do.
A closing question of reflection for you and for all of us would be, "Are we made in the image and likeness of God, or is God make in our image and likeness?" Please share with us and tell us what your thoughts are on this.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)