One of the issues that is seldom, if ever, openly discussed in church circles, is that of a perceived futility of theological discourse. Very few people, if any, would venture to express in a public manner the belief that theological discourse is not only not interesting, but also futile and sterile. They are afraid to be mocked for taking such a position, or afraid of being pressured into a discussion that would prove their long-held views to be wrong.
I personally do not believe that "no theology" is a better alternative to "bad theology." But I do believe that having a definite theology has its downfalls as well as its advantages. The downfalls that I see are the following:
1. The danger of ideological enclosure- Many people operate with ideology in the realm of politics, religion, and other branches of human knowledge. The immediate danger lies in thinking that outside of our theological ideology, whatever it may be, there is no truth. Our ideology, then, becomes our god, and we subsequently fall into the trap of ideological idolatry, i.e. deifying our ideology.
2. The failure to acknowledge the transcendence of God- There are many who believe that God is enclosed in and restricted to their theological dogma. In thinking in this manner, they believe that they have a monopoly on divine truth. When challenged by the possibility that God is not bound by or confined to their theological constructs, they get "all bent and out of shape." They come close to having a coronary when confronted by the the truth of God's transcendence and that they cannot restrict God to their theological boxes.
3. The distractions from life-Many people get so caught up in dogma that they become oblivious to their surroundings. An example of this is how Christians sometimes engage doctrinal debates about one thing or another, while at the same time disregarding and ignoring that suffering that is taking place in the world. At this point, theology becomes totally irrelevant, and as one well-known theologian said "even demonic."
What is the upside of having a theology? Theology helps us to:
1. Think critically and analytically about the implications of our faith. It helps us to identify not only what we believe, but also why we believe.
2. Avoid making our faith an emotional and mindless journey. It helps us to put our "grey matter" to work in deciphering divine truth.
3. Avoid the hodgepodge of syncretism. While there is an element of truth in every faith, we must seek to inquire where the basic and uncompromising truth of God lies.
The theological enterprise is not only much needed in the life of the Church, but is also part and parcel of the Church's mission in society and in the world. We are called to have a well thought out faith. We ask how does our faith help us to be in a better relationship with God and with our neighbor. The challenge for us, is then, acting, living, and thinking theologically. Thank God for the theological enterprise.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Anti-Colonial Theology
In religious and theological discourse, there are expressions and sayings that after time become either cliches or slogans. Many of these are sayings and/or statements that are parroted or merely regurgitated on the basis of habit or tradition. Many of them are merely repeated on the basis of mechanical impulse or robotic functioning. People use such phrases mindlessly and many times without knowing the implications of the statements and sayings. It is almost as if the practice of their faith were mechanical in nature, and did not involve analytical and critical thinking.
Examples of these are statements such as "The Bible says," "The Lord told me," "I believe," and so on and so forth. People repeat these phrases because they are so used to hearing them that they don't even think when they use these phrases.
The term "Post-colonial theology" is another one such term that many times is used in a rhetorical manner. It can be taken to mean different things to different people. The definition of that term will depend on who is using it, and the angle that he/she is coming from.
In this essay, I would like to talk about "Anti-colonial theology." To me, the term means a discourse about God which denounces the colonial situation of nations. It also means that it does not operate with the same norms or standards that classical or "normal" theology operates with.
What is Anti-colonial theology? To me, Anti-colonial theology is a theology which emerges from people who have been the victim of colonization, and who in turn generate a theology which reflects relevance to their situation as a colonized people.
I submit that Liberation Theology is in essence, an anti-colonial theology. It emerges from the reality of the oppression that is imposed on social groups along ethnic/racial, class, gender, and sexual orientation lines. The theology that emerges from these oppressed groups is not a theology of convenience, expedience, or opportunism. It is not a theology that is rooted in "sour grapes," or in being "sore losers." It is a theology grounded in the reality of God's liberating and salvific work in history. It denounces colonialism with all its attendant characteristics of the discrimination and injustices described above.
Some may ask, "Why does theology need to have the prefix 'anti' in it?" I attach the prefix "anti" because Liberation Theology is a prophetic theology which in accordance with the Scriptures and traditions, speaks on behalf of God, and also unmasks, identifies, and denounces the social evils of colonialism as well as all other social evils imposed on people.
How does theology or "God-talk" of any kind function among colonial people? Colonial theology, i.e.the theology of the colonizers serves to legitimize their colonizing actions, while Anti-colonial theology denounces these same actions. Anti-colonial theology says "Hell no" in the name of the Lord to the imposition of unjust economic, political, religious, and social structures. Anti-colonial theology exorcises the demonic element in social injustice and in its place, proclaims a message of hope and liberation.
Does Anti-colonial theology have a future? As long there continues to exist the reality of colonialism and neo-colonialism in any form, Anti-colonial theology along with Liberation Theology will continue not only exist, but also to function both faithfully and effectively in accordance with the Gospel.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
Examples of these are statements such as "The Bible says," "The Lord told me," "I believe," and so on and so forth. People repeat these phrases because they are so used to hearing them that they don't even think when they use these phrases.
The term "Post-colonial theology" is another one such term that many times is used in a rhetorical manner. It can be taken to mean different things to different people. The definition of that term will depend on who is using it, and the angle that he/she is coming from.
In this essay, I would like to talk about "Anti-colonial theology." To me, the term means a discourse about God which denounces the colonial situation of nations. It also means that it does not operate with the same norms or standards that classical or "normal" theology operates with.
What is Anti-colonial theology? To me, Anti-colonial theology is a theology which emerges from people who have been the victim of colonization, and who in turn generate a theology which reflects relevance to their situation as a colonized people.
I submit that Liberation Theology is in essence, an anti-colonial theology. It emerges from the reality of the oppression that is imposed on social groups along ethnic/racial, class, gender, and sexual orientation lines. The theology that emerges from these oppressed groups is not a theology of convenience, expedience, or opportunism. It is not a theology that is rooted in "sour grapes," or in being "sore losers." It is a theology grounded in the reality of God's liberating and salvific work in history. It denounces colonialism with all its attendant characteristics of the discrimination and injustices described above.
Some may ask, "Why does theology need to have the prefix 'anti' in it?" I attach the prefix "anti" because Liberation Theology is a prophetic theology which in accordance with the Scriptures and traditions, speaks on behalf of God, and also unmasks, identifies, and denounces the social evils of colonialism as well as all other social evils imposed on people.
How does theology or "God-talk" of any kind function among colonial people? Colonial theology, i.e.the theology of the colonizers serves to legitimize their colonizing actions, while Anti-colonial theology denounces these same actions. Anti-colonial theology says "Hell no" in the name of the Lord to the imposition of unjust economic, political, religious, and social structures. Anti-colonial theology exorcises the demonic element in social injustice and in its place, proclaims a message of hope and liberation.
Does Anti-colonial theology have a future? As long there continues to exist the reality of colonialism and neo-colonialism in any form, Anti-colonial theology along with Liberation Theology will continue not only exist, but also to function both faithfully and effectively in accordance with the Gospel.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
Monday, December 5, 2016
What Lies Ahead for the American People?
So now, it's been almost a month since the Presidential elections. There have been different reactions to the surprise that many experienced by having Donald Trump elected to be the next POTUS. After all the expressions, i.e. elation for some, and outright disdain and disgust for others, there now remains a fundamental question that we all have to deal with: Where do we go from here? Or we could ask, what lies ahead for the American public and for the world in the next four years?
Since none of us has a mirror that will allow us to look into the future to see every single occurrence, and since none of us has a magic wand to wave to change the course of history, no one can predict with accuracy what will happen in the next four years. And neither can any of us individually change the course of history.
My own perspective as a Christian minister and theologian is that Christ is the Lord, not only of the universe, but of history as well. He and he alone, as God's agent of liberation in the world, will determine the future for everyone in this planet.
If I were to begin to guess what might happen, I would surmise that the new Presidential administration will institute and install a government of white supremacy where African Americans and other people "of color" will suffer a lot more than they have since the foundation of this white supremacist nation-state, i.e. "Slavetown, USA." I suspect that there will be another Civil War based on ethnicity and race. I have a haunch that oppressed groups and social classes will suffer much, much more than they have. I also believe that oppressed groups will not tolerate the abuse and arise in opposition to fight against the abuse, and rightly so. Some will take the attitude, "Give the guy a chance," or "let's wait and see." I have my doubts, and as I've shared with some in a semi-humorous way, I think that God also has Her/His own doubts.
Is it possible that I could be very, very wrong? It is possible, but not probable. As a person who looks at historical trends, not only in the USA, but also on a global scale, I make predictions that are subject to correction and revision, but that at the same time, no doubt, have elements of accuracy in them.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that as we prepare to enter 2017 under a new regime, that we carefully brace ourselves and plan for a backlash. None of us like to be told "I told you so," but the truth of the matter is that "I told you so."
As we enter 2017, let us remember that Christ is Lord and that He and He alone, not only directs, but also determines the ultimate course and outcome of history.
In the Name of the Creator, and the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Since none of us has a mirror that will allow us to look into the future to see every single occurrence, and since none of us has a magic wand to wave to change the course of history, no one can predict with accuracy what will happen in the next four years. And neither can any of us individually change the course of history.
My own perspective as a Christian minister and theologian is that Christ is the Lord, not only of the universe, but of history as well. He and he alone, as God's agent of liberation in the world, will determine the future for everyone in this planet.
If I were to begin to guess what might happen, I would surmise that the new Presidential administration will institute and install a government of white supremacy where African Americans and other people "of color" will suffer a lot more than they have since the foundation of this white supremacist nation-state, i.e. "Slavetown, USA." I suspect that there will be another Civil War based on ethnicity and race. I have a haunch that oppressed groups and social classes will suffer much, much more than they have. I also believe that oppressed groups will not tolerate the abuse and arise in opposition to fight against the abuse, and rightly so. Some will take the attitude, "Give the guy a chance," or "let's wait and see." I have my doubts, and as I've shared with some in a semi-humorous way, I think that God also has Her/His own doubts.
Is it possible that I could be very, very wrong? It is possible, but not probable. As a person who looks at historical trends, not only in the USA, but also on a global scale, I make predictions that are subject to correction and revision, but that at the same time, no doubt, have elements of accuracy in them.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that as we prepare to enter 2017 under a new regime, that we carefully brace ourselves and plan for a backlash. None of us like to be told "I told you so," but the truth of the matter is that "I told you so."
As we enter 2017, let us remember that Christ is Lord and that He and He alone, not only directs, but also determines the ultimate course and outcome of history.
In the Name of the Creator, and the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The Syndrome of Ethnocentrism
In my seminary days, back in the late 1970's, in a Church History course that I was taking, the professor boldly stated that during the Middle Ages, there was nothing significant taking place outside of Europe relative to Church history. Being the curious troublemaker that I have always been, I raised my hand and asked the professor, "Is it that nothing significant was taking place outside of Europe, or is it that Church history has been written, for the most part from the ethnocentric standpoint of the European Church historians?" He responded to me and said, "I wouldn't put it that crassly." rc
I am not sure that ethnocentrism has been totally put to rest. By ethnocentrism, I am referring to the mindset that reality is determined by and revolves around the thinking of a certain cultural, ethnic, national, or racial group. Subsequently, the thinking is that whatever that group says or thinks, is the "universally valid" way of thinking. In this case, anything that was taking place in the churches outside of Europe, was considered "insignificant," or at the very least, of less importance.
In the Latin American Liberation Theology class that I am presently teaching at the Tainan Theological College and Seminary in Tainan, Taiwan, I have been emphasizing that Church History and Theology have been given to us by the "Great White Father (meaning Caucasian people from Europe and the United States)." I have emphasized that we people from Latin American and the rest of the so-called Third World must say "hell no" to the imposition of this Western colonial theology, and come up with a theology that emerges from our own cultural, economic, national, and social context. In other words, I am emphasizing that our theology has to reflect our existential reality and experience as an oppressed and subjugated people.
Is there a possibility that the emergence of our own contextualized theology may result in another ethnocentric theology? That is definitely a possibility. But I believe that the best way to prevent that from happening is to initiate a dialogue in which all theologies will engage with each other on the basis of parity. We need to avoid and eliminate the thinking that "white is right," and also the thinking that the theology that emerges from the countries of the periphery is "inferior." In addition, we must for once and for all reject the notion that our own theology has be validated by the theology of the "Great White Father."
Our biblical hermeneutic has to be determined, not by what Euro-American theology say is right, but rather by how our situation as a dominated and subjugated people informs our thinking on the meaning of Scripture. We need to understand the biblical message through the prism of who and where we are. No longer can it be a question of quoting biblical passages that seem to imply justification for keeping certain social groups and women in a position of inferiority. Our theology needs to be one which is liberating, i.e. a theology, which in essence, resonates with the Gospel message of the liberating Christ in history.
En fin, we must do all that we can to avoid theological ethnocentrism, and move in the direction of a more globalized theology which enables us to speak with one another, not from the standpoint of competition or of power, but rather from the standpoint of cooperation and of commitment to alleviate the suffering which takes place in the world.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
I am not sure that ethnocentrism has been totally put to rest. By ethnocentrism, I am referring to the mindset that reality is determined by and revolves around the thinking of a certain cultural, ethnic, national, or racial group. Subsequently, the thinking is that whatever that group says or thinks, is the "universally valid" way of thinking. In this case, anything that was taking place in the churches outside of Europe, was considered "insignificant," or at the very least, of less importance.
In the Latin American Liberation Theology class that I am presently teaching at the Tainan Theological College and Seminary in Tainan, Taiwan, I have been emphasizing that Church History and Theology have been given to us by the "Great White Father (meaning Caucasian people from Europe and the United States)." I have emphasized that we people from Latin American and the rest of the so-called Third World must say "hell no" to the imposition of this Western colonial theology, and come up with a theology that emerges from our own cultural, economic, national, and social context. In other words, I am emphasizing that our theology has to reflect our existential reality and experience as an oppressed and subjugated people.
Is there a possibility that the emergence of our own contextualized theology may result in another ethnocentric theology? That is definitely a possibility. But I believe that the best way to prevent that from happening is to initiate a dialogue in which all theologies will engage with each other on the basis of parity. We need to avoid and eliminate the thinking that "white is right," and also the thinking that the theology that emerges from the countries of the periphery is "inferior." In addition, we must for once and for all reject the notion that our own theology has be validated by the theology of the "Great White Father."
Our biblical hermeneutic has to be determined, not by what Euro-American theology say is right, but rather by how our situation as a dominated and subjugated people informs our thinking on the meaning of Scripture. We need to understand the biblical message through the prism of who and where we are. No longer can it be a question of quoting biblical passages that seem to imply justification for keeping certain social groups and women in a position of inferiority. Our theology needs to be one which is liberating, i.e. a theology, which in essence, resonates with the Gospel message of the liberating Christ in history.
En fin, we must do all that we can to avoid theological ethnocentrism, and move in the direction of a more globalized theology which enables us to speak with one another, not from the standpoint of competition or of power, but rather from the standpoint of cooperation and of commitment to alleviate the suffering which takes place in the world.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
Saturday, November 5, 2016
A Pastor's Take on Homosexuality
Not only because the issue of same-sex relations and same-sex lifestyles have in recent years become an issue of controversy, not only in secular society, but within the very Church of Christ, as a minister, I also struggle with the issue relative to where I stand on it. I have a certain position on the issue, but at the same time, I realize that there are other positions which are just as valid, and that we should accord the same respect that we expect for whatever position we may adhere to. Does this mean that we compromise our position? Absolutely not! What it does mean, however, is that the issue of same-sex relations and lifestyles, like many other issues, is not one of "black and white." Like other issues, such as abortion, just wars, etc., it is a very complex issue. I will state my position and related matters on this. In doing so, I hope to learn from others who may disagree with me, and only God knows, may convince me to revise, or at the very least, reevaluate my position. Let me state in chronological order certain things relative to this issue. Others may have a chronological order of their own, and that is okay.
1. To base sexual morality exclusively on the basis of the Scriptural witness is complicated. We cannot deal with sexual morality in the Bible unless we take into consideration that the sexual morality in Scripture emerges from an agricultural context, where the woman is considered to the property of the man. In the Bible, marriage is an economic arrangement, not only between two parties, but also between families. The issue of arranged marriages complicates this even more. We are then forced to ask, what aspects of biblically-based morality are culturally-based, and relevant only to the context in which it appears, and what aspects of biblically-based morality are universally applicable in all times and in all places?
2. The rush to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Sodom and Gomorrah debacle is "off the charts." A very careful reading of the story of the angels (or men, take your pick) at Lot's house will reveal that the issue there was not homosexuality at all, but rather one of lack of hospitality towards strangers, on the one hand, and attempted rape on the other.
3. The Scriptural injunctions against homosexuality are clearly directed towards those who go against their own nature and make homosexual relations and lifestyles a matter of choice. In those cases where there are Scriptural arguments against choice-based homosexuality, homosexuality is a sin like any other, including greed, murder, and social injustice. In that case, it is not to be singled out any more than any other sin.
4. To appeal to "nature," also presents a conundrum. For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about the length of the man and the woman's hair an issue by appealing to nature. The appeal to nature is also faulty in that it fails to take into consideration the many physical, physiological, and psychological deformities that some people are born with. And before any of my gay sisters or brothers jump to the conclusion that I am categorizing homosexuality as a "deformity," let make very clear that this is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that genetically and physiologically-based same-sex orientation should be weighed in this discussion. And since I am not an expert in these areas, I abstain from comments on whether this type of orientation is natural or not.
What are we to do then? How should this matter be resolved theologically? There are no easy answers. Since all theology is tentative, my personal position on this issue is also tentative. Based on the Scriptural injunction against choice-based homosexuality, and also on my very limited knowledge of science relative to sex, my position is as follows:
1. Choice-based homosexuality is a sin and violation of God's will for humankind. I think that nature as a whole points to homosexuality as a deviation from God's original intention.
2. Genetically-based homosexuality is to be evaluated on its own merits. Since as of yet, there is no conclusion that has been absolutely proven, it remains an open-ended question.
Is my personal position subject to reevaluation and to revision? At the present time, I am inclined to say that I probably will never change my position. But since I am not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, I give room to the possibility that further information may arrive that might lead me to revise my stance. If this were to happen, I would first of all, be grateful to God for making it possible for me to expand my horizons on this issue, and also to those persons whose knowledge contributes to critical analysis.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
1. To base sexual morality exclusively on the basis of the Scriptural witness is complicated. We cannot deal with sexual morality in the Bible unless we take into consideration that the sexual morality in Scripture emerges from an agricultural context, where the woman is considered to the property of the man. In the Bible, marriage is an economic arrangement, not only between two parties, but also between families. The issue of arranged marriages complicates this even more. We are then forced to ask, what aspects of biblically-based morality are culturally-based, and relevant only to the context in which it appears, and what aspects of biblically-based morality are universally applicable in all times and in all places?
2. The rush to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Sodom and Gomorrah debacle is "off the charts." A very careful reading of the story of the angels (or men, take your pick) at Lot's house will reveal that the issue there was not homosexuality at all, but rather one of lack of hospitality towards strangers, on the one hand, and attempted rape on the other.
3. The Scriptural injunctions against homosexuality are clearly directed towards those who go against their own nature and make homosexual relations and lifestyles a matter of choice. In those cases where there are Scriptural arguments against choice-based homosexuality, homosexuality is a sin like any other, including greed, murder, and social injustice. In that case, it is not to be singled out any more than any other sin.
4. To appeal to "nature," also presents a conundrum. For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about the length of the man and the woman's hair an issue by appealing to nature. The appeal to nature is also faulty in that it fails to take into consideration the many physical, physiological, and psychological deformities that some people are born with. And before any of my gay sisters or brothers jump to the conclusion that I am categorizing homosexuality as a "deformity," let make very clear that this is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that genetically and physiologically-based same-sex orientation should be weighed in this discussion. And since I am not an expert in these areas, I abstain from comments on whether this type of orientation is natural or not.
What are we to do then? How should this matter be resolved theologically? There are no easy answers. Since all theology is tentative, my personal position on this issue is also tentative. Based on the Scriptural injunction against choice-based homosexuality, and also on my very limited knowledge of science relative to sex, my position is as follows:
1. Choice-based homosexuality is a sin and violation of God's will for humankind. I think that nature as a whole points to homosexuality as a deviation from God's original intention.
2. Genetically-based homosexuality is to be evaluated on its own merits. Since as of yet, there is no conclusion that has been absolutely proven, it remains an open-ended question.
Is my personal position subject to reevaluation and to revision? At the present time, I am inclined to say that I probably will never change my position. But since I am not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, I give room to the possibility that further information may arrive that might lead me to revise my stance. If this were to happen, I would first of all, be grateful to God for making it possible for me to expand my horizons on this issue, and also to those persons whose knowledge contributes to critical analysis.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)