Monday, October 20, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Is There Truth Outside the Bible?
Small-talk Dialogue: Is There Truth Outside the Bible?: This essay is intended to provoke and stimulate honest and serious thinking. I know that some people may even be offended by the very quest...
Is There Truth Outside the Bible?
This essay is intended to provoke and stimulate honest and serious thinking. I know that some people may even be offended by the very question in the title of the essay. While it has never been my intention to hurt or offend anyone by anything that I say, I know that for whatever reason, there are people whose sensibilities are challenged by what they read. I, however, submit everything I write with humility and respect for the opinions and views of others, regardless of whether I agree or not with their perspectives.
So we ask the question, is there truth beyond the confines of that book which we call the Bible? Like with the questions of previous essays, we are dealing with complex issues. There are no "black or white" answers, but rather answers that some of us may offer, which in turn, will lead to more questions. In that spirit, I offer the following for your consideration and dialogue:
1. I think that the attempt to answer this question would include the question "What is truth" or "What do we mean by truth?" For many of us, "truth" is whatever we believe to be reflective of the objective reality of life, i.e. something that cannot be doubted, refuted, or even questioned. In other words, truth is whatever we believe to be the final answer to all questions, "end of story," and away with "razzle dazzle." For many people, to even begin to question whatever is considered the absolute truth, is to commit blasphemy or to be inspired by some demonic entity. For them, truth is truth, and as we Spanish-speaking people say "se acabo (it is finished)."
2. From a faith standpoint, I think that a more appropriate and relevant question would be "Who is the truth?" Relative to this discussion, truth then would be (at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition), the person of God or God as an entity as the embodiment of truth.
3. To believe or state that there is no truth outside the Bible poses the following problems:
a. Those who subscribe to this position fail to take into consideration that God, who is truth, existed eternally long before the Bible was written. Without realizing it, they are in essence, saying that truth came into existence when the Bible was written and completed. That would mean, then, that there was no truth prior to the written record of Scripture.
b. To subscribe to this position is to" box" God in to a book which was written by fallible and imperfect human beings. In saying this, I am not overlooking the element of the divine inspiration of the Bible, but rather affirming that the truths of the Bible come to us filtered and mediated through the agency of frail, sinful, and weak human beings.
c. To say that truth does not exist aside from the Bible is to tamper with the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty, i.e. the notion of God doing what God wants, and how, and when, and through whomever God wants. This is like saying that if God in God's sovereignty chooses to speak to us through means other than the Bible, that it is to be rejected because the Bible is considered to be "the only source of truth."
d. To say that truth is limited to the Bible is, in essence, to say that the people who lived long before the Bible was written had no truth. This is, in a sense, a continuation of point "a" above. That means that these civilizations and peoples lived in utter darkness.
e. If we hold on to point "d," above that would mean that the people who lived long before the Bible was written can not be held accountable for not living according to the "truth." Some might respond that they had "nature" as a source of truth, but nature could never in and of itself, provide the foundation for a systematic or even half-baked organized body of teachings that would enable people to live responsibly with both God and their neighbor.
f. To affirm that there is no truth aside from Scripture is reflective of religious imperialism, i.e. words the arrogant notion that only those communities of faith (Jewish and Christian) who subscribe to the Bible as a rule of faith, are somehow under the provisions of God's liberating and redemptive activities in the world. That would mean that the Africans, Asians, and others who lived before the Bible was written were confined to eternal condemnation through no fault of their own. That position, in, and of itself, contradicts what we find in many portions of Scripture, i.e. that God is the God of all who seek for God and live according to God's revelation of Godself. The story of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10, and other portions of Scripture attest to this fact.
I now invite you the reader, to respond to this, and to engage with us. It should be a very interesting topic of discussion. Tell us where you stand on this issue and why. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated by all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
So we ask the question, is there truth beyond the confines of that book which we call the Bible? Like with the questions of previous essays, we are dealing with complex issues. There are no "black or white" answers, but rather answers that some of us may offer, which in turn, will lead to more questions. In that spirit, I offer the following for your consideration and dialogue:
1. I think that the attempt to answer this question would include the question "What is truth" or "What do we mean by truth?" For many of us, "truth" is whatever we believe to be reflective of the objective reality of life, i.e. something that cannot be doubted, refuted, or even questioned. In other words, truth is whatever we believe to be the final answer to all questions, "end of story," and away with "razzle dazzle." For many people, to even begin to question whatever is considered the absolute truth, is to commit blasphemy or to be inspired by some demonic entity. For them, truth is truth, and as we Spanish-speaking people say "se acabo (it is finished)."
2. From a faith standpoint, I think that a more appropriate and relevant question would be "Who is the truth?" Relative to this discussion, truth then would be (at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition), the person of God or God as an entity as the embodiment of truth.
3. To believe or state that there is no truth outside the Bible poses the following problems:
a. Those who subscribe to this position fail to take into consideration that God, who is truth, existed eternally long before the Bible was written. Without realizing it, they are in essence, saying that truth came into existence when the Bible was written and completed. That would mean, then, that there was no truth prior to the written record of Scripture.
b. To subscribe to this position is to" box" God in to a book which was written by fallible and imperfect human beings. In saying this, I am not overlooking the element of the divine inspiration of the Bible, but rather affirming that the truths of the Bible come to us filtered and mediated through the agency of frail, sinful, and weak human beings.
c. To say that truth does not exist aside from the Bible is to tamper with the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty, i.e. the notion of God doing what God wants, and how, and when, and through whomever God wants. This is like saying that if God in God's sovereignty chooses to speak to us through means other than the Bible, that it is to be rejected because the Bible is considered to be "the only source of truth."
d. To say that truth is limited to the Bible is, in essence, to say that the people who lived long before the Bible was written had no truth. This is, in a sense, a continuation of point "a" above. That means that these civilizations and peoples lived in utter darkness.
e. If we hold on to point "d," above that would mean that the people who lived long before the Bible was written can not be held accountable for not living according to the "truth." Some might respond that they had "nature" as a source of truth, but nature could never in and of itself, provide the foundation for a systematic or even half-baked organized body of teachings that would enable people to live responsibly with both God and their neighbor.
f. To affirm that there is no truth aside from Scripture is reflective of religious imperialism, i.e. words the arrogant notion that only those communities of faith (Jewish and Christian) who subscribe to the Bible as a rule of faith, are somehow under the provisions of God's liberating and redemptive activities in the world. That would mean that the Africans, Asians, and others who lived before the Bible was written were confined to eternal condemnation through no fault of their own. That position, in, and of itself, contradicts what we find in many portions of Scripture, i.e. that God is the God of all who seek for God and live according to God's revelation of Godself. The story of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10, and other portions of Scripture attest to this fact.
I now invite you the reader, to respond to this, and to engage with us. It should be a very interesting topic of discussion. Tell us where you stand on this issue and why. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated by all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Women
Small-talk Dialogue: Reading the Bible as Women: The title of this essay might, from the very beginning, lead some to ask "What is the difference between a man reading the Bible and a ...
God Was In Christ
This essay will serve as a foundation for a subsequent essay entitled "Is There Truth Outside the Bible?" In the present essay, I would invite you, the reader, to engage in the matter of God's reconciling acts with humankind. The essay carries the assumption which I believe characterizes many religions, i.e. that there has been a rupture in the divine-human relationship, and that some kind of reconciliatory measures are necessary to repair that brokenness.
In his second letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul states that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself." I will not resort to the "quick to verse" approach that many believers resort to in order to justify their belief or practice, but rather invite you to read both of Paul's letters to the Corinthian Church. When we read the Corinthian correspondence in context, we find that the background of these letters is one of people who have come from a Gentile background with minimal knowledge of the Jewish faith, and who are now incorporated by faith in Jesus into the Christian community. As with other piece of Paul's correspondence, we find that he alludes to God's reconciling acts in history.
The question for us is, when Paul says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world," was he referring to the event of Jesus's crucifixion and death as the means of divine-human reconciliation, or was he referring to something over and beyond that? This writer's (yours truly) position is that since Paul was very familiar with the notion of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and that since Paul's view of Jesus was not one restricted to the incarnation at Bethlehem, that his notion of reconciliation extends to the pre-Christian era. In other words, for Paul, the Christ-event of reconciliation did not begin at Calvary, but rather long before.
This of course, raises the question of whether or not, there were civilizations and peoples that experienced God's reconciling acts in Christ prior to the formation of the Jewish and Christian communities? In response to that, I would humbly and respectfully submit that a careful and thorough reading of Paul's letters to the different churches will reveal that Paul's view of Jesus was that of the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who had been at work throughout human history in ways which perhaps were not recorded in writing, nor fully understood or even agreed on by the Christian community. This issue raises the question of "Christophanies", i.e. manifestations of Christ prior to the incarnation at Bethlehem. Many Christians will state that it began at Bethlehem and ended at Calvary. This writer believes that it started in the mythological Garden of Eden and continues on to the present day. Let me clarify that when I use the term "mythological," I do not mean "not true," but rather a sacred story which may or may not be literally true, but that nevertheless points to something greater beyond itself, i.e. in this case, the fall of humankind into sin, and God's initiative in liberating and reconciling acts.
Well, this brings us back to the question of whether there were Christophanies in those nations whose religious practices predated Judaism and Christianity? Because the biblical witness describes a God who is cosmic and universal, and because the Jesus described in the New Testament is a person whose message of love, justice, and reconciliation had a universal thrust, I cannot help but believe that many prior civilizations experienced the reconciling acts of God in Christ in their own ways. God was in Christ throughout the whole of human history, and continues the acts of reconciliation in our times. While the Old Testament scriptures restrict the dealings of God to the nation of Israel, and while the New Testament scriptures restrict God's dealings to the Church, other civilizations and peoples are not mentioned directly in these divine-human reconciliatory activities. This does not mean however, that because they are not mentioned, that they are "outside" the scope of God's initiative of reconciling with humankind. Only a Judaeo-Christian imperialistic interpretation of the Bible would lead us to that conclusion.
I now invite you to engage in this discussion by sharing with us your views on God's dealings with humankind. Is God, in your view, only the God of Christians and Jews, or is God also the God of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others? Tell us where you stand on this issue and what the basis is for your position. Your input should make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his second letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul states that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Godself." I will not resort to the "quick to verse" approach that many believers resort to in order to justify their belief or practice, but rather invite you to read both of Paul's letters to the Corinthian Church. When we read the Corinthian correspondence in context, we find that the background of these letters is one of people who have come from a Gentile background with minimal knowledge of the Jewish faith, and who are now incorporated by faith in Jesus into the Christian community. As with other piece of Paul's correspondence, we find that he alludes to God's reconciling acts in history.
The question for us is, when Paul says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world," was he referring to the event of Jesus's crucifixion and death as the means of divine-human reconciliation, or was he referring to something over and beyond that? This writer's (yours truly) position is that since Paul was very familiar with the notion of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and that since Paul's view of Jesus was not one restricted to the incarnation at Bethlehem, that his notion of reconciliation extends to the pre-Christian era. In other words, for Paul, the Christ-event of reconciliation did not begin at Calvary, but rather long before.
This of course, raises the question of whether or not, there were civilizations and peoples that experienced God's reconciling acts in Christ prior to the formation of the Jewish and Christian communities? In response to that, I would humbly and respectfully submit that a careful and thorough reading of Paul's letters to the different churches will reveal that Paul's view of Jesus was that of the "Cosmic Christ," i.e. the Christ who had been at work throughout human history in ways which perhaps were not recorded in writing, nor fully understood or even agreed on by the Christian community. This issue raises the question of "Christophanies", i.e. manifestations of Christ prior to the incarnation at Bethlehem. Many Christians will state that it began at Bethlehem and ended at Calvary. This writer believes that it started in the mythological Garden of Eden and continues on to the present day. Let me clarify that when I use the term "mythological," I do not mean "not true," but rather a sacred story which may or may not be literally true, but that nevertheless points to something greater beyond itself, i.e. in this case, the fall of humankind into sin, and God's initiative in liberating and reconciling acts.
Well, this brings us back to the question of whether there were Christophanies in those nations whose religious practices predated Judaism and Christianity? Because the biblical witness describes a God who is cosmic and universal, and because the Jesus described in the New Testament is a person whose message of love, justice, and reconciliation had a universal thrust, I cannot help but believe that many prior civilizations experienced the reconciling acts of God in Christ in their own ways. God was in Christ throughout the whole of human history, and continues the acts of reconciliation in our times. While the Old Testament scriptures restrict the dealings of God to the nation of Israel, and while the New Testament scriptures restrict God's dealings to the Church, other civilizations and peoples are not mentioned directly in these divine-human reconciliatory activities. This does not mean however, that because they are not mentioned, that they are "outside" the scope of God's initiative of reconciling with humankind. Only a Judaeo-Christian imperialistic interpretation of the Bible would lead us to that conclusion.
I now invite you to engage in this discussion by sharing with us your views on God's dealings with humankind. Is God, in your view, only the God of Christians and Jews, or is God also the God of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others? Tell us where you stand on this issue and what the basis is for your position. Your input should make for a very lively discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, October 10, 2014
Reading the Bible as Women
The title of this essay might, from the very beginning, lead some to ask "What is the difference between a man reading the Bible and a woman reading the Bible?" This question almost assumes that when people read the Bible, regardless of their gender, that they should arrive at the same conclusion as to its meaning. In other words, according to this assumption, there are or should not be any differences in biblical interpretation between a male and female reading of Scripture. This writer wishes to humbly and respectfully submit that there are and should be differences. And while the Bible can be considered "the Word of God," regardless of who is reading it, the fact remains that each one us brings baggage to the reading of Scripture. As I've stated in previous essays, no one brings a blank slate to the reading of Scripture.
Because men, historically speaking, have been in a position of dominance and power, and women, historically speaking, have been in a condition of subjugation and subservience, the baggage that each of the genders brings to the reading Scripture will naturally be different. Men will read and interpret the Scripture in such a manner as to maintain women in a state of submission to them. Women will read and interpret the Bible in such a way as to find equality between the sexes. In both cases, both the male and the feminine interpretation of Scripture will be rooted in their historical experiences relative to power and powerlessness.
Carolyn Osiek, who has served as Professor of New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union, points out that since the middle of the nineteen century there has been a growing awareness of the part of some women that their very devotion to the Bible has put them in a conflictive situation and that the Bible itself is partly responsible for the ambiguity and even outright oppression that they suffer in societies that claim the Bible as their moral and creedal foundation. Someone may ask "How can the Word of God be oppressive?" The answer would probably be that it is not the Scripture itself that is oppressive, but rather its misuse by men in terms of how they read the Scriptures and impose their interpretation of what they read on women.
Professor Osiek goes on to mention that with the rediscovery and growing popularity of religious feminism in the middle of the twentieth century, that there was a surge of new interest in how women relate to the Bible. I'm certain that some men in the community of faith who wish to hold on to power, will attribute the rising popularity in religious feminism to the "diabolical and evil" influence of secular feminism upon women in the faith community. Because of their desire to protect what they have controlled for ages, they will attribute any rise to power by women as being "Satanically inspired." They will also say that women now want to use the Bible not only to rebel against male authority, but also to "change the batting order" in order to exert authority over men.
Professor Osiek states that in the mid- 1970's questions such as "Was Jesus a feminist?" and "was Paul a chauvinist?" were being raised. In the late 1970's and early 1980's feminist bible scholars and theologians, according to Professor Osiek, were not only using the traditional historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation (questions of authorship, audience, date, reasons for writing, literary styles, sources of information, and where or not there was redaction), but also began to use the hermeneutical (interpretive) tools of Liberation Theology, a school of thought which emphasizes that oppression is the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Lynn Japinga, a Professor of Religion at Hope Colleg in her book "Feminism and Christianity" relates the experience of three of her students in a course which she taught on Christian Feminism. The expressed perspectives of the three were as follows:
Susan says she attends a "Bible-believing" church. She adds "I've been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is true. The man was created first, and the woman sinned first, so it is clear that men are meant to lead and women are meant to be submissive wives and mothers. The Bible does not allow women to be leaders of the church."
Barbara introduces herself as a women's studies major and says, "I think that the Bible has caused most of the problems that women have in our society. It blames women for causing sin in the world. It treats women like property, not persons. It does not allow women positions of power and influence. The Bible was obviously written by men, about men, to promote a male agenda. It is not a good book for women."
Jenny says "I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and I've always considered myself to be both a Christian and a feminist. I am beginning to wonder if that is possible. If it is, what do Christian feminists do with the Bible?'
Dr. Japinga asks "How can the same book provoke such different interpretations?" Some readers think that the Bible imprisons women and restricts the options they have for their lives. Others conclude that that the Bible empowers women to resist oppression and ultimately sets them free. The Bible is a symbol of oppression for some and a positive resource for others.
One of the things that Dr. Japinga goes on to mention in her book is that the Christian feminist movement is very Euro-American centric, and neglects women from the so-called Third World, and who are of a different socio-economic class than the Euro-American women who by and large are tied into the white middle class. According to Prof. Japinga, true feminine liberation will be inclusive of women of color and class and their particular aspirations and needs.
How do we then solve the issue of reading the Bible from a woman's standpoint? There are obviously certain texts in Scripture that appear to support the notion of women in a subservient and submissive positions. But then there are other passages of Scripture that point to equality between men and women, and that also promote women in leadership, both in the church and in society.
In one of his letters to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul speaks about women being silent in the church, but earlier on in that same letter he speaks about women prophesying.
The issue is not resolved merely by quoting Scripture passages. Anyone, including a child can do that. The "quick to verse" approach is not appropriate for either this topic or any other topic regarding biblical interpretation. While no perfect solution might ever be found, this writer humbly submits the following proposal to get us started on the road to faithfulness to the message of the Bible, proper interpretation and understanding, and finally appropriate application in the life of the community of faith.
1. Begin by examining the biblical languages of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew in order to determine if what was said in the original languages corresponds to what we understand today in the modern languages in which we read the Bible.
2. Examine the "Sitz en Leben" (German for "life setting) of those biblical passages which deal with the relationship between men and women relative to social status and authority. In other words, get to "the story behind the story" in each of those biblical passages. By this I mean, leave behind the syndrome of "the Bible says, end of story," and examine what is meant by what "the Bible says" in its original context.
3. Examine the engagement between writer and reader. By this I mean, explore the baggage that the writer (biblical author) brings and compare it to the baggage that the reader (you and I) brings to the reading of Scripture.
4. Engage in continuous dialogue within the community of faith and examining the best of biblical scholarship relative to this issue.
I welcome and encourage your response to this essay. Your input and insight are very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Because men, historically speaking, have been in a position of dominance and power, and women, historically speaking, have been in a condition of subjugation and subservience, the baggage that each of the genders brings to the reading Scripture will naturally be different. Men will read and interpret the Scripture in such a manner as to maintain women in a state of submission to them. Women will read and interpret the Bible in such a way as to find equality between the sexes. In both cases, both the male and the feminine interpretation of Scripture will be rooted in their historical experiences relative to power and powerlessness.
Carolyn Osiek, who has served as Professor of New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union, points out that since the middle of the nineteen century there has been a growing awareness of the part of some women that their very devotion to the Bible has put them in a conflictive situation and that the Bible itself is partly responsible for the ambiguity and even outright oppression that they suffer in societies that claim the Bible as their moral and creedal foundation. Someone may ask "How can the Word of God be oppressive?" The answer would probably be that it is not the Scripture itself that is oppressive, but rather its misuse by men in terms of how they read the Scriptures and impose their interpretation of what they read on women.
Professor Osiek goes on to mention that with the rediscovery and growing popularity of religious feminism in the middle of the twentieth century, that there was a surge of new interest in how women relate to the Bible. I'm certain that some men in the community of faith who wish to hold on to power, will attribute the rising popularity in religious feminism to the "diabolical and evil" influence of secular feminism upon women in the faith community. Because of their desire to protect what they have controlled for ages, they will attribute any rise to power by women as being "Satanically inspired." They will also say that women now want to use the Bible not only to rebel against male authority, but also to "change the batting order" in order to exert authority over men.
Professor Osiek states that in the mid- 1970's questions such as "Was Jesus a feminist?" and "was Paul a chauvinist?" were being raised. In the late 1970's and early 1980's feminist bible scholars and theologians, according to Professor Osiek, were not only using the traditional historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation (questions of authorship, audience, date, reasons for writing, literary styles, sources of information, and where or not there was redaction), but also began to use the hermeneutical (interpretive) tools of Liberation Theology, a school of thought which emphasizes that oppression is the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Lynn Japinga, a Professor of Religion at Hope Colleg in her book "Feminism and Christianity" relates the experience of three of her students in a course which she taught on Christian Feminism. The expressed perspectives of the three were as follows:
Susan says she attends a "Bible-believing" church. She adds "I've been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is true. The man was created first, and the woman sinned first, so it is clear that men are meant to lead and women are meant to be submissive wives and mothers. The Bible does not allow women to be leaders of the church."
Barbara introduces herself as a women's studies major and says, "I think that the Bible has caused most of the problems that women have in our society. It blames women for causing sin in the world. It treats women like property, not persons. It does not allow women positions of power and influence. The Bible was obviously written by men, about men, to promote a male agenda. It is not a good book for women."
Jenny says "I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and I've always considered myself to be both a Christian and a feminist. I am beginning to wonder if that is possible. If it is, what do Christian feminists do with the Bible?'
Dr. Japinga asks "How can the same book provoke such different interpretations?" Some readers think that the Bible imprisons women and restricts the options they have for their lives. Others conclude that that the Bible empowers women to resist oppression and ultimately sets them free. The Bible is a symbol of oppression for some and a positive resource for others.
One of the things that Dr. Japinga goes on to mention in her book is that the Christian feminist movement is very Euro-American centric, and neglects women from the so-called Third World, and who are of a different socio-economic class than the Euro-American women who by and large are tied into the white middle class. According to Prof. Japinga, true feminine liberation will be inclusive of women of color and class and their particular aspirations and needs.
How do we then solve the issue of reading the Bible from a woman's standpoint? There are obviously certain texts in Scripture that appear to support the notion of women in a subservient and submissive positions. But then there are other passages of Scripture that point to equality between men and women, and that also promote women in leadership, both in the church and in society.
In one of his letters to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul speaks about women being silent in the church, but earlier on in that same letter he speaks about women prophesying.
The issue is not resolved merely by quoting Scripture passages. Anyone, including a child can do that. The "quick to verse" approach is not appropriate for either this topic or any other topic regarding biblical interpretation. While no perfect solution might ever be found, this writer humbly submits the following proposal to get us started on the road to faithfulness to the message of the Bible, proper interpretation and understanding, and finally appropriate application in the life of the community of faith.
1. Begin by examining the biblical languages of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew in order to determine if what was said in the original languages corresponds to what we understand today in the modern languages in which we read the Bible.
2. Examine the "Sitz en Leben" (German for "life setting) of those biblical passages which deal with the relationship between men and women relative to social status and authority. In other words, get to "the story behind the story" in each of those biblical passages. By this I mean, leave behind the syndrome of "the Bible says, end of story," and examine what is meant by what "the Bible says" in its original context.
3. Examine the engagement between writer and reader. By this I mean, explore the baggage that the writer (biblical author) brings and compare it to the baggage that the reader (you and I) brings to the reading of Scripture.
4. Engage in continuous dialogue within the community of faith and examining the best of biblical scholarship relative to this issue.
I welcome and encourage your response to this essay. Your input and insight are very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)