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

The Inerrancy of the Bible: Important or Moot?

I'm sure that by now, those of you who have read my essays on the different schools of theology have noticed that I have interjected essays on related topics in between the ones on theology.  Today I am doing that again.  I am including an essay in between the most recent one on Process Theology and the next one, which will be on Theology of Hope, which will be written in the next few days.

As I pointed out in one previous essay, I will again state that many people validate or invalidate a particular theology on the basis of  what they believe "the Bible says."  They will tend to take a literalist or "quick to verse" approach in order to establish what they believe to be "sound doctrine."  These two approaches give little or no room for reading "what the Bible says" in context.  They basically consist of reading and quoting the Bible in a vacuum.

Before moving on to Theology of Hope, I would like to address an important issue regarding the role of Scripture in the construction of a theological system.  It is the issue of inerrancy, i.e the position that since the Bible has been "divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit," there is no way that it can contain anything erroneous in content.  Those who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy believe that if Scripture does contain error, then by logical extension, the possibility of error would have to be extended to the Holy Spirit as well.  In this line of thinking, since it is impossible for God to err, then it should also be impossible to find errors in the book which God has inspired.

In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, I will, for the purposes of this essay, bypass the issue of the various meanings of the word "inspiration," and move on to the issue of in inerrant book. The issues of whether or not the Bible is an inerrant document can be addressed (though not fully resolved) by raising the following questions:

1.  When we claim that the Bible is inerrant, are we making that claim for the Bible in its original document or does that claim only extend to the manuscripts and translations which were written after the original document had disappeared?

2.  If the claim for inerrancy is only made for the original document of Scripture, on what objective basis other than faith do we make that claim?

3.  If we believe that the claim for inerrancy does not extend to the subsequent manuscripts and translations, then how do we go about establishing a biblical theology, given the fact that there is variation within the manuscripts and translations?

4.  At the end of the day, is inerrancy really important or is it a moot issue?

To question #1, there can be more than one answer or perspective.  Those who use the historical critical approach to the Bible (author, date, audience, reason for writing, styles of writing, sources of information, literary genre, redaction, etc.) tend to leave room for error in both the original document and the manuscripts and translations.  The reason for this is because they acknowledge the human condition of frailty and proneness to error in all human endeavors.  While they will not outright deny the divine inspiration of the Bible, their understanding of "inspiration" does not cancel out the possibility of error.

Those who utilize the textual critical approach ( comparison of manuscripts and translations to "reconstruct" the original document) tend to favor the view that inerrancy only applies to the original document.  They have seen enough variations of length and content in the manuscripts to justify not attributing inerrancy to the manuscripts and translations.

Those who take a devotional or literalist approach will by and large avoid all the "razzle dazzle" of both historical and textual criticism.  Their position will be "the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, end of story." Their view of "inspiration" leads them to believe that research and scholarship are not necessary for one to study or believe in the message of the Bible.

To question #2, there can be at least two perspectives.  One would be that since the original authors of the Bible (not the manuscript writers or the translators) were divinely inspired (led by the Spirit), there is no possible way that the original documents could contain error of any kind.  This perspective reflects a certain theological logic, i.e. an inerrant Spirit could not and would not produce an errant document to be established for faith and practice. 

The other perspective relative to question #2 would be one of faith.  It would be the type of faith that does not require concrete and tangible proof, but rather a faith that says "I don't know or understand it all, but I trust God."  This type of faith does not require logic, though it does not rule logic out entirely. It also comes close to being a blind faith, because it does not require data in order for one to exercise it.

To question #3, the answer or answers can be complex.  If our faith is based on the manuscripts and translations, as it certainly is, then we have to assume that the manuscripts and translations of our preferences most accurately reflect what the original document said.  No one claim that their faith is based on what the original document said, because the original documents have disappeared and are no longer in existence.  In essence, then, our faith and theology are based on manuscripts and translations which we prefer for whatever reason, and in some extreme cases, believing that the Holy Spirit has a special preference for those manuscripts and translations.

To question #4, we can only answer by establishing for ourselves and maybe others, what the priorities are for us.  Will engaging in issues of inerrancy pay my mortgage/rent and other financial obligations?  Will arguments, controversies, and debates about inerrancy address and alleviate the suffering that is going on in the world?   Will the issue of inerrancy really result in an improvement in our spiritual journey and relationship with God?  Are these issues really moot?

I now invite you to review these questions and share with us your perspectives.  Tell us how important or non-important you think they are and why or why not?  Feel free to express your own viewpoints and heart-felt feelings on these issues.  Your input will contribute to a learning experience for all of us.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

Process Theology

Process Theology is rooted in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, known as Process Philosophy or Process Thought.  Whitehead revived an ancient Greek philosophical belief that reality is "becoming" rather than "being."  This concept basically states that everything is in a state of flux, and that it is dynamic rather than static.

Charles Hartshorne developed Whitehead's thinking and applied it to the field of theology, which is a discourse about God.  For Hartshorne, God is the ultimate reality, and subsequently, God is "becoming" rather than "being." God is subsequently, part of the evolutionary process of nature. As a participant in the evolutionary process, God is not subject to either an initial or final form.  God in this concept is constantly evolving with everything and everyone else in the universe.

John Cobb, another Process theologian, later on elaborated on Process Theology's idea of God luring us to Godself.  In other words, since God is in all (not is all), and all is in God, we are also involved in this evolutionary process of becoming and not being final.  Unlike conventional Christianity which emphasizes the end of history, Process theology stresses the constant movement of history and nature. There appears to be no "final stage" in history in the sense that Christians speak of matters such as "the Second Coming," or the "kingdom of God."  This does not mean, however, that in Process Theology there is no design or purpose in the sense of the Greek word "teleos," which means that God or nature have an end in sight.  What it does mean is that since God is a participant in this evolutionary process. the evolutionary process is not a blind natural force running amok.  Since it is God, an entity with intelligence, that is participating in and moving the process, the notion is that the process is designed to insure the good. The concept of God alluring us to Godself is one that stresses invitation rather than coercion. There appears to be an element of "universal salvation," in Process Theology in that God's alluring really leaves no room for eternal alienation between God and humans, or for that matter, between God and everything and everyone in the universe.

Process theologians tend to subscribe, by and large to the historical criticism of the Bible, which as pointed out in my previous postings, is a method that interprets the content of Scripture in the light of culture, language, and history.  Historical criticism emphasizes authorship, audience, reasons for writing, date of writing, styles of writing, sources of information, and the issues of redaction. The historical-critical approach to the Bible leaves very little room for the notion of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible because it acknowledges the role of frail humans in its writing.  Some scholars and theologians who resort to the higher critical approach to the Bible subscribe to the theory of evolution in the sense that Charles Darwin expounded it.

Process Theology does not have a strict emphasis on a "Christ-centeredness" relative to either theology itself or to a relationship with God.  If anything, Process Theology appears to have elements of both "universal salvation," and of the "Cosmic Christ," who is not only the Christ of Christian believers, but the Christ of everyone who will  eventually be allured to God.

Unlike the emphasis in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition on a transcendental God, Process Theology sees God in a horizontal and immanent form.  The idea of God "up there" is alien to Process Theology, because it runs the risk of believing in a God who is detached from everything that is going on in history and nature.  God is not "up there" in Process Theology, but rather "down here" and "among us," and "among everything."  Process Theology believes in the biblical concept of the God who is "in all" "through all," and "with all." 

How do you as a believer evaluate Process Theology?  Is there anything in Process Theology which resonates with what you as a believer in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition believe?  Is Process Theology's utilization of the historical critical approach to the Bible beneficial or detrimental to the construction a "sound" doctrinal and theological position?  Your responses to these questions and/or your formulation of other questions and/or comments will make for healthy dialogue on this subject.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona

An Invitation to Adventure, Risk, and Tedium

Before I move on to talk about the next school of thought, which will be Process Theology, I will briefly write on an approach to Bible reading and study which excites some and "turns off" others.
It is known as the historical critical method of Bible study.  The major reason why I write on this topic, is because to many people, the validity of a theological position is determined by the role that the Bible plays in arriving in establishing that position.  Some people want to know "what does that Bible say about that," or what "that" has to do with "what the Bible says?"

Since I have not taken a statistical census, I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that the average person would prefer to take the "devotional" approach to Scripture.  This approach merely consists of reading the Bible, for the most part superficially, and/or quoting it.  This approach is a very comfortable one since it does not require much rigor or too much investigation and research. Taking this approach is reflective of what many of us prefer, i.e. the short-cut to study as well as to other things in life.

I will in no way criticize that approach, or the people who prefer to use it.  It works for some people that way in terms of how their faith is informed and how their faith journey is shaped.  I have to admit that at some point in my faith journey, that is the approach that I used.  But the reason for that was that I was not familiar and had not heard of the approach which I will now be addressing, i.e. the historical-critical approach to Bible study. I am grateful that by God's grace I have been exposed to this method, though I will confess that this method introduces a series of complex issues and questions relative to this book which we consider to be "the Word of God." Sometimes, as a result of being exposed to and utilizing this method in my practice of ministry, I wish that I could go back to the devotional method, which in essence, is Bible 101.  I have been mentioning in the classes that I have taught that in Bible study and theology, we go from the simple to the complex and back to the simple.  The difference in this case is that the second simplicity is an informed simplicity rather than a blind and naïve one in which the person believes everything that he/she hears.

I now invite you to adventure.  The adventure is to delve into more information.  I invite you to risk. This method is risky, because it will challenge us to reexamine our assumptions and presuppositions about "what the Bible says."  I invite you to tedium.  I guarantee you that because of the details involved, this approach to the Bible will at some points seem tedious and even boring.  Personally, after swimming in six feet of water, I prefer the challenge of swimming in sixteen feet of water, if I may use that analogy in comparing the approaches to the Bible.  I acknowledge the fact that swimming in sixteen feet of water poses great risks and dangers, but I find it much more fun and exciting to be somewhat "daring."

This historical critical approach to the Bible began in the seventeenth century and became popularized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  It resulted in divisions within the Church, and I suspect even in the Jewish communities because of the results of "faith vs. scholarship" syndrome. The historical critical approach consists of the following questions:

1.  Authorship-  When  we read any piece of literature, one of the first questions that comes to our mind is "who wrote this book?"  The Bible, as a literary document, is no exception to this rule.  It is very important for us to know who wrote the individual books of the Bible.  We ask questions such as did Jeremiah write the book which carries his name, or did someone else write it, using Jeremiah's name to give it credibility?

2.  Audience- If we do not bother to ask who the book was written to, or who the recipients were, we might miss out on something important.  I have recently completed a book which took me two years to write, and one of the questions that my wife and I constantly asked was "who is the intended audience of readers?"  In other words, who is bound to read this book?

3.  Reason for writing- Every literary writer has a reason for putting her/his thoughts into writing.  There is something or someone that will motivate that person to write.  Furthermore, the writer expects or at least hopes for certain results that will happen as a consequence of the reading.  Again, every writer of Scripture had a reason for writing and expected that her/his writings would result in some type of change in the lives of the readers.

4.  Date of writing- Scholars are divided amongst themselves as to when certain books of the Bible were written. For example, because the second half of the book of Isaiah describes scenes that were familiar to people after the Babylonian Exile, some scholars believe that there were two writers named Isaiah, one writing before, and the other one writing after the Exile.  New Testament scholarship reflects some scholars post-dating the Gospel accounts and the book of Revelation, while other scholars prefer to say that the books were written closer in time to the events described in the books.

5.  Sources of information- Since we cannot approach the Bible as a book written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth, it is only logical that we ask what or who the sources of information were for the different authors of the Bible books.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking "where did Mark get his information from in order to write his Gospel account?"  Nor does it help to say that he got his information from God.  To the best of our knowledge, God is not in the business of dishing out information that one can obtain by engaging in research and asking questions.  The details in Scripture reflect that the authors did, indeed, engage in research.

6.  Literary dependency- Because some of the books of Scripture reflect similarity with other literary documents, it is almost inevitable to inquire as to whether the writers depended to a certain extent on previous writings.  For example, the Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood bear a lot of similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events.  One cannot help but wonder if the author or authors of Genesis "borrowed" from the Babylonian accounts which were written at least five hundred years prior to Genesis.  And because the first five books of the Bible mention more than one name for God and focus on certain themes, raises the question as to whether there was more than author and whether the various authors had different agendas to promote.  For example, the Documentary Hypothesis is that since Elohim and Yahweh are different names for God in the Pentateuch, there must have been more than one author writing, each one with a different interest in mind.

7.  Style of writing- Each piece of literature reflects a certain style of writing. There is history, legend, myth, poetry, prose, and allegory.  The various books of the Bible reflect these literary types. The reader has to then determine how the various literary types have an impact on how we receive, understand, and apply the message of the book.

8.  Redaction-Very, very rarely does someone write without reviewing what he/she has written before putting it into final form and submitting it to be published and/or read.  There is nothing wrong with believing that the authors of the Bible were not any different.  Acknowledging this does not in any way mitigate against the belief in "divine inspiration."  Inspiration in this case means, that the Holy Spirit acted as a "superintendent," guiding the writers, not through mechanical dictation, nor through suppressing their personality, or obliterating their culture, but rather, through the historical process
 of research, reading, and writing.  The acknowledgement of redaction goes against the notion that the writers of Scripture sat or stood passively while God dictated to them the words of Scripture.

9.  Cultural Environment- If we bypass the linguistic and cultural origins of the books of the Bible, we miss many important points.  For example, if we ignore the fact that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in Hebrew the twenty-third Psalms says "Yahweh is my shepherd, whereas in English it says "the Lord is my shepherd."  If we ignore the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in the first chapter of Colossians Paul uses the word "firstborn" for Jesus, leading the Jehovah's witnesses to demonstrate on biblical grounds that Jesus is a creature of God and is not God the Creator as most Christians believe that He is.  If we don't understand the culture of the Bible writers it would be difficult for us to know why Solomon says that when we sit down at the dinner table we should "put a knife to our throat," or why foot washing was a symbol of hospitality in the Middle East. It would also be difficult for us to understand why a woman was considered property of the husband and why the Scriptures themselves appear to give approve to that notion which was widely held.

I am not say that the historical critical approach to the Bible is superior to the devotional approach. Neither am I claiming or pretending that the historical critical approach to the Bible will render us infallible.  I've known many people who use the devotional approach and who have not even heard of the historical critical approach, but yet have a deep insight into the meaning of the message of the text. Conversely, I've known many people who use the historical critical method, and yet miss out on the main ingredients of Scripture. I believe that there is place and time for both.  Having said that, I am firmly convinced that the historical critical approach opens up the door for a broader understanding of the Bible both as a literary document, and as a book of faith.  It helps us understand "the story behind the story" by having us delve into culture, history, and language.  To those who believe that the historical critical approach to the Bible will lead to a disbelief in its message, I would say that my exposure to the historical critical method has led me to believe in its message in a much stronger way.  To those who believe that they don't want to go through all this "razzle dazzle" to study the Scriptures, I would strongly challenge them to go over and beyond the elementary and rudimentary approaches and open yourself to the adventures of looking at the Scriptures in different settings and to consider the diversity of theological perspectives within the body of the text itself.

Please feel free to comment on this approach to the Bible.  Tell us if you think that it will erode and weaken your faith or will it make it stronger.  Tell us if you think that it is a worthwhile effort, in spite of the risk of having you examine your assumptions and presuppositions, and in spite of the element of tediousness involved in rigorous study.  Your contributions will be helpful.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Carmona

7. 

News Flash-Church's Stance on Marriage

Last Thursday the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. voted to redefine marriage as "a union between two persons."  This new definition opened the door to ecclesiastical endorsement of same-sex marriage.  The Presbyterian Church, U.SA. becomes the second Protestant denomination to go this route through its highest court.  The United Church of Christ had taken a similar action in previous years.

The purpose of this essay is not to speak for or against this latest action, but rather to present some of the challenges and opportunities, not only for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A and other denominations, but rather for the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole.  There is no doubt that this action will have various results, including dissension and division along biblical hermeneutical and theological grounds, but also in relation to long standing traditions and customs of Christ's Church. This action will not doubt result in the following:

1.  Members who oppose this action on biblical grounds will right away go to the Bible and quote a plethora of Scripture passages (taking the "quick to verse" approach) that in their belief speak against same-sex marriage.  The major problem with this is the following:

a. The Bible nowhere speaks against same-sex marriage for the simple reason that same-sex marriage, to the best of our knowledge, was not a widespread practice in the society of biblical times. The Bible has various passages which speak against same-sex relations, and one would then have to determine if the biblical injunction against same-sex relations applies by implication to same-sex marriage.

b.  The "quick to verse" approach (quoting Scripture passages without making any mention of the cultural, linguistic, and social origins of the Bible) has never solved any theological problem.  If anything, the "quick to verse" approach has just resulted in individual Christians and churches disagreeing with each other because of different biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) and also "hair splitting" over the meaning of different passages of "what the Bible says."  People who use the "quick to verse" approach are rather allergic to going through the trouble of doing the necessary research to establish the intended definition of those passages.  They prefer the comfortable short-cut route of just citing the passages in order to "proof-text" their position, as if just merely quoting the particular passages prove anything.  Their attitude is "the Bible says so, end of story."

c.  Quoting the Bible as if in and of itself, the Bible has a life of its own, complicates the problem. This approach results in what Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor and theologian referred to as "bibliolatry," i.e. worship of the Bible.  If the Bible is not Christ-centered, i.e. if the Bible does not play the role of witnessing to the Word, which is none other than Jesus the Christ, it is a book like any other.  Thank God that the Scriptures do, indeed, play that role.

2.  Many (both lay people and ordained clergy) who believe that this latest action is a reflection of the Church's abandoning and twisting the Word of God found in Scripture, will leave to other churches, or perhaps start their own new churches.  What else is new?  Since the beginning of time, the Church of Jesus the Christ has undergone division.  The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century accompanied by the subsequent emergence of different denominations quoting the same Bible  is a witness to this ongoing thing with people being dissatisfied with things "as they are," vs. "how they should be." 

3.  Those who are open to a wide variety of hermeneutical perspectives will probably remain within their churches, while at the same time experiencing the "growing pains" of Scripture as historically understood vs. tradition.  They will feel uncomfortable with the action taken, but at the same time trusting that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church as it examines and reexamines its biblical hermeneutics and theological presuppositions.  This does not mean that they will blindly and uncritically accept and be in agreement with everything that the leadership of the Church decides, but they will trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church's leadership as the leadership submits itself to constant study of the Scriptures and of the Christian tradition, revising wherever and whenever revision is needed. They will accept the notion of "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (The Church reformed, always reforming)." 

I invite you, the reader to evaluate the latest action in the light of the following:

1.  The need to engage in honest and ongoing biblical hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). This involves moving away from the tendency to quote Scripture in an impulsive, mechanical, and robotically-programmed manner.  If and when you quote and utilize the Scripture as a frame of reference, make sure that you have gone through the rigorous task of examining the Scriptures in their original context, and at the same time do everything to avoid the infantile approach of just quoting them.  Remember, anyone, including a child, can quote Scripture. Cliches and slogans about "what the Bible says," are not helpful.

2.  The need for the Church to determine if its position on marriage and other moral issues should be exclusively based on ancient texts such as the Bible, or whether it is desirable for the Church to adopt pragmatic models which are based on the reality of life as we know it today.

3.  The need for us to ask ourselves honestly, openly, and sincerely, if the latest action is reflective of the Church's accommodation to secular social mores and norms in order to make itself and the message of the Gospel "relevant" to our age, and also whether it reflects the Church preferring to find favor with society rather than favor with God.

Your comments on and reactions to this presentation are highly desired and most welcome. I trust that you will take the time to contribute to this ongoing discussion.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona