In previous essays, I have mentioned that one of the criteria that is used to evaluate a particular theological system is its emphasis on the role that the Bible plays in it. We have seen this in Euro-American theology, in Latin American Liberation Theology, and we will see it again in Hispanic-American theology.
Fernando Segovia, a Professor of New Testament at the Vanderbilt Divinity School states in this article that neither the task of theologizing nor the task of interpretation -both highly interrelated and interdependent activities-takes place in a social vacuum, independent of the social location, however defined, of the theologian or interpreter in question. He informs us that such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it has come into much greater prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before. He explores the emerging readings of the Bible from within one such specific social location, namely that ethnic sector of American society generally referred to as Hispanic-Americans, a sector in which he himself stands and from which he speaks (Segovia in We Are a People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992, p.21).
In an article entitled "Reading the Bible as Hispanic-Americans" for the New Interpreter's Bible, Segovia posits that no reading of the Bible can claim or pretend to be ahistorical or acultural. He says that the clause lets it be known that, at the very least, ethnic background and sociopolitical status do have an effect on the reading and interpretation of the Bible. (The New Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994, p. 167). For Segovia, the main concern is not a literalist approach to Scripture, nor whether the Bible is divinely inspired or not. Nor is he concerned with the issue of what doctrines can be supported by Scripture. For Segovia, the main issue is how does the cultural and social context of the reader color her/his thinking when reading the Bible, and also, how does that context generate the reader's assumptions and presuppositions relative to biblical theology?
Segovia then goes on to trace the work of four Hispanic-American theologians who represent a variety of ethnic and religious sectors, thereby bringing to light, in a broad interpretative fashion, the reading strategies adopted with regard to the Bible from within such a distinct social location. The four theologians are the following:
Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, a Cuban American and Roman Catholic, who at one time taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York. She is known in theological circles for mujerista (womanist) theology. For Isasi-Diaz, the point of departure for reading Scripture is the experience of Hispanic-American women in an Anglo-Saxon dominant culture, facing oppression from both a sexist world (as women) and a racist world (as Hispanic), with a specific focus on such oppression within religious systems. Mujerista theology is defined, therefore, as a liberative praxis, a reflection that has as its goal liberation; its basic parameters are described as follows: First , it does not differentiate between reflection and action, or between theology and ethics. Second, it does not operate out of the interpretive lens of a patriarchal (male-dominated) church, but rather out of the experiential norm of Hispanic-American women. Third, it is not sectarian but communal in character. Finally, it has survival as its primary goal. Such survival is portrayed in terms of liberation rather than equality, with the following specific aims in mind: a radical change in the oppressive structures of society, conscientization regarding the profound internalization of such oppressive structures, with individual conversion as a necessary first step; and an eschatological vision of a new society (Segovia in We Are A People, p. 33).
In mujerista theology, therefore, one finds at work the common principle of a canon within the canon, with a twist: only parts of the Bible are accepted as normative and authoritative; such parts, moreover, are so judged on the basis of a superior canon-a feminist, Hispanic liberative canon. In effect, while the program of liberation has urgent need of the Bible, the Bible itself is seen as subject to the program of liberation. Thus the Bible emerges as both liberating and oppressive, with the canon within the canon determined from the outside. (Segovia, p. 33).
Harold Recinos, a United Methodist minister and Puerto Rican born in New York City. Recinos has engaged in a critical exercise in pastoral theology from the perspective of liberation, a theology of and for the barrio (neighborhood). Recino's use of the word "barrio" denotes specifically the "ghetto" or "inner city." meaning that neighborhood where the poor and the marginalized live and are condemned to live.
For Recinos, the point of departure for theology is quite concrete: the socio-cultural situation of the large Puerto Rican communities who live in the barrios of northeastern U. S. cities (with New York City as the primary example) and its disastrous and lasting consequences for the countless individual lives in question, including the author's. The barrio is faced with a dehumanizing situation akin to apartheid and marked by racial discrimination, cultural aggression, political marginalization, and economic oppression. Given such systematic conditions, the people of the barrio find themselves overwhelmed by a host of social ills, from inordinately high levels of poverty and unemployment to widespread crime and violence, ultimately yielding a profound attitude of self-blame and fatalism (Segovia, 34).
At the heart of barrio theology, therefore, lies the Bible and more specifically, a particular reading of the Bible. For Recinos, such a reading of the Bible comes from the perspective of the barrio and its conditions, and yields a recovery of biblical Christianity: not only the realization that the sociocultural story of the barrio is shared by the people of God in the Bible, but also the discovery of a God who sides with the marginalized, with the barrio and works for their liberation (Segovia, p. 35-36).
For barrio theology, therefore, the Bible is indeed central and authoritative. Its message throughout, in both Old and New Testaments, is one of liberation: God is with the poor and for the poor. However, such a message demands a specific kind of reading, an open and explicit reading from the perspective of the oppressed, from a sociocultural situation parallel to that of the people of God in the Bible, and with liberation in mind. Thus, the liberation of the barrio is grounded in and informed by the Bible: the program of liberation is ultimately the program of the Bible itself. (Segovia, p. 36).
Virgilio Elizondo, a Roman Catholic priest of Mexican-American extraction. Elizondo has developed what he calls a theology of mestizaje, a theology of liberation for Mexican-Americans based on the principle of racial and cultural inclusion. For such a theology, it is the concrete sociocultural situation of Jesus himself as preserved in the Gospel accounts that is central and authoritative, insofar as Jesus, given his own origins as a mestizo from the borderlands of Galilee, and his message of universal inclusion, anticipates the situation and liberation of Mexican Americans (Segovia, p. 37).
For Elizondo, as in the case of mujerista theology, therefore one can see in mestizaje theology the principle of the canon within the canon at work once again, but with fundamental difference in application. Here, the Bible is not subject to a superior canon, but rather a specific strand within the Bible is singled out as the superior canon. Likewise, the Bible is not judged liberating and authoritative from the outside, but rather the Bible itself, is authoritative and liberating in the light of this canon, passes judgment from within. This superior canon is identified in terms of the Gospels, though it would be more accurate to say that it is the Synoptic Gospels that Elizondo has in mind; in fact, for Elizondo, the canon consists of the Synoptic Gospels insofar as they faithfully reproduce the life of Jesus of Nazareth (Segovia, p. 40).
Justo Gonzalez, a Cuban American and minister of the United Methodist Church, specializing in Church History. Gonzalez emphasizes what he calls a theology of "manana (tomorrow)" for all Hispanic-Americans.
For Gonzalez, manana theology represents the theology of a people "in exile": a people who will be around for many mananas to come; who hope for an altogether different manana in the light of God's reign. (Segovia, p. 42). For Gonzalez, the message of liberation demands a specific way of reading, a reading from the perspective of exile. As a result, a basic correspondence is posited between the people of God in the Bible and Hispanic Americans: a people "in exile," alien, and powerless. (Segovia, p. 45).
You, the reader, are now invited to share your comments on how different theologians define the role of Scripture in Hispanic-American theology. Feel free to share your opinions and views with us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Hispanic- American Theology: A Historical Summary of Hispanics in the U.S.A.
I had mentioned in the previous essay that in order for one to accurately and fairly evaluate the theology emerging from the Hispanic-American community, one must first be acquainted with Hispanic-American history, if not in detail, then at least with the historical gist of that history. In this essay, I will give a present a summary of Hispanic-American history in order to make Hispanic-American theology more understandable to the reader.
I begin my making a strong recommendation that you (the readers) obtain a copy of the book "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America," by Juan Gonzalez, New York: Penguin Group, 2000, 2011.
Gonzalez says the following: In this country (U.S.A.), just how white and black America cope with the mushrooming Latin American population will determine whether our nation enjoys interethnic tranquility in the twenty-first century or is convulsed by conflicts such as those that tore apart the multiethnic states of Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, and elsewhere (Gonzalez, p.xxiii)." Then he adds, "Hopefully, by the time you have finished reading this book, you will see the Latino in America from another viewpoint. We Hispanics are not going away. Demographics and the tide of history point only to a greater not a lesser Latino presence in this country. Ours, however, is not some armed reconquista seeking to throw out Anglo occupiers from sacred lands that once were Latino. It is a search for survival, for inclusion on an equal basis, nothing more. It is a search grounded in the belief that five hundred years after the experiment began, we are all Americans of the New World , and our most dangerous enemies are not each other but the great wall of ignorance between us. (Gonzalez, pp.xxiii-xxiv)."
Gonzalez places, and rightly so, the presence of Latinos in the U.S.A. within the historical context of the conquest and occupation of the Americas by Europe (especially Portugal and Spain) from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He informs us, "The arrival of the European explorers to America began the most astounding and far-reaching encounter between cultures in the history of civilization. It brought together two portions of the human race that until then knew nothing of each other's existence, thus establishing the basic identity of our modern world. (Gonzalez, p.3)."
"Of the Europeans who settled America, those who hailed from England and Spain had the greatest impact. Both transplanted their cultures over vast territories. Both created colonial empires from whose abundance Europe rose to dominate the world. And descendants of both eventually launched independence wars that remade the political systems of our planet. (Gonzalez,p. 3)."
After covering "the roots" of a U.S. Hispanic presence, Gonzalez goes on to talk about the branches. He goes on to talk about Puerto Ricans as citizens yet foreigners, Mexicans as pioneers of a different type, Cubans as special refugees, and Dominicans who lived under the reign of Duarte to Dominicans who crossed the George Washington Bridge. Then he mentions how the history of our intervention in Central America generated immigration into this country and how Colombians and Panamanians had to work in order to overcome division and disdain.
The reader is strongly advised to obtain this book and read it thoroughly. It will demonstrate, as I've indicated before, that Hispanic-American theology did not emerge from a historical vacuum, but rather from the historical interplay between those who hold power and those who are victimized by power.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I begin my making a strong recommendation that you (the readers) obtain a copy of the book "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America," by Juan Gonzalez, New York: Penguin Group, 2000, 2011.
Gonzalez says the following: In this country (U.S.A.), just how white and black America cope with the mushrooming Latin American population will determine whether our nation enjoys interethnic tranquility in the twenty-first century or is convulsed by conflicts such as those that tore apart the multiethnic states of Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, and elsewhere (Gonzalez, p.xxiii)." Then he adds, "Hopefully, by the time you have finished reading this book, you will see the Latino in America from another viewpoint. We Hispanics are not going away. Demographics and the tide of history point only to a greater not a lesser Latino presence in this country. Ours, however, is not some armed reconquista seeking to throw out Anglo occupiers from sacred lands that once were Latino. It is a search for survival, for inclusion on an equal basis, nothing more. It is a search grounded in the belief that five hundred years after the experiment began, we are all Americans of the New World , and our most dangerous enemies are not each other but the great wall of ignorance between us. (Gonzalez, pp.xxiii-xxiv)."
Gonzalez places, and rightly so, the presence of Latinos in the U.S.A. within the historical context of the conquest and occupation of the Americas by Europe (especially Portugal and Spain) from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He informs us, "The arrival of the European explorers to America began the most astounding and far-reaching encounter between cultures in the history of civilization. It brought together two portions of the human race that until then knew nothing of each other's existence, thus establishing the basic identity of our modern world. (Gonzalez, p.3)."
"Of the Europeans who settled America, those who hailed from England and Spain had the greatest impact. Both transplanted their cultures over vast territories. Both created colonial empires from whose abundance Europe rose to dominate the world. And descendants of both eventually launched independence wars that remade the political systems of our planet. (Gonzalez,p. 3)."
After covering "the roots" of a U.S. Hispanic presence, Gonzalez goes on to talk about the branches. He goes on to talk about Puerto Ricans as citizens yet foreigners, Mexicans as pioneers of a different type, Cubans as special refugees, and Dominicans who lived under the reign of Duarte to Dominicans who crossed the George Washington Bridge. Then he mentions how the history of our intervention in Central America generated immigration into this country and how Colombians and Panamanians had to work in order to overcome division and disdain.
The reader is strongly advised to obtain this book and read it thoroughly. It will demonstrate, as I've indicated before, that Hispanic-American theology did not emerge from a historical vacuum, but rather from the historical interplay between those who hold power and those who are victimized by power.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 27, 2015
Contextual Theology: U.S. HIspanic Discourse-An Overview
After having written several essays on Liberation Theology from a Latin American/ and Caribbean standpoint, I now invite you to consider entering a dialogue with us on doing theology from the context of U.S. Hispanics. Like any other cultural, ethnic, and racial group in the U.S.A, the Hispanic community in this country has its own theology. Like Liberation Theology and all other theologies, it is not monolithic. Hispanic-American theology has as much variation as any other theology.
Unlike Euro-American theology, which has a "top-down" approach, Hispanic-American theology is more of a "bottom-up" model. Like Latin American Liberation Theology, Hispanic-American theology emerges from the socio-economic, and political conditions of alienation, marginalization, oppression, and suffering.
Latin American Liberation Theology focuses on issues of social class in Latin America. It deals with how a small group of people, in some cases receiving economic and military support from the U.S.A, have relegated the vast majority of the populace in Latin America (especially in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico) to abysmal and abject poverty. Hispanic-American theology, on the other hand, focuses on how Hispanics (or as some would prefer to call them "Latinos") in the U.S.A are treated in the same manner that the African-American community is treated, i.e. as inferior and second-class citizens. In Latin America, it is an issue of social class. In the U.S.A, it is an ethnic/racial issue.
In order for anyone to even begin to critique Hispanic-American theology, one first has to be acquainted with the history of Hispanics in this country. One would have to research the origins of the Hispanic-American community, and also become familiar with the challenges that this community has faced.
One thing that merits attention in this discourse and cannot be overlooked is the fact that for many centuries, our ancestors from Latin America called these lands "home" long before the European colonization of the Americas was carried out beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. What is today called Central and South America was inhabited by the indigenous people who were wiped out by the diseases contrived through their hard labor for the Spaniards and other Europeans. Hispanic-Americans are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, especially through the lineage of the indigenous inhabitants, and also through the lineage of the people of African descent who labored and toiled, building this land (including what today is called the U.S.A.) for the benefit of Euro-America. Therefore, when some say to us "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?", the answer is "Oh, but we came from here, this is our land, and you are the ones who have to get the hell out of here and go back to where you came from." As someone said, "we didn't cross the border. The border crossed us." I would add to those who hold us in contempt, "This is our land, and we are here to stay."
These essays are designed to provide the information that is necessary for those who wish to critique and evaluate the way we do theology in the Hispanic-American community. They will also contain a prophetic element of denunciation by challenging the elite of the ruling class in Slavetown, U.S.A. These essays will take many readers out of their comfort zones because in them, they will find a process of deconstructing long-held myths about Euro-American cultural and national superiority.
As a pastor/theologian, I make no apologies whatsoever for the remarks above. It is said that the job of a true preacher is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. If these essays result in bringing comfort and respite to your soul, then all praise and thanks be to God who in Christ has promised us liberation from the bondage which prevents us from moving forward as a community which is part of the global community of humankind. If, on the other hand, your reading of the forthcoming essays result in your being afflicted because of their deconstructing role, then the only thing that I can say is "too damned bad." The truth has to be proclaimed regardless of the consequences. As a result of reading the comments from the essays, some may experience having a coronary, others will fall out of their chairs, and others, yet, will just be stymied and say, "and then, and then, and then, um, huma, huma, huma."
The bulk of these essays will be based on articles that are written by different Hispanic-American theologians or Latin American theologians working in a U.S. context. These articles can be found in the book, "We Are A People!: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. Robert Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress. 1992."
In anticipation of the forthcoming essays, I invite you to raise any questions or make any comments that you believe to be appropriate to this discourse. You may want to make comments or ask questions regarding this general overview. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his book (Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in the Americas, New York: Penguin Groups, 2000, and 2011) Juan Gonzales
Unlike Euro-American theology, which has a "top-down" approach, Hispanic-American theology is more of a "bottom-up" model. Like Latin American Liberation Theology, Hispanic-American theology emerges from the socio-economic, and political conditions of alienation, marginalization, oppression, and suffering.
Latin American Liberation Theology focuses on issues of social class in Latin America. It deals with how a small group of people, in some cases receiving economic and military support from the U.S.A, have relegated the vast majority of the populace in Latin America (especially in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico) to abysmal and abject poverty. Hispanic-American theology, on the other hand, focuses on how Hispanics (or as some would prefer to call them "Latinos") in the U.S.A are treated in the same manner that the African-American community is treated, i.e. as inferior and second-class citizens. In Latin America, it is an issue of social class. In the U.S.A, it is an ethnic/racial issue.
In order for anyone to even begin to critique Hispanic-American theology, one first has to be acquainted with the history of Hispanics in this country. One would have to research the origins of the Hispanic-American community, and also become familiar with the challenges that this community has faced.
One thing that merits attention in this discourse and cannot be overlooked is the fact that for many centuries, our ancestors from Latin America called these lands "home" long before the European colonization of the Americas was carried out beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. What is today called Central and South America was inhabited by the indigenous people who were wiped out by the diseases contrived through their hard labor for the Spaniards and other Europeans. Hispanic-Americans are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, especially through the lineage of the indigenous inhabitants, and also through the lineage of the people of African descent who labored and toiled, building this land (including what today is called the U.S.A.) for the benefit of Euro-America. Therefore, when some say to us "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?", the answer is "Oh, but we came from here, this is our land, and you are the ones who have to get the hell out of here and go back to where you came from." As someone said, "we didn't cross the border. The border crossed us." I would add to those who hold us in contempt, "This is our land, and we are here to stay."
These essays are designed to provide the information that is necessary for those who wish to critique and evaluate the way we do theology in the Hispanic-American community. They will also contain a prophetic element of denunciation by challenging the elite of the ruling class in Slavetown, U.S.A. These essays will take many readers out of their comfort zones because in them, they will find a process of deconstructing long-held myths about Euro-American cultural and national superiority.
As a pastor/theologian, I make no apologies whatsoever for the remarks above. It is said that the job of a true preacher is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. If these essays result in bringing comfort and respite to your soul, then all praise and thanks be to God who in Christ has promised us liberation from the bondage which prevents us from moving forward as a community which is part of the global community of humankind. If, on the other hand, your reading of the forthcoming essays result in your being afflicted because of their deconstructing role, then the only thing that I can say is "too damned bad." The truth has to be proclaimed regardless of the consequences. As a result of reading the comments from the essays, some may experience having a coronary, others will fall out of their chairs, and others, yet, will just be stymied and say, "and then, and then, and then, um, huma, huma, huma."
The bulk of these essays will be based on articles that are written by different Hispanic-American theologians or Latin American theologians working in a U.S. context. These articles can be found in the book, "We Are A People!: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. Robert Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress. 1992."
In anticipation of the forthcoming essays, I invite you to raise any questions or make any comments that you believe to be appropriate to this discourse. You may want to make comments or ask questions regarding this general overview. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his book (Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in the Americas, New York: Penguin Groups, 2000, and 2011) Juan Gonzales
Saturday, April 25, 2015
God and Life
The Stock Market goes up and down. My favorite team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, might win the World Series this year. I love playing with my grandchildren. A former co-worker referred to me as an "eternal romantic." A pattern of shooting and killing unarmed African American men has emerged in our time. A man loses his job after thirty-five years of giving his "blood, sweat, and tears," and now wonders how he will be able to support himself and his family. The United States government continues to pressure Iran to come up with a satisfactory deal regarding nuclear weapons.
Bruce Jenner decides to go the transgender route. A major Protestant denomination changes the definition of marriage to a "union between two persons." The Jewish community just commemorated the Holocaust. People are uprooted from their living quarters through a process of gentrification.
Medicines that were designed to prevent and treat cancer are found to be cancer-causing agents. And the list goes on, and on, and on. As someone once said, "And the band played on."
What is the "so what" of all this? Why make a big deal out of it? Where does everything lead to?
Where is God in all this? Does God give a damn about the fluctuations of the Stock Market? Is God concerned about who the winner of the World Series will be?
I write this in order to pose the question as to why we compartmentalize between "spirituality" on the one hand, and our ordinary routine life on the other. I remember a very dear and close relative of mine who criticized the style of worship in our church by saying that the Holy Spirit is someone that people think about only on Sunday morning when they are at church. Very recently, a very good friend of mine posed the question as to what makes people think that God is concerned with what goes on in the privacy of our bed room?
I think that these are all valid questions that merit our consideration. We need to ask ourselves when does God "step in" and when does God take a "back seat?" Many of us are more than willing to throw God under the proverbial "bus" when it suits our agenda or when the mere mention or thought of God is considered an interruption in our livelihood.
I remember an experience that I had as a teenager after my parents had separated. My sister and I had gone to visit our father in Manhattan. At that time, we were members of a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church on Staten Island. Based on certain Scripture passages, our church had a prohibition again eating a meat which we call in Spanish "morcilla," which is a blood sausage. My father, who had no regard for religious norms, gave us a piece of morcilla, virtually forced us to eat it and said to us "Never mind that religion bull shit." Quite frankly, I was traumatized. On the one hand, I couldn't conceive that someone in a parental would impose his norms on us, over and beyond what we at that time considered God's norm. On the hand, I did not like and still do not like morcilla. It gets me sick to my stomach.
So the question is, do we have an attitude similar to my father's?, i.e. "never mind that religion bull shit?" Do we in essence believe and think "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do my own thing?" Is God someone that we take into account only on Friday afternoon in the Mosque, Friday evening/Saturday morning in the Synagogue, Sunday morning at Church, etc. Do we "shelve" God when we leave our respective houses of worship and then take God off the shelf when we return the following week?
Please share your thoughts with us regarding God and life. Tell us if you think that God is an entity that just "rubber stamps" our decisions in life, or if God really does care what goes on in every area of our lives, including, but not limited to the bedroom. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Bruce Jenner decides to go the transgender route. A major Protestant denomination changes the definition of marriage to a "union between two persons." The Jewish community just commemorated the Holocaust. People are uprooted from their living quarters through a process of gentrification.
Medicines that were designed to prevent and treat cancer are found to be cancer-causing agents. And the list goes on, and on, and on. As someone once said, "And the band played on."
What is the "so what" of all this? Why make a big deal out of it? Where does everything lead to?
Where is God in all this? Does God give a damn about the fluctuations of the Stock Market? Is God concerned about who the winner of the World Series will be?
I write this in order to pose the question as to why we compartmentalize between "spirituality" on the one hand, and our ordinary routine life on the other. I remember a very dear and close relative of mine who criticized the style of worship in our church by saying that the Holy Spirit is someone that people think about only on Sunday morning when they are at church. Very recently, a very good friend of mine posed the question as to what makes people think that God is concerned with what goes on in the privacy of our bed room?
I think that these are all valid questions that merit our consideration. We need to ask ourselves when does God "step in" and when does God take a "back seat?" Many of us are more than willing to throw God under the proverbial "bus" when it suits our agenda or when the mere mention or thought of God is considered an interruption in our livelihood.
I remember an experience that I had as a teenager after my parents had separated. My sister and I had gone to visit our father in Manhattan. At that time, we were members of a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church on Staten Island. Based on certain Scripture passages, our church had a prohibition again eating a meat which we call in Spanish "morcilla," which is a blood sausage. My father, who had no regard for religious norms, gave us a piece of morcilla, virtually forced us to eat it and said to us "Never mind that religion bull shit." Quite frankly, I was traumatized. On the one hand, I couldn't conceive that someone in a parental would impose his norms on us, over and beyond what we at that time considered God's norm. On the hand, I did not like and still do not like morcilla. It gets me sick to my stomach.
So the question is, do we have an attitude similar to my father's?, i.e. "never mind that religion bull shit?" Do we in essence believe and think "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do my own thing?" Is God someone that we take into account only on Friday afternoon in the Mosque, Friday evening/Saturday morning in the Synagogue, Sunday morning at Church, etc. Do we "shelve" God when we leave our respective houses of worship and then take God off the shelf when we return the following week?
Please share your thoughts with us regarding God and life. Tell us if you think that God is an entity that just "rubber stamps" our decisions in life, or if God really does care what goes on in every area of our lives, including, but not limited to the bedroom. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Sola Scriptura: How Viable is It?
One of the many things that has the Christian churches divided amongst themselves is their particular stance on the role of Scripture. Not only are there differences of biblical interpretation leading to different doctrinal conclusions, but also differences as to what role the Bible should play in the construction and formation of doctrine and practice.
One of the many elements that lead to the Church split in the sixteenth century (the Protestant Reformation) was the insistence that the Bible alone should be the rule for faith and practice. Up until that point (and still today), the Roman Catholic Church as well as the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy hold to the position that tradition plays an equal role as the Scripture for faith and practice. It should be noted that the position of "Sola Scriptura (the Scripture alone)" was not unique to the Protestant Reformation. At least two hundred years before, John Wycliffe had been known to adhere to this position which subsequently came to be associated with Protestant theology.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe that:
1. The traditions of the Church led to the writings of Scripture.
2. Experience (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) also played a role in the formation of the Scriptures.
3. The Bible itself is a tradition, birthed by the traditions of the first-century Church.
The Protestant churches are divided into the following two camps:
1. Sola Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible stands by itself without the need for further commentary or explanation for faith and practice. Those who believe this are of the mindset that the Bible should be our only rule for faith and practice.
2. Prima Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible is the primary authority in the life of the Church, and that experience, reason, and tradition play a secondary and subordinate role in the formation of doctrine and theology. In this model, experience, reason, and tradition are to be evaluated in the light of "what the Bible says."
This writer (yours truly) would like to humbly and respectfully submit an alternative model. Since the Holy Spirit was the primary agent in the formation of the Church (both Jewish and Christian), everything that came along with that formation, i.e. experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition, should carry equal authority. I believe that to put one against the other, or to place one in a subordinate position to the other, vitiates the work of the Holy Spirit, both in the life of the Church, and in the life of the individual believer. Since experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition all come from God, it does not make any logical sense (in my humble opinion) to ascribe levels of authority to either of these four components. All four components should carry equal weight in the formation of faith development.
I submit this proposal to you for your consideration, comments, and evaluation. Please feel free to openly and honestly critique this paradigm.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
One of the many elements that lead to the Church split in the sixteenth century (the Protestant Reformation) was the insistence that the Bible alone should be the rule for faith and practice. Up until that point (and still today), the Roman Catholic Church as well as the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy hold to the position that tradition plays an equal role as the Scripture for faith and practice. It should be noted that the position of "Sola Scriptura (the Scripture alone)" was not unique to the Protestant Reformation. At least two hundred years before, John Wycliffe had been known to adhere to this position which subsequently came to be associated with Protestant theology.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe that:
1. The traditions of the Church led to the writings of Scripture.
2. Experience (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) also played a role in the formation of the Scriptures.
3. The Bible itself is a tradition, birthed by the traditions of the first-century Church.
The Protestant churches are divided into the following two camps:
1. Sola Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible stands by itself without the need for further commentary or explanation for faith and practice. Those who believe this are of the mindset that the Bible should be our only rule for faith and practice.
2. Prima Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible is the primary authority in the life of the Church, and that experience, reason, and tradition play a secondary and subordinate role in the formation of doctrine and theology. In this model, experience, reason, and tradition are to be evaluated in the light of "what the Bible says."
This writer (yours truly) would like to humbly and respectfully submit an alternative model. Since the Holy Spirit was the primary agent in the formation of the Church (both Jewish and Christian), everything that came along with that formation, i.e. experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition, should carry equal authority. I believe that to put one against the other, or to place one in a subordinate position to the other, vitiates the work of the Holy Spirit, both in the life of the Church, and in the life of the individual believer. Since experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition all come from God, it does not make any logical sense (in my humble opinion) to ascribe levels of authority to either of these four components. All four components should carry equal weight in the formation of faith development.
I submit this proposal to you for your consideration, comments, and evaluation. Please feel free to openly and honestly critique this paradigm.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)