September 20, 2012 · 6:54 am

The Everyday Hispanic Heritage Project

In the United States we observe Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15th through October 15th. During this time the country is encouraged to reflect on the influence of Hispanic and Latin@ culture to the larger culture of the United States. Often this means to remember and honor the great heroes and heroines of our communities like Gloria Anzaldúa, Dolores Huertas, César Chávez and other Latin@s who have helped raised awareness about the influence of Hispanics in the country. However, seldom do we hear from the “everyday Hispanics” who make a difference in their local communities.

How many of you have heard of the work of Pedro Julio Serrano, Norma Zavala, Sylvia Rivera, Karen Leslie Hernández, Karlo Karlo, Luis Alvarenga, Julio Granados…? The list can go on and on. There are millions of little known Latin@s throughout the country making a difference in their communities. This is why I have decided to start a project, the Everyday Hispanic Heritage Project, featuring one or two of these amazing individuals.

Of course, this is not and could never be a complete list. This is just the beginning. My goal is to raise awareness of the millions of unknown Juans, Marías, Pedros, Gladys, Josés, Anas who give of themselves to make their communities a better place to live.

The project has its limitations of course. One of these limitations is the fact that I do not know all the places where Latin@s are working day to day to transform the lives of others. Therefore, if you know of an amazing story of an unknown Latin@ who is doing great work locally, please feel free to email me and let me know. You can reach me at jmannysantiago@outlook.com .

Leave a comment

Filed under Hispanics, Latino, Puerto Rico, Sociology

August 23, 2012 · 5:59 am

MI POSICIÓN CON RESPECTO A LA PROPUESTA ENMIENDA CONSTITUCIONAL AL DERECHO A LA FIANZAoptional)

        Comienzo por revelar que, aunque puertorriqueño que participó activamente en política mientras vivía en la Isla, ya no vivo allá. Así que, si quieren, pueden ignorar mis comentarios sobre un asunto que, en primera instancia, no me afecta directamente. Ahora, esto es un asunto que afecta a cualquier persona que pueda en algún momento, regresar a vivir en Puerto Rico y por tanto estar sujeto a sus leyes. Segundo, no soy abogado, así que mi opinión es “secular” y viene desde la perspectiva de un ciudadano común.
          El derecho a la fianza es parte de la Constitución del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. En su Artículo II, sección 11, párrafo 5 de la Constitución se lee: “Todo acusado tendrá derecho a quedar en libertad bajo fianza antes de mediar un fallo condenatorio.” Éste párrafo es parte de los derechos constitucionales de las personas (y fíjense aquí que son derechos tanto de mujeres como de hombres, a pesar de que se utiliza solo el masculino). El primer párrafo de esta sección lee: “En todos los procesos criminales, el acusado disfrutará […] de la presunción de inocencia.” Esta última parte es la que se conoce como “se es inocente hasta probarse lo contrario.”
         Es importante señalar que la propuesta de enmienda a la Constitución del Estado Libre Asociado no cambia en ninguna forma los primeros cuatro párrafos del Artículo II, sección 11 de la misma. Por lo tanto, toda persona sigue siendo “inocente hasta que se pruebe lo contrario,” así como a tener derecho a representación legal, a un juicio rápido y justo y a otros derechos judiciales. Más que esto, la propuesta enmienda ¡NO QUITA EL DERECHO A LA FIANZA!
         En un país tan politizado como lo es Puerto Rico, se ha utilizado la política partidista en contra de la Legislatura penepé y su monigot… digo, presidente y gobernador, para confundir al pueblo con respecto a esta enmienda. En realidad, la enmienda al derecho a la fianza establece PARÁMETROS para la misma. Otra vez, para que no haya confusión: la fianza se queda, solo que se ponen restricciones a COMO y a QUE TIPOS de delitos se les ofrecerá. Mire que no se dice que “a los culpables de delito…” sino que dice “a los acusados de…” La presunción de inocencia queda consticionalizada. Pero no solo eso, sino que la propuesta enmienda va más allá y dice que es “a fin de otorgarle discreción a los jueces para conceder o denegar el derecho a permanecer en libertad bajo fianza a los acusados de asesinatos cometidos con premeditación, deliberación o acecho; los acusados de asesinatos cometidos en medio de un robo en el hogar, en el curso de una agresión sexual o secuestro; los acusados de asesinatos cometidos al disparar un arma de fuego desde un vehículo de motor o en un lugar abierto al público, poniendo en riesgo la vida de más de una persona; o cuando la víctima del asesinato sea un agente del orden público que se encuentre en el cumplimiento de su deber; asignar fondos para la celebración del referéndum; y para otros fines relacionados.”
         ¿Qué quiere decir toda esta jeringonza en arroz y habichuelas? Pues que el juez o la jueza tendrán discreción en otorgar la fianza de acuerda al tipo de delito (grave o no grave) y al historial delictivo de la persona acusada. Esto no borra el derecho de toda persona de tener un juicio justo y rápido, de considerarse inocente hasta tanto se pruebe lo contrario, de ser juzgado y juzgada por sus pares, etcétera. Lo que hace la enmienda es poner parámetros claros sobre qué delitos merecen tener acceso a la libertad bajo fianza.
         Pero, ¿no es esto equivalente a juzgar a una persona antes de someterla a juicio? A mi parecer, no. Tanto las constituciones como los códigos legales (civiles y penales) son para el bien de la sociedad. O sea, que por aquello que el filósofo político británico Thomas Hobbes (y antes que él, planteó Aristóteles y luego John Locke y Jean-Jacques Rousseau) llamó “el contrato social”, las personas tenemos el deber cívico y moral de mantener ciertos estándares de relaciones que permitan el mejor convivir colectivo. En este sentido hay ocasiones en que nuestros actos de violencia deberían ser penados. Este es un contrato en el cual hemos entrado por razón de vivir bajo las leyes de la nación y el Estado en el que tengamos residencia. Por supuesto que hay ocasiones en que las naciones y los Estados toman control absoluto y control parcial de nuestras vidas privadas y hay ciertos derechos por los cuales se tiene que luchar. Pero este no es, desde mi perspectiva, el caso con el derecho a la fianza.
         En práctica, la fianza ha sido una forma de las personas con poder – económico o de narcotráfico y armas – de mantener sus estilos de vida sin importar cuánto mal hayan hecho a la sociedad. Pocas veces las personas pobres tienen acceso al dinero para quedar en libertad y más veces, el sistema judicial otorga cargas económicas más altas a acusados y acusadas pobres que a quienes tienen dinero, poder político o acceso a armas y drogas.
         Otra pregunta que me han hecho es, “Pero eso es porque no has tenido que pagar fianza. ¿Qué tal si te pasa a ti?” Pues cierto, yo no he cometido un delito ni he sido sometido a juicio. Tampoco tengo en mi lista el cometer ningún delito por el momento, aunque si he roto varias leyes que son injustas aunque el romperlas no me ha llevado a juicio (esto es la llamada “desobediencia civil”). Si en algún momento cometiera un delito o fuera acusado de algún delito PARA LOS CUALES LA FIANZA NO SEA UNA OPCION, lo que esperaría es que se me someta a un juicio rápido, que sea justo, que tengan evidencia y que sea juzgado por mis pares. Claro, es más fácil hablar del diablo que verlo venir, pero ahí es donde me encuentro en este momento.
        Esto es, definitivamente, un tema muy complejo y que debe considerarse muy bien antes de tomar acción. Si en algo no estoy muy contento con el proceso es, primero, que como todo en la Isla, se ha politizado, y segundo, que el gobierno no ofreció suficiente tiempo al electorado de analizar las opciones que tienen en el referéndum. Pero al final del día, yo no veo ningún derecho constitucional siendo quitado; lo que está claro es que se limita el acceso a la fianza, el derecho a juicio justo, a la presunción de inocencia, a ser juzgado por mis pares, etcétera, no se quita, ni se debe quitar. Recuerden que este no es el único derecho al cual se les ponen parámetros. Por ejemplo, toda persona tiene derecho a votar… siempre que cumpla con los requisitos para ello. Toda persona tiene derecho a tomar un puesto electivo… siempre que cumpla con los requisitos para ello. Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de culto… siempre que no haga daño a otras personas. Y la lista sigue. El único derecho que no tiene ningún requisito es a ser feliz. Creo yo que el limitar la fianza a quienes han roto el contrato social, aunque ciertamente no resolverá el problema craso de criminalidad en la Isla, si tiene como efecto el ayudar a la ciudadanía a ser más segura y por lo tanto, quizás hasta un poco más feliz. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

March 9, 2012 · 8:40 am

And Churches Wonder Why We Don’t Have Visitors!

Churches keep complaining about not having enough visitors. They (we?) complain about not retaining the few visitors that come by every now and then. Mainline churches in particular, keep whining about the lack of interest in the church that some younger generations have. Every single recent research shows the decline in membership of the mainline churches.

Now, imagine that you come by on any given Sunday, ready to explore the church community you have heard about. You woke up early after having spent Saturday night with your friends. Drove a few miles to the church. Parked at the space that read “PARKING RESERVED FOR FIRST CHURCH IN MY CITY.” A nice person with a welcoming smile welcomed you and handed you the program for the day. You sat and, more or less, enjoyed the service. After the service was over, you tried to sneak out unnoticed, just because you are not quite sure if this is the right faith community for you. Now, when you come to the parking to pick up your car… WHAT? There is a ticket on your windshield!!!

“Why?” you wonder. “Why is there a parking ticket on my windshield if the parking was reserved for the church and I was attending the service?” Well, it turns out that the parking is for the church, and you are not part of it! Get it? The “welcoming smile” was just a gimmick to attract you, but the church doesn’t really want you there. At least, that is what I would have thought.

Recently I learned that the parking spaces that my church uses require people to have a sticker to park there even on Sundays. The parking attendants (which, by the way, are pretty much ghosts because I have never actually seen one) cover the pay machine with a sign that says something about the parking being used for the church. But what they mean is that only those with stickers can park there.

What if you are a visitor and do not know this? Well, you get a ticket.

The problem is that not everyone is aware of this. If you visit a church, you expect to have a space where to park if you are driving, and you expect to have an order of service if the church has one, so you are not lost, and you expect to be acknowledged as a visitor without being put into the spot. Going to church, for a first time visitor, should be a relaxed experience. The last thing you want is to find a parking ticket on your car!

We, the people in church, keep wondering why visitors don’t come back and why our church is not full on Sundays. But the truth is that we keep making visiting our churches harder and harder for outsiders. Even when our heart is the right place – wanting to make visitors welcomed – our actions are still telling people that they do not belong. We form closed groups. We hang out in those small groups after church and don’t even acknowledge the visitors. We sit with our buddies during the service and let the visitor figure out where the hymns are or what comes next in the service. We ignore the visitor on our way to communion and at times give them a harsh look should they have the audacity of partaking of this internal meal meant for insiders only.

Finally, when visitors don’t come, we try to find a scapegoat. “The sermon was horrible.” “The brownies were bland!” “The hymns were so last century.” “The songs were too contemporary.” When the truth is that at times, it is the simplest of explanations… Often times, visitors come because they are exploring different faith communities. Your church – my church – is just one among a long list of churches they might be exploring. Sometimes visitors will come back. Sometimes they will leave and never come back. But the important thing is to make all in our power to make sure that visitors feel welcomed and safe in the time we spend with us. A parking ticket is the last thing they need to get from us…

Do I have the solution to this? Yes and no.

On the one hand, we must start to sacrifice ourselves. If having more parking for visitors means that I have to wake up earlier and take the bus, or to park farther from the church and walk, so be it. Church should not be about “me, me, me” all the time (well, sometimes it is OK, but not all the time.) Church should be about “me, you, us, them…” On the other hand, I don’t think that there are just simple solutions. There needs to be a cultural change – a change in the culture of church – and that takes time, effort, and a very painful process. I believe that the mainline churches that will survive are those who are willing to start having these difficult conversations and willing to explore different things, even when some of them fail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, worship

December 30, 2011 · 12:54 pm

Newtonian Physics and Church Culture – Part I

In 1687, physicist Sir Isaac Newton published a book called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. In this work, Newton shares three observations related to bodies in motion. The laws of motion as they are known, state the following:

  •  Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
  • The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
  • For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Generally, people are introduced to these laws of physics in school or college. However, I think that it would be good for seminarians and church leaders to study them closely as part of our training to work in congregations.

I would like to share my thoughts on these three laws and how they can be translated into congregational life. Each one of these laws helps pastors understand our congregations a bit better. It will also help congregations understand themselves a bit better. A better understanding of our own congregations will, hopefully, bring us to healthier relationships, ministries, individuals, and communities of faith.

Because there is so much that can be said of each one of these laws, I will divide this essay intro three shorter essays expressing my understanding of how these laws affect our congregations and how to best address each one of them.

First Law – State of Inertia

The first law states, in lay terminology, that any object in movement will stay in movement unless there is a force to stop it. Conversely, any object in state of inertia – or of rest – will stay unmoved unless there is a force that will make it move. Sounds familiar?

Churches tend to stay in the state in which they are. More often than not, people pay attention at how the mainline churches continue in a state of inertia. Since there is no force that will move these congregations, they tend to wane and decline. Every now and then someone new will come through the doors. Sometimes these new visitors will stay, but often they will leave soon after discovering that the congregation is not ready to embrace them or to allow them to bring their ideas and passions.

Those who stay do it more often than not because they feel secure in a steady environment. Perhaps, the reason they come to church in the first place is because they are looking for a place where they can feel comfortable. This comfort is sometimes expressed in a state of inertia. Nothing is expected of the new members – with the exception of “blending in” with the culture of the church. The feeling of security and stability comes from not having to move or to be innovative. We can come to church and pray, sing, listen to a sermon, and share cookies afterward like our ancestors have done for only God knows how long. There is a feeling of security and comfort in old traditions. These are the churches with scholarly pastors in robes or business suits, thousands of church meetings to discuss the next business meeting, and one-hour long worship services so predictable that you need not come on Sunday to know at what minute you are suppose to be singing the opening hymn.

On the other hand, we have churches that are always “on the move.” Experimentation, innovation and modernization are usually the operative words for these congregations. Every worship experience is different. Every week there is a new experience to have. New members are always welcomed and they come in throngs. Each new member is encouraged to develop their own ministries, their own small groups, their own spaces of worship or of exploration. More often than not, these “emerging congregations” as they are usually called, will attract people of my generation and younger – the so-called Gen X, Generation Y, and the Millenials.

Everything around us moves at the speed of light. Our generation expresses thoughts in 140 characters or less in Twitter. Texting has replaced boring phone conversations. Emails are often used to engage in discussion, although it still “so-1990s!” Facebook has replaced human interaction. Ideas float left and right and any outsider will feel dizzy with all the movement that happens both in the lives of these generation and in the churches that attract us.

Frequently you will note that the only steady members of the congregations that attract these generations are the pastors. The congregation, however, has changed every few years. Yet, the pews – or rather, the theater chairs that have replaced them – are so full that everyone looks at them as the prime example of successful ministries.

Consequences

The Law of Inertia has important implications for the churches. Let us take a look at each type of church.

First, those churches that are in the state of rest will stop growing at a healthy pace. As I stated, these congregations tend to dwindle at a faster rate than others. Mainline churches are usually part of this group of congregations. Traditions die hard and people are not fond of bringing innovation or trying new things. The consequence is that these churches become almost irrelevant to the communities in which they are established. Stepping into their services on a Sunday morning is like traveling back in time for most people.

Younger generations will find the services at these type of churches boring, irrelevant, old-school, and even disconnected from reality. Social action and justice – which are often talked about in these congregations – are not in touch with the realities of the younger generations. These younger generations live in a world in which racial integration is a reality, gay and lesbians can marry in several countries and states of the USA, and women are often in the pulpits. Truly, our churches have to continue working for social transformation and being willing to take bold stands on issues of social justice. However these churches of inertia have replaced these actions for true spiritual formation and experiences.

If recent research is to be trusted, younger generations are longing for spiritually but not religious experiences. These experiences cannot be achieved with old traditions and regular business meetings. It also means that making the services all about social justice makes the younger visitor feel like what they are doing in their daily lives is not enough. Keep in mind, that these are the people who are marching, demonstrating, getting arrested and beaten by the police as they try to change the systems of oppression we live in. When they visit a congregation it is often because they are looking for an experience of the mystery that they cannot explain; seldom do they come to know how and why Jesus threw the moneychangers from the Temple.

The churches of inertia, unfortunately, do not provide for the spiritual needs of Gen Xers, Generation Yers, and Millenials. What young person has the time to come to three meetings, two worship services, four demonstrations, one fund-raising dinner, and any other church activity in a week? Church for the younger generation is about finding a safe space to connect with the mystery of God. It is also a place to find community, not over budgetary discussions, but over a cup of tea or coffee or even a beer, while at the same time expressing our doubts about God and religion. Contradictory? Yes. But so is life!

Second, the churches in motion have the problem of never being able to find roots for their movements. These churches are more likely to be mega-churches, independent congregations or mainline evangelicals.

It is common for churches in movement to ignore the needs of the aging population. As the baby boomers age and their parents have even more and more needs, the churches in movement have decided to completely ignore them in order to provide for younger people. Most of the emerging churches do not provide for the security and the stability that senior people need in order to have religious experiences that are meaningful for them.

This is not to say that older adults are not fond of movement, but rather that movement for these particular generations needs to happen at a pace that is healthy for them. Too much movement too fast is not what helps the spirituality of the older adults. Tradition helps these particular generations feel connected to their past and histories. Systemic planning – i.e. committee meetings – are places where older adults feel more comfortable, knowing that they have a starting point as well as a clear vision and goal in order to use their gifts for ministry. Finally, predictability gives them the confidence that they do not have to always learn some new language and always being on the move; they have already done this in their lives and it is now their time to rest and to reap the fruit of their many years of labor.

Churches in motion also tend to forget about the life transitions that all human beings go through. With perhaps the exception of marriage and baptisms, it is rare to find a pastor in one these churches who understand the importance of providing good care during life transitions. More often than not, these churches do not provide good ministry of accompaniment to the elderly or the sick, and very rarely are they prepared to lead meaningful funeral and memorial services. The most common understanding is that youthful energy and health will last forever.

Rarely do these churches engage in serious theological discussion. It is most common for them to stress the mystery and the spiritual. When the Scriptures are used, are usually to answer the question “what does this have to do with me?” and rarely on how are the Scriptures to help us transform the world around us. These churches have a very clear “market” and they do everything in their power to sell their product to this particular sector of consumers. In fact, these marketing strategists are at the core of the churches in movement.

Certainly, all these aspects are generalizations. There is not one single congregation that has all of the characteristics I am sharing here. However, I believe that it is good for leaders to assess where in the spectrum the churches we serve fall in order to provide better pastoral leadership.

Solutions?

As stated before, what I have shared are generalizations. It would be foolish of me to assume that there is a “one size fits all” solution to counteract the Law of Inertia. However, I see a possibility in the way in which Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have dealt with tradition and innovation.

The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have allowed people to both hold on to tradition while at the same time provide for a deep spiritual experience that is individual. The movement towards innovation happens gradually. Members are encouraged to participate, yet there is a deep respect for the tradition of the elders and their wisdom. At the same time, these elders and leaders are open to innovation because of their own personal experiences of the mystery of God (most evident in their theology of the Holy Spirit.) And this interaction between younger and older generations in leading the church helps create an environment in which the community provides for care for each other at all times, regardless of age. The integration of the younger generations and the older generations happens organically, not forcefully as it is often the case in inertia churches and absent as it is the case in churches in motion.

Passion is as important as talent in their communities. You need not have a degree in music in order to sing in the choir, nor do you have to possess a degree in theology in order to engage in teaching and preaching at the church. Generally, committee meetings happen in the context of a specific need and not just for the sake of meeting. Worship is the central aspect of live in community, not business meetings. Instead of four committee meetings a week, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have three or four worship experiences a week. The “target” audience for these churches is anyone who is not yet one of them, thus there is no need to define the product to sell in order to sell it. Anyone has the possibility of belonging!

Again, these are generalizations. I have expressed elsewhere my concern and unease with Pentecostal and Charismatic theology and worship, and I am open about these feelings. I have also expressed my love and attachment to the mainline Protestant tradition. But I am also critical of churches that stay in their state of motion or inertia for the sake of it, whether they are mainline or emergent. I believe that the future of the church lies in knowing how to keep a balance between movement and rest.

In the next essay I would like to explore the second Law of Motion, and look at what would be the healthy speed in which a church should move in order to affect healthy change.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , ,

September 9, 2011 · 2:17 pm

Dios y la comunidad trans

En las comunidades elegebeté (lesbiana, gay, bisexual y transexual) ésta última letra siempre se queda rezagada. Esto no es culpa de la comunidad – o debería decir, “comunidades” – trans, sino que ha sido una actitud sistemática de parte de las comunidades elegebe el mantener al margen a estas otras comunidades. Si bien es cierto que esta marginalización es evidente dentro de las comunidades elegebe, la misma es mucho más evidente en las comunidades religiosas.

Es bien sabido que aun dentro de las comunidades religiosas – en específico, cristianas – las comunidades transgénero, transexual y travesti son, no solamente ignoradas sistemáticamente, sino hasta demonizadas. Esta demonización de las comunidades trans es algo que debe tomarse en cuenta a la hora de hacer teología y de entender el llamado cristiano a la aceptación y a la diversidad.

En ocasiones me pregunto, ¿qué diría Dios de las comunidades trans? La respuesta a esta pregunta es mucho más simple de lo que muchas personas querrían que fuera. Aquí les dejo mi lectura socio-teológica de las Escrituras Sagradas con respecto a la relación de Dios con las comunidades trans.

Primero tenemos que definir de manera general las comunidades trans. El término transgénero es utilizado como una descripción de aquellas personas cuya identidad de género no se conforma a las normas sociales impuestas a su sexo biológico. Así, las personas transgénero pueden ser transexuales, travestis o personas de género no conformista. Hay que mantener en mente, sin embargo, que no podemos y no debemos asumir que una persona es transgénero simplemente porque no se conforma a nuestras definiciones de masculinidad o feminidad. Siempre es importante dejar que la persona misma se identifique a sí misma. Entre algunas personas dentro de las comunidades trans, el término transexual no es bien recibido, ya que tiene sus orígenes en la medicina y por lo general es utilizado para establecer un diagnóstico socio-sicológico. Asi mismo, dentro de las comunidades angloparlantes el término travesti es generalmente utilizado de manera ofensiva. Sin embargo, entre las comunidades hispanohablantes, el término travesti se refiere, por lo general, a aquellas personas que utilizan el transformismo como forma de entretenimiento o como estimulante erótico, independientemente de su identidad de género. O sea, que una persona puede ser travesti y ser “masculina” o “femenina” de acuerdo a las normas sociales y además puede ser heterosexual en su orientación.

Por supuesto, estos son términos y explicaciones generales. Es importante que cada persona, especialmente personas que ostentan posiciones de liderato en comunidades eclesiásticas, se mantengan informadas acerca de las diferencias entre estos términos para así poder ofrecer mejor apoyo pastoral a quienes se acercan a nuestras congregaciones.

Pero ahora movámonos a la relación que Dios tiene con las comunidades trans. Para poder hacer una mejor lectura de ésta relación es importante remitirnos a las primeras expresiones de Dios en las Sagradas Escrituras con respecto a la humanidad. Estas palabras las encontramos en Génesis 1.26-27: “Entonces dijo Dios: Hagamos al hombre [literalmente, “ser humano”] a nuestra imagen,conforme a nuestra semejanza; […] Y creó Dios al hombre [literalmente, “ser humano”] a su imagen, a imagen de Dios le creó; varón y hembra los creó.” Una lectura transgresiva de este pasaje nos lleva a la conclusión de que en los albores del milagro de creación, la Divinidad misma nos deja saber su naturaleza transgénero. Una Divinidad que no tenga rasgos de uno y otro sexo no sería capaz de crear a la persona a su imagen y semejanza.

Contrario a la antigua forma de leer este pasaje como un llamado al binomio “macho-hembra” que nos ha sido impuesta tradicionalmente, una lectura liberadora del texto revela mucho más. La humanidad no fue creada en binomios, sino en un continuo entre uno y otro extremo y es derecho de cada persona de establecer los parámetros en los cuales su ser interior se siente en completa comunión con la Divinidad creadora.

Moviéndonos aún más adelante, otro ejemplo de transgresión ocurre en el milagro de la encarnación. El evangelio de Juan 1.14a nos deja ver esta mayor transgresión de la Divinidad: “Y aquel Verbo fue hecho carne…” La encarnación de Dios en la persona de Jesús es indicativo de una transgresión de género que sobrepasa el entendimiento humano. Ya no estamos hablando de dejar los roles de género masculino para comportarnos de manera femenina. Ahora tenemos el ejemplo de una sustancia completamente diferente viniendo a habitar en forma humana. La transgresión de Dios en el milagro de la encarnación es pues indicativo de la apertura extravagante que tiene la Divinidad para con las comunidades trans.

Mientras sigamos manteniendo las puertas de nuestras comunidades de fe cerradas a las comunidades trans, estaremos previniendo a la Divinidad misma la oportunidad de manifestarse en medio nuestro. No es posible para la persona cristiana, en particular, proclamar a Dios en la persona de Jesús y al mismo tiempo cerrar nuestras vidas y nuestras puertas a las comunidades de trangéneros, transexuales y travestis. Es hora de hacer de nuestras comunidades unas de bienvenida extraordinaria a toda persona y punto.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, Español, Gay, Lesbian, LGBTQ, Queer, Theology, trans

August 15, 2011 · 3:46 pm

The State and The Church

Some time ago I received an invitation to join a facebook page called “Keep God in our schools”. It came as a surprise to me, given the fact that the person who invited me is a member of a Baptist congregation. Moreover, it was a big surprise to know that God needs of our help to stay in school. Here are my reactions to these sorts of religious questions.

I am committed to the Baptist principles. Over the years, I have grown to accept, cherished, and make mine the principles upon which my denomination was established. Back in the 1600s many Baptist people suffered persecution because of their understanding that the Sate and the Church should be different and separate entities. They also suffered persecution for the – then new – idea of giving every human being the liberty to come before God as his or her conscience told them. These were ideals that we take for granted today. Yet, these ideas were new to the people who grew up in oppressive religious regimes – both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

There are various wrong ideas of what it means to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State, and liberty of conscience or soul freedom as is most commonly referred too. I would like to tackle on them today.

First, separation of Church and State is a concept that serves the Church, not the State. When the religious realm was attached to the political realm, the church was bound to the pitfalls of the State. For instance, it was the prince who would appoint clergy to different positions. There are many a story of bishops and cardinals that were more interested in war and financial riches than in the spiritual well-being of their parishioners. At the same time, political leaders would call Councils to determine theological issues, giving little if no room at all for the faithful to freely come to decisions on matters of faith and theology. The church became a business more than a place to receive consolation and guidance from God through God’s own people who were empowered by the Holy Spirit.

It was for these reasons that some early Anabaptists (Mennonites) and later the Baptists as well, joined in calling for a free Church in a free State, wherefore each institution was in charge of particular needs of the people whom they served.

The Church is called to serve the spiritual needs of the people. Some churches have schools where children learn about history, math, biology, and languages, as well as about God, Jesus, and the story of salvation. These religious schools are protected under the law and are free to teach their students in whatever way they feel is the most appropriate, as long as they follow the basic guidelines and fulfill the basic requirements of education of the State. On the other hand, public schools are places where people from a varied array of faiths come together to learn. The learning experience is not only regarding biology and literature, but also how to interact with people whose social, political, economic, and theological views are different from yours. Public schools are places where differences are experienced and lived out in order to become global citizens.

If we were to “bring God back to schools”, the first questions we must answer is: What God? This is very important since there are many religious traditions and as many understandings of “God”. For many Christians, the God of the Bible is the same as the God of the Jews and Muslims. However, some Christians understand that these three religions have a different interpretation of who God is. Moreover, Buddhists do not have any gods, while Hindus believe in a plethora of gods and goddesses. So, what God are we going to bring back?

Second, there is a fact that disturbs me greatly as a theologian. Whose God is so small, so weak, so powerless, that needs of our help to “keep God in our schools”?

It is disturbing to think that some people see God as someone who has the need for us to put “him” back in the schools because some atheist have taken “him” out of the schools. These people must have forgotten the words of Jesus when he says: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18.20, KJV). Is your faith so weak that you do not believe this promise?

For all of my life I attended public schools. From kindergarten to college, I was blessed to have wonderful schools where I was formed as a professional and as a citizen. Many times, I bowed my head in the cafeteria to say grace before lunch. Every time before a test I would take a few seconds to pray in silence for guidance and wisdom to answer well. There were many a conversation regarding church and God in the halls of the schools I attended. I did all these because I felt called to do it, not because a teacher asked me to. In fact, I think that I would have felt very strange if a teacher asked me to pray in class or to read from the Bible (which, by the way, was one of the many books I kept in my backpack.)

A real believer does not need of the State to control his or her faith. A real believer does not need of a teacher to tell him or her when or how to pray. A real believer looks for the opportunities God grants us to come before God – who, I should point out, is neither “he” nor “her” – and to look for God as freely as God looks out for us.

I do not need to “bring God back to our schools” because my God has never left me, and as long as I am in God and God is in me, God is present wherever I go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, Peace, Sociology, Theology

Tagged as , ,

August 15, 2011 · 3:38 pm

The Problem of Religious Violence in Puerto Rico

Religious violence and fanaticism is nothing new. Both of these have had many manifestations throughout the centuries. In the history of the Church in the West – both Roman Catholic and Protestant expressions – we have seen and experienced religious violence. Within Roman Catholicism this violence was manifested in the institution of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, which accused thousands of people of heresy and brought them to death by horrible means. At the same time, Roman Catholicism fostered the religious wars of the Crusades, which were used to regain control of Jerusalem and Palestine, taking these lands from the Muslim faithful.

Less known are the manifestations of religious intolerance and violence within Protestantism. In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, as the Protestant faith was taking shape, pretty much every country had to overcome religious violence. Even the Martin Luther, the main reformer of the church in the West, was guilty of persecution when he condoned the execution of hundreds of peasants who wanted to take his reforms too far in his native Germany. In England, thousands of Catholic martyrs were killed because of religious persecution thanks to the actions of Queen Elizabeth, who sought to keep her political and religious stability through bloodshed.

More recently, in the Americas, we have seen religious wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Mexican state of Chiapas, where faithful from both parties accuse each other of having desecrated the Christian faith. Puerto Rico has not been exempt from these manifestations of violence, especially expressed through the work of self-proclaimed religious leaders who frame their religious sermons in war rhetoric. For instance, often times during religious meetings in Puerto Rico, the term “spiritual warfare” is used to describe the relationship between those who profess the Christian faith on any given way and those who have a different understanding of the faith or those who have no faith. The problem with these manifestations of religious intolerance is that bring us to demonize “the other” thus taking away their personhood and transforming them into objects of hate.

Religious intolerance in Puerto Rico has much to do with the little theological education of the religious leadership. More often than not, this lack of theological education is more evident in those institutions that are not related to an established denomination. In Puerto Rico we have seen a sprouting of faith communities of charismatic theology and many “independent”  churches where the leadership role is filled by people who have proclaimed themselves “Apostles”, “pastors”, or “bishops” without having gone through the rigorous theological training required by many established denominations.

The proliferation of independent and charismatic/Pentecostal churches has also left a deep imprint in those faith communities that have traditionally been theologically educated. This is so, I believe, because those churches that require theological training do not have the resources to compete with those who send out without theological training to the pastoral field. Because of this lack of resources – particularly economic resources to send people to theological schools – both Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant communities are very often led by lay people without any or very little theological training.  This creates an environment where the leaders bring their own theological interpretations with multiple local biblical interpretations based on the social mores and understandings of the leaders. Unfortunately, these local interpretations of Scripture either dismiss or do not take into consideration the evolutionary reality of the development of the dogma and doctrine. There is no attention to how one belief is developed and why it exists.

Although the Puerto Rican people have tried to dismiss our Latino history and identity, preferring a pseudo-Americanization based on a myth, the truth is that we still show our plantain stain[i]. We are a Latin/Hispanic country. As such, we tend to grant power to those people who show greater charisma and personality. Church communities in Puerto Rico show this reality when they (us) grant leadership positions to those who claim to have received a direct message from God appointed them – or rather, self-appointing – as “God’s chosen and sent.” This is in spite of their lack of theological education for the most part. It is in this context where most religious leaders whose congregants are also voters come to be the perfect place for the political elite of all stripes to gain support.

Politics in Puerto Rico is also a manifestation of our latinidad, and thus it grants power and authority to those with more charisma and personality. The political ideas or platforms are irrelevant if a political party has enough money to buy the conscience of the people who watch sparkly TV and newspapers ads. Religious leaders are the perfect people to bring voters to the voting booths, regardless of the policy positions of the political parties. This is even more evident when we see in Puerto Rico the overwhelming support that Roman Catholic, conservative candidates receive from Pentecostal, charismatic, and conservative evangelical leaders in spite of these leaders’ violent and open anti-Catholic rhetoric. This makes for very interesting bedfellows, and to my knowledge, is not very common in other democratic societies, with the exception of the USA, country to which Puerto Rico belongs. These alliances are, perhaps, just a way for conservative religious leaders to gain access to power and prestige in order to impose their own religiously-motivated policy agendas.

Church-State separation in Puerto Rico is but a historical footnote printed in our Constitution. This separation is not practiced because it does not favor the establishment of political-religious elites. Historically, this separation was brought up with the idea of keeping the Church safe from the intervention of the State. The Baptist community, of which I am a part, fought incessantly to protect this separation. There are thousands of Baptist martyrs who died because of their position on this particular theological principle. Unfortunately, within the greater Baptist family, the principle of Church-State separation is but a mantra that is repeated without understanding what it means or how much it cost us to gain. It is even more unfortunate to see how a multitude of religious groups with a charismatic and Pentecostal tendency have influenced in the way in which our Baptist faith communities interpret this Biblical principle of separation.

Recent manifestations from self-appointed religious leaders in Puerto Rico are also a testimony to the lack of theological education that these people have been exposed to. Often, when any form of theological education has taken place, is in the form of a “Bible institute” in which you are taught how to memorize Scriptural texts but any contextual interpretation of the Bible is dismissed. These institutes tend to prefer a so-called “literal” approach. What the people trained in these institutes do not realize is that their “literal” reading of the Bible is actually a way of interpretation, in which their own mores and socialization is read into the text. Moreover, these literal readings of the Sacred Text lead people to the sin of idolatry, putting the Sacred Text en par and often times above the Triune expression of the Divine Mystery.  This form of idolatry, bibliolatry, has been extensively studied in recent years.

In more concrete ways, we note how the religious leadership in Puerto Rico has tried – often times very successfully – to influence the creation of public policy. By implanting laws that take away rights from the LGBT communities and protections to women in particular, the religious leaders have demonstrated that their interest goes beyond religious intolerance. These actions are actually a representation of these people’s desires to establish a form of “constitutional theocracy” where only those deemed “right” should have rights and be protected. This is an extension of their erroneous eschatological theologies in which the Reign of God is to be established by all means necessary.

This, of course, does not contribute to create a peaceful environment. These are in fact the roots of the cultural wars we are continually exposed to. What the religious leaders forget, though, is our call as people of faith to imitate Christ and to open stop closing the doors to those who are different from us/them. Interestingly, if these leaders paid any attention to the New Testament, they will see that it is filled with instances in which Jesus rebuked those religious leaders who wanted to implement their own interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures upon others. Again, we note how the religious leaders in Puerto Rico put the laws of the Bible above the example of Jesus, committing bibliolatry.

Ecumenical conversations in the Island are – from my perspective – not very useful either. Ecumenism in Puerto Rico is reduced to a series of liturgical celebrations and very few, watered-down, and sporadic round-tables. Even these ecumenical instances are marked by their lack of diversity. In Puerto Rico, ecumenism often takes place in one of three ways:

– Roman Catholic “ecumenism” that tries to bring the lost back to Rome.

– Mainline Protestant ecumenism that is watered-down and downplays the role of difference in Biblical interpretation in the name of “peace” and “unity.”

– Conservative evangelical and Pentecostal ecumenism that is more often than not a way of “saving” those lost Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants who have let theological education and church history “rot their minds.”

Perhaps it is time for ecumenical conversations in Puerto Rico to start anew, bringing to the table both what unites us and what separates us. Perhaps it is time to revive those ecumenical actions that happened during the people of Vieques’ fight to get the US Marine out of their island-municipality. Perhaps it is time for religious people in Puerto Rico to finally acknowledge the presence of Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Santero, Espiritist, and other forms of religions that are widely practiced in the Island and invite them to the conversation.

When Puerto Rico suffered the recent systematic killing of gay, lesbian, and especially transgender individuals, no church, to my knowledge, raised their voice of protest to denounce these atrocities. Yet, when a great Puerto Rican humanitarian like Ricky Martin brings his concert, a myriad of religious leaders came to protest. Why? Perhaps because Ricky is doing exactly what they are not: saving children from the hands of unscrupulous predators through his foundation to stop human trafficking. This is something that the churches in Puerto Rico are not doing. The shame that these religious leaders must be feeling might have moved them to raise their voices… These religious leaders are often more interested in “saving the souls” of the little kids while ignoring their current oppressed realities. This is certainly deplorable.

Many of us have already experienced the pain of having been excluded because of our theological leanings, our sexualities, our socio-economic realities and even our racial backgrounds. I was one of this people who suffered this pain both from society at-large but more painfully from the church. I believe that if there is any hope for the Church in Puerto Rico to be redeemed it will be when the Church – in all its expressions – publicly confesses its sins of rejecting God’s diversity in creation. In the meantime, the violent environment they have created from their hostile pulpits will continue to foster violence, deaths, murders, attacks to LGBT people, oppression to women and the working class, and a plethora of other social ills. This hostility from the pulpit has also reached the Legislature and the Executive branch and it is the primary responsible for bringing about the pain of death and violence in our Island. It is time to put an end to the bully pulpit of the Puerto Rican Church, and to begin living out the blessing of having God’s diversity in creation recognized. Until them, a peaceful living will be hard to achieve.

[i] There is a saying in Puerto Rico, “se te nota la mancha de plátano”, which translates to “you show your plantain stain”, making reference to the difficulty of hiding our identity as a historically rural-based and farming country.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church, Gay, Hispanics, Latino, Lesbian, LGBTQ, Peace, Puerto Rico, Queer

Tagged as , , ,

August 9, 2011 · 10:48 pm

Welcome! ~ ¡Bienvenidos y Bienvenidas!

With so many things going on in our society, in politics, and in the field of religion in the United States and Puerto Rico, I have decided to start this blog as a way of sharing my thoughts. As a sociologist and a theologian, I always look at the intersection of both fields. Therefore, TheoSociology will be dedicated to find the intersection between the fields of sociology and theology (different from Sociology of Religion or Theology of Popular Religion.) It is my hope that you enjoy this blog and share it with others… It is also my hope that you share with us your ideas, your comments, and your thoughts. Just remember to always be respectful and cordial.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Con tantas cosas pasando en nuestra sociedad, en la política y en el campo de la religión tanto en los Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico, he decidido comenzar este blog como una forma de compartir mis ideas. Como sociólogo y como teólogo, siempre buscao la forma en que estos dos campos se relacionan entre sí. Por lo tanto, TheoSociology (SocioTeología, en español) estará dedicado a encontrar estas interesecciones entre sociología y teología. Para mi, esto es diferente de la sociología de la religión y de la teología de la religión porpular. Es mi deseo que

disfrutes de esta página y que la compartas con otras personas… También deseo que compartas tus ideas, tus comentarios y tus pensamientos. Sólo recuerda siempre mantener la cordura y respetar.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as