<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 By: The Very Reverend Roger Dawson May 25, Easter 6, 2003 sermon by The Very Reverend Roger Dawson Dean of St. Mary's Anglican Cathedral, Caracas

Coming here to Venezuela was a real culture shock for me. I had traveled about a bit but mostly within Europe. I have been to Africa twice, but only for a short time, and I lived abroad for a few months, but that was in Europe. I visited the USA on a couple of occasions, but nothing really prepared me for Venezuela.

Yet I believe that Venezuela is like many other countries in Latin and South America. It isn't that Venezuela is completely different to anywhere else, but it is very different to anywhere else that I have ever lived for any length of time. People think differently, have different expectations, and have different priorities and most importantly, have different ways of achieving those priorities.

I don't think that I am alone in my first reaction, which was to believe that I was right in my way and they were wrong in theirs. In time we make adaptations and, more than that, we adopt the new ways as being our new norm.

If that were not true, we would not have to experience a reverse culture shock when we return to the place from where we first ventured forth to come and live here. Rick and Ros Reycraft, who lived here in Caracas for six years, and with whom we spent a few days after Easter in Cincinnati, are assisting in a course of encounters for Proctor and Gamble, for whom Rick works, to deal with this special problem of reverse culture shock for people returning to the United States.

What happens is that what we regard as a sacred tradition is suddenly looks as though it is obsolete. I don't mean something found in church. I am talking about a way of doing things that has become so much part of us, we take it for granted that this is the way it is done, and to do it any other way must be wrong, no matter what.

This may actually be true of course ... we may do things in a particular way or come from a country that behaves in a particular fashion, and it could be that this is the very best way to do whatever it is that we do ... but what use is that if suddenly we find ourselves in a place that behaves quite differently.

It is a shock, and our initial response is to say "do it my way" ... but all calls for this fall on deaf ears because the people we would like to address have no idea what our way is. It drives us newcomers to the culture to the point of distraction and after living in a South American country for a year or two years many cannot cope with the culture difference and want to leave in order to get back to the safety of being where there are no great shocks.

Trying to understand the bible is another culture shock. Here we have documents not only written in cultures different to our own, but in times that we hardly can appreciate, because they are so very different.

The New Covenant documents are a whole series of culture shocks as the new faith of the Nazarenes, who were the followers of Jesus, was forged out of the worship of YHWH and pushed into a world beyond its original scope.

Much has been made of Jesus preaching a universal faith, but there is scant evidence for this and his brother James, who took over the running of the new faith after the crucifixion, could not see the possibilities of the faith going beyond the boundaries of Israel. He had a furious argument about circumcision with Paul, who wanted to dispense with this requirement for those who were born into a Roman or Greek culture and who had not been members of the YHWH worshipping community.

In other words, James and the rest of Jesus' brothers and sisters who ruled the Jerusalem church, believed that new converts would either be devout YHWH worshippers already like Philip and Stephen and other converts from the Essenes or like Paul who had been a Pharisee. These people were already circumcised and born what we now call "Jews" ... that is, they followed the religion that came out of Judah. If Gentiles wanted to join the disciples and family of Jesus, then they first had to become "Jews" before becoming Nazarenes, which was just one of the many ways of worshipping the God YHWH.

Last week, I described how the writer of Acts set forth the three point plan by which the world became evangelized. First they went to the Samaritans who were regarded as almost Jews. Second they went to foreigners who had Jewish connections like the Ethiopians and then thirdly they tackled the Gentiles who previously had no Jewish connections. The writer of Acts is an admirer of Paul, and supports his call for the inclusion of Gentiles without circumcision. The result of the dispute between Paul and James is settled by allowing Gentiles to be admitted to the faith without circumcision, but Paul has to make a large financial payment to the church in Jerusalem; something that takes him some years to accomplish. The settlement is based on the theological argument that we are all children of Abraham who came to an agreement with God before the circumcision requirement was introduced.

In today's reading from Acts we discover that the "circumcised believers were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles." My belief is that the circumcised would more than likely have been horrified rather than just plain astounded. Of course the writer is not going to say "horrified" because he is a Pauline argument supporter, but here we have a classic case of culture shock. People who have earnestly believed all their lives that their bodies should be marked out as belonging to God's Covenant by circumcision, now find that, in this outside alien culture, the new converts don't need this mark. The mark has become obsolete.

What does this say about them? We have many modern similarities such as when the liturgists brought the language of the Prayer Book and the Bible into modern times. It made some think that what they had treasured all their lives had been made obsolete and they have clung to the old in the belief that if it were good for them and their fathers it is good for all time. They could not make the break with the past. Yet here in Acts, and in the Letters of Paul, we find that the culture barriers are being broken all the time in order to bring the message of Christ to a wider audience.

Of all the people in the world who should know about culture shock, it is the members of the Christian Church. They broke the barriers to take the gospel into the Gentile world, they split along culture lines of Eastern and Western Christendom, and they broke again to form the Protesting Churches in the 16th Century.

In spite of all this ... in spite of all that, the New Covenant documents scream out about change, people resist the change because they believe that what they first believed must be better.

Here is the evidence before you ... if the church is to grow then sometimes the culture barrier has to be breached.

What we have to learn is that it actually doesn't make the old obsolete; it just shows us that it is different.

According to Acts ... if we resist the change we resist the work of the Holy Spirit.

Is that what we want?

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Seeking explanations for President Hugo Chavez Frias' constant use of religious expressions,  taking out a crucifix from his pocket and calling Jesus Christ, "Commander-in-Chief of the Revolution," opposition and foreign critics have been hard-pushed to sell the Chavez-is-a Communist card. 

The opposition and Catholic Church leaders have also been using religious symbols, such as Our Lady of Coromoto to counter an alleged Communist takeover of Venezuela. 

Jesuit Ignacio Castillo says there has been an historic link between religion, religious symbols and socio-political realities, which is present in societies that preach separation between Religion and State. 

The phenomenon in Venezuela has been a stumbling-block to orthodox Marxists and Capitalists in equal doses ... it seems that religious faith continues to agglutinate and move social sectors both for and against change. 

"We are in a situation where religious symbols have been taken as political banners giving rise to extremes, such as trucks laden with holy water spraying opposition followers and some presidential gestures ... inside the government there must be a lot of Marxists biting their tongues every time Chavez Frias takes out his crucifix." 

Castillo criticizes the use of religious symbols to prove that God is on one's sides ... "as a Christian, I believe that no power is sacred and I cannot identify God with any historical situation." To do so, Castillo affirms, is dangerous because it locates the political debate in terms of a struggle between religious symbols and appeals to the emotions. "When I identify the sacred with a political tendency, I am practicing fundamentalism." 

Castillo also criticizes the President's use of New Testament quotes as quite "de-contextualized" or out of context. 

The Jesuit hints that Chavez Frias has been influenced by the Evangelicals ... "it was especially strong during his period in jail at Yare ... but his religiosity has touches of syncretism from wandering souls (animas) to Santeria ... really postmodern ... anything goes in his speeches."

Like many other Venezuelans, Chavez Frias, Castillo contends is the son of (Venezuelan religious icons) Maria Lionza and Jose Gregorio Hernandez as well as folklore figures: Dona Barbara and Martin Valiente.

Castillo's colleague, Pedro Trigo adds another perspective, suggesting that before one can assess the use of religious symbols in a political context, it is important to remember biblical history. "The Roman Empire Procurator ordered Jesus' execution on behalf of the Jewish political-religious leaders ... he was executed as a rebel for political motives." 

The accusation was false, of course, because two powers came together to get rid of someone, who wasn't political or a military threat to Rome, who wasn't armed but who did provoke a more dangerous movement. 

Trigo says the problem lies in the use of religious symbols and the behavior of those who use them. "From a Christian point of view, holding crucifixes or using Statues of the Virgin Mary do not guarantee honesty of the acts that are shielded behind such expressions of faith."

Castillo highlights the use of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary by government and opposition. "It's a symbolic struggle between the two symbols: Jesus who uses a whip to rid the Temple of corrupt tradesmen and the Virgin symbolizing motherhood and a peaceful side supposedly identified with the opposition's attitude." 

There is belief among the more religious opponents of the government that Chavez Frias is afraid of the Virgin, which could explain the use of pilgrimages  and a rash of apparitions and statues of the Virgin with tears etc.

Castillo jokes that Chavez Frias has made Jesus Christ fight with the Virgin.  However, it could boil down to a struggle between (synchretized) Catholics and Evangelicals for the soul of Venezuela ... Catholics desperate to hold on to what they had and the Evangelicals to make inroads.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 04, 2003 By: The Very Reverend Roger Dawson

Problems of believing the impossible Easter 3, May 4, 2003 sermon by The Very Reverend Roger Dawson Dean of St. Mary's Anglican Cathedral, Caracas

You can be sure of one thing and that is disbelief at what is unusual. In fact it is what is unusual and unexpected that makes us laugh. Comedians rely on finding a story to which the end must have an unexpected turn at it is this that makes us laugh. For example a mother told her son off for pulling the cat's tail. "But I'm not," he protested, "I'm only holding the cat's tail it is the cat who's pulling."

Laughter has also greeted the idea that someone could rise from the dead. When we die we are expected to stay dead and not reappear. The apostles, apparently, did not treat this as a laughing matter, they were somewhat scared but later generations when they were presented with the story of the resurrection were skeptical that Jesus had risen and the gospels were amended and altered and added to in order to convince the skeptics. I was going to say, "convince the skeptics of the truth" but we first have to ask, "what is the truth?"

Unfortunately, none of the gospel writers are eyewitnesses and what they have given us is confusing to say the least. One minute we have Jesus walking through walls and the next minute we are being told that he eats broiled fish and, according to Luke in today's Gospel reading Jesus is given to say that "ghosts do not have flesh and blood."

If anything we are even more skeptical than the people of the second century. We want proofs and signs in ways that other generations have not ... and why ... because we have discovered that the world is full of unscrupulous people who are prepared to tell us anything in order to separate us from our money.

Just go to the grocery store and see the claims on the tins and packets. Only one calorie it says, but you find out that it is one calorie per 50 centiliters and there are 600 in the tin which means that the tin contains 12 calories not one as might have been supposed. New larger size declares the packet, but the contents are actually the same as before. More for your money proclaims a bottle, but the contents have been diluted so what you buy is more water. Restaurants fill your glass with ice before putting in the juice so what you buy is mostly frozen water.

Can you be surprised therefore that there are people who want to read the small print to discover what is really going on?

I urge you to take nothing on face value, not even the bible whose writers and editors were as human as you and I, and who had axes to grind and their own failings to cover up, and their own agenda to put forward under the guise of something else. All our scriptures have been edited and re-edited and rewritten, and then changed altered as circumstances in the world and in the church altered and demanded different answers. It wasn't that they were trying to deceive us in a nasty way, or that they had seriously ulterior motives to misinform us, but that is sometimes the result, and we need to be aware of it, if we are to discover the truth for ourselves.

There is a part of the church that wishes to believe that there is nothing to question at all. That the truth has been preserved for all time, and for every generation, and that we can rely on the face value transcripts that the bible offers us. I have great sympathy for such a view because it makes life so much simpler ... but it isn't true if you read the bible with any kind of discrimination.

What version are we to rely on, and what, of the hundreds of options available, did the translators choose and why?

There are judges and juries in courts that want to take the state's prosecution evidence as always being truthful, dependable and trustworthy. Perhaps it should be like this, but history shows us, time and again, that reality is not so pure. If you were writing an account of the life of Jesus a hundred years after the event, with not much in the way of written evidence, you might be excused if you got some things wrong.

So should we look again at John's gospel in a different way, a more critical way, before taking all that it says so literally?

Can we rely on Matthew and Luke who are writing fifty years at least after the events?

What we need to aware of is that there may be a discrepancy between what actually happened, and what is theologically true. It may not matter if what the writers tell us did not happen, or that it happened in a different way, as long as what they say gives us an accurate theological truth.

If the truth, that the evangelists want to impart, is that God gave Jesus a new life after the crucifixion so that the force and power of his person lives on and that we, his followers and admirers can in some way, tap into that resource and so gain the same new life, then I believe that the details of exactly how it was done are of less significance.

However, if the evangelists are more interested in maintaining the structure of the church, and have created stories to enable it to maintain a coherent organization, then we might have some significant reservations about its truthfulness, and wonder if it is worth preserving, because now the theological truths are also being called into question.

If we take Luke at chapter 36 verse 39 it has Jesus say, "Look at my hands and feet, see that it is I myself. Touch me and see, for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

This raises all kinds of problems, not least that a bodily resurrection is presumably the body he had before, if it has the marks of the crucifixion still on it. The death process either was not completed and he didn't die, or that it was reversed, which goes against God's own rules and procedures. It also means that this body also has, at some point, to die and yet we have no account of an alleged second dying of Jesus. The ascension with bodies floating up into the sky is not a reasonable alternative.

It looks to me as though Luke was trying to answer problems of his day but did, in fact, only compound the problem for later generations. What the resurrection appearances do tell us, even though in these appearances some are in a body and others appear to have no body, or Jesus is in the bodies of other people, is that there were a number of people who were totally convinced that Jesus was and is alive. This group of people moved to Jerusalem and waited for Jesus to arrive in the Temple to lead a new kingdom in which God was the only ruler.

This is, for me, a much more convincing proof than stories of eating fish and walking through walls.

In the world of faith, what we may have to rely on are theological truths, but first make sure that the stories of physical events are not setting us up to believe for reasons that are not of the highest ideals and truthfulness.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Vheadline Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Speaking in the Canary Islands city of Tenerife, Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) president, Monsignor Baltazar Porras has complained about the Venezuelan government's attacks on the Catholic Church, especially its attempt to present the Church in Venezuela as a divided church. "There is no internal confrontation but just a few priests and pseudo leaders that are playing the division game." 

Porras calls the Venezuelan government "authoritarian" and says the Church can play a role as mediator in helping to solve the conflict. 

Speaking at a congress on faith and culture dialog, Porras insists that the Church is a witness to the increase in poverty, corruption and politicking in Chavez Frias administration. "The Church favors neither the government nor the opposition and militancy in either camp is outside our horizon of aspirations." 

Porras comments that he does not agree with the government when it states that there is freedom of expression in Venezuela and no political prisoners ... "what is at play in Venezuela are much deeper values that must be present in any society that wants to call itself democratic."

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, April 14, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

The famous Chacao Palm-Collectors (Palmeros)  have ushered in Caracas Holy Week religious ceremonies delivering palms to Caracas churches. 137 members of the organization spent 48 hours in the Avila hills cutting a total 500 palm trees in compliance with stricter Environment & Renewable Resources (MARNR) regulations. 

The palms were carried in procession and blessed at the San Jose de Chacao Church during the traditional Palm Sunday religious service. 

The palm-collecting tradition started 235 years ago and the Palmeros have become a religious confraternity led by Palmero Mayor Ramon Delgado. 

Mayor Leopoldo Lopez attended the coming down and put on the traditional a musical festival to accompany the Palmeros to church. The procession stopped at the barrio where most members live to render homage to deceased members.

Forums

Lifestyle Venezuela

Out and about in Caracas tells us everything we should know about Venezuela's nightlife and youth culture

Beautiful Venezuela

Tourism in Venezuela discuss everything to do with tourism in Venezuela, give recommendations, roses and brickbats

Our editorial statement reads: VHeadline.com Venezuela is a wholly independent e-publication promoting democracy in its fullest expression and the inalienable  right of all Venezuelans to self-determination and the pursuit of sovereign independence without interference. We seek to shed light on nefarious practices and the corruption which for decades has strangled this South American nation's development and progress. Our declared editorial bias is pro-democracy and pro-Venezuela ... which some may wrongly interpret as anti-American. --  Roy S. Carson, Editor/Publisher  Editor@VHeadline.com