Here is the first paper I wrote for my first class, under Professor Gene Green, in the graduate program I did at Wheaton College. It's by no means the best piece of writing I've done. Yet, after a fashion, I have a peculiar affection for it. Mind you, as it was the first paper I produced, there are formatting issues, not least with how I cited my sources.
Introduction and Background: Liberation and Evangelical Theologies in Latin America
Both evangelical theology (ET) and liberation theology (LT) have left their mark on Latin America in the past several decades. The rise of each, although occurring at about the same time and because of some of the same cultural precursors, has occurred because of diverse influences and convictions. Likewise the hermeneutical and theological methodologies deployed by each, while developing side by side and bearing some similarities, have come about because of diverse influences and convictions. This essay attempts to think through and assess the foundational assumptions and principles of each method and offer some biblical-theological reflections.
Vatican II (1962-1965) with its
watershed statements about political, economic, and social problems in the
world and Gutiérrez’ A Theology of
Liberation appear to be two important loci for the beginnings of LT. Vatican II spawned a conference of Latin
American Bishops held in Medellín in 1968 that resulted in “a new hermeneutic”
that interprets the Scriptures “from below.”[1] Theologian Gustavo Gutiíerrez, among others,
began to guide this interpretation of Scripture “from below,” not least through
his book A Theology of Liberation.[2]
As Gutiérrez put it when LT was
on the ascendancy, “The historical womb from which liberation theology has
emerged is the life of the poor and, in particular, of the Christian
communities that have arisen within the bosom of the present-day Latin American
church.”[3] This statement highlights the crucial place
of the Latin American context, with all its sociopolitical and socioeconomic
realities, and the crucial place of the poor in the Latin American church.
Evangelical theology has its
roots in the movement of Protestantism to Latin America in the nineteenth
century through Protestant missionary labors[4] and
its present shape, power, and influence in the formation of the Latin American
Evangelical Fraternity in 1970, led by René Padilla and Orlando Costas.[5] Earlier in the twentieth century, the
historic worldwide missionary conference of 1910 that was held in Edinburgh was
attended by some evangelicals who understood that Latin America needed the gospel
despite the majority position that it did not because of widespread Roman
Catholicism.[6] These evangelicals stirred up Protestant missionary
longings and labors in subsequent years.
In this essay, unless otherwise
noted, the words hermeneutical and method are being used as they seem
generally to be used in the literature: that is, rather loosely to mean
something like the standpoint from which and the way in which one goes about
doing theology. The word theology is used diversely in the
literature. For example, Gutiérrez
defines theology thus: “critical
reflection on humankind, on basic human principles.”[7] Compare now, for example, the definition
given by Costas: “The term ‘theology’ means literally a rational discourse
about God.”[8] He then expands on this and calls it “the
intelligence of faith” and “that reflection which seeks to understand the
content of faith and its implications for life.”[9] Costas uses the word according to its
etymology and historical usage.
Liberation theologians tend not to use it this way. Instead, they tend to give it an
anthropological and sociological meaning.
Praxis, an important term, is defined differently by different
people as well. Costas, for example, an
evangelical, defines praxis “as
action based on reflection, or the actualization of theory.”[10] Liberation theologians define praxis in a fairly narrow way, generally
speaking, as liberating action for the poor, and make reflection a second
stage. Their definitions tell one about
their respective methodologies.
Some say that the hermeneutic or
method of LT is simply the theory of the popular reading among base ecclesial
communities of the poor in Latin America.[11] Others, however, do not directly equate LT
with popular reading of the Bible among the poor since there are professional
liberation theologians with sophisticated training and methods and more
pastorally oriented liberation theologians who have considerable training doing
LT. This essay deals primarily with what
has been called the professional level of doing theology and not so much the
pastoral or popular levels, though it interacts with these some. However, as Boff and Boff stated in 1987, “Liberation
theology is a cultural and ecclesial phenomenon by no means restricted to a few
professional theologians.”[12] And people doing LT are by definition
interacting with the base ecclesial communities of the poor, or they are not
engaged in LT.
This essay also focuses on the
hermeneutical and theological methods of LT and ET during their more formative,
foundational stages, that is, in the 1970s and 1980s. In more recent times LT has become rather passé
or, perhaps better said, has been displaced by what is called cultural
criticism.[13]
Yet its influence has not totally
disappeared.
Hermeneuticotheological
Methods of Liberation Theology and Evangelical Theology
For the liberation theologian,
praxis is primary. The first step of
theology is the life of faith, which means engagement with the poor,
specifically, in the process of revolutionary sociopolitical liberation of the
poor.[14] The essential point of the method of LT is
this link with specific practice.[15] Its “novel” or “original” characteristic is,
according to Clodovis Boff, that at root there is an encounter with the poor
accompanied by “the shock, the rebellion, and the commitment of this
encounter.”[16] This is where, and only where, meaningful
theologizing and interpretation can take place.
Anything else is deemed cold, detached, lifeless, abstract, remote.
Gutiérrez, regarded by many as
the fountainhead of LT, says this of LT: “Human action [is] the point of
departure for all reflection.”[17] Rather pointedly he states that LT “seeks to
show that unless we make an ongoing commitment to the poor, who are the
privileged members of the reign of God, we are far removed from the Christian
message.”[18]
When saying that praxis is
primary in LT, however, what is actually given priority is an analysis of the
sociopolitical situation of the Latin American context. This is done to varying degrees while wearing
Marxist ideological lenses. Analyzing
the socioeconomic situation, the liberation theologian often asks this sort of
question of Marx: “What can you tell us about the situation of poverty and ways
of overcoming it?”[19] But Boff and Boff are eager to add that
Marxism is used as an instrument and is submitted to “the judgment of the poor
and their cause, and not the other way around.”[20] After a Marxist analysis and listening to the
poor, praxis is then undertaken in relation to the poor, aiming at social
transformation. It is said repeatedly and emphatically that the theological
enterprise is not possible without some engagement with the world of the
oppressed. Such contact is the sine qua
non for acquiring “a new theological sensitivity.”[21]
The rationale for this engagement
also includes this point: “The fundamental locus for interpreting the Bible is
the people of God.”[22] The poor, the oppressed and marginalized, are
especially in view. It is claimed that
“the hermeneutical option for the poor” is God’s option.[23] The poor are the “hermeneutical key” of both
life and the Bible.[24] Apart from identification with, working for,
and listening to the poor and oppressed, no authentic theology can be
undertaken.
The context is also considered
crucial for interpretation in LT because God is thought to speak to his people
through the events of the day. It is
granted that these events are to be interpreted in the light of the Word. Since God is acting in history, it is taught,
the faithful must see and presuppose this.[25]
Thus it follows: “The main objective of [a liberation theology] reading is not
an interpretation of the Bible, but
of an interpretation of life with the
aid of the Bible.”[26] Self-consciously then the happenings of day—particularly
in relation to the poor and oppressed—are providing the canvas upon which
biblical strokes are providing color.
The next step is critical
reflection on praxis in the light of the Word.
Interaction with biblical light occurs in the light of experiencing and
analyzing and laboring in the situation of the poor.[27] The poor and their sociopolitical context are
the lens or grid through which Scripture is viewed and interpreted. There is a “dialectic” between the Word of
God (faith or theory) and the poor (love or practice), an “unceasing interplay”
between the oppressed and the Bible in a hermeneutical circle.[28] The poor are viewed as privileged
hermeneutical agents of biblical reflection.[29] And the “canonical” or preferred books within
the canon are Exodus, the Prophets, the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation, as they
tend, it is thought, to address most directly the sociopolitical and economic issues
of Latin America.[30]
Gutiérrez says this about
reflection on the Word coming after praxis: “When I call reflection in the
strict sense a second stage of
theological work, I am by no means saying that [it] is secondary. Discourse about
God comes second because faith comes first and is the source of theology. . .
.”[31] So it makes sense then that he should define
theological reflection as “the understanding of faith.”[32]
The goal of LT has already been
mentioned. It is liberating praxis,
revolutionary change for the poor and oppressed politically, sociologically,
economically. There is a priority of
acting over explaining. This whole
process of sociological analysis, engagement with the poor, reflection upon the
Word, and liberating praxis is then circled around again and again in a hermeneutical circle, which is a term
widely used and coined by Juan Luis Segundo.[33]
Now pride of place in the
theological method of Latin American ET is given to the Word of God as ultimate
authority.[34] And what is usually meant by this is not
merely the text of Holy Scripture, although the text is certainly included. What is usually meant is God’s spoken Word in
Christ, the gospel of the kingdom. Samuel
Escobar says that the biblical concept and reality of the kingdom of God is the
theological key that unlocks the door that enters into understanding of God’s
actions and the church’s mission.[35] He adds that without a robust vision of the
biblical kingdom of God, theological poverty necessarily follows.[36] Padilla says that the hermeneutical key of
God’s inscripturated talk is “the person and work of Christ and the saving
intention of God.”[37]
There are also qualifications for
the interpreter or interpreting community in ET. Padilla asserts rather emphatically that “the
interpreter’s attitude toward God is decisive in his understanding of the
Word.”[38] Escobar confesses that there is
foundationally a confessional element that is the necessary starting place for
interpretation.[39] He says that the interpreter approaches the
text conscious of participation in a people, the Church, born anew by God’s
action in the resurrection of the Christ.[40] In other words, the interpreter approaches a
text in the context of kingdom realities.
So for evangelical theology in Latin America, hermeneutics has a participatory
Christological, redemptive, and kingdom center.
Escobar expresses concern over approaches that destroy this
Christological core.[41]
Contextualization is also critical
for an authentic ET. Theology is always
related to life in Latin American evangelical theology[42]
and “the knowledge of God is possible only when the Word becomes incarnate . .
. in the situation of the interpreter.”[43] But there is a serious attempt to deploy a
grammaticohistorical analysis of the biblical text to understand the original
context before moving to the present day context. Padilla says this:
The
raw material of theology is not abstract concepts but rather a message
concerning historical events the
narration and interpretation of which are colored by the Semitic and
Greco-Roman cultures in which the biblical authors lived. The initial task of theology is exegetical,
and exegesis demands the construction
of a bridge between the interpreter and the biblical authors by means of the
historical method, the basic presupposition of which is that the Word of God
cannot be understood apart from the cultural and linguistic situations in which
it was originally given.[44]
The original context is therefore
understood as just as important as the theologian’s context. The ET method also believes that it is
fruitful to interact with the history of interpretation and the tradition of the
Church.[45] René Padilla also speaks about how the
interpreter must be conscious of his or her own ecclesiastical and cultural traditions
to maintain a critical self-awareness of one’s own locatedness and the biases
and limitations associated with it.[46]
Partly due to necessity and
partly due to conviction, the entire church community is involved in the
hermeneutical and theological task in Latin America in ET. Padilla speaks of the importance of the
communal aspect of doing theology among the trained and untrained alike.[47] It is not enough for the professional
theologians or the pastors to engage in theological formulation and biblical
reflection. He also speaks of pneumatic hermeneutics, emphasizing that
understanding is not a matter of mere technique. No, it requires the internal testimony and
illumination of the Spirit. And like the
Reformers of the sixteenth century, Padilla sees the activity of the Word and
the activity of the Spirit as inseparable.
Both go together; both are essential in the method of ET.
Another fundamental element in
the theological method of ET is that the aim of theology is the engine of
theologizing. In the article Biblical Foundations, Padilla says that
there ought to be a biblical foundation that not only deploys a grammaticohistorical
exegetical method but also one that harmonizes with the purpose of biblical
revelation—namely, that God’s Word aims at creating a people who are zealous
for good works.[48] Elsewhere he says that theology must be for
obedience to the Lord Jesus.[49] Moreover, he says, if there is to be a
biblical foundation for theology, there must be missiological hermeneutics.[50] “A missiological hermeneutic,” according to
Padilla, “takes as its starting point the fact that the Word of God has been
given for the whole world and for all generations.”[51]
Comparison
of the Methodologies
It is clear that in both the ET
method and the LT method there is a commitment to contextual action and to
interacting with Scripture as an authoritative source. Neither method theologizes in a detached
manner, and both go to Scripture for divine illumination and instruction for practice
in the present-day context. Both
evangelical and liberation practitioners see a relation between reflection and
praxis. These are some similarities,
which are good.
But while there are some
similarities, the differences in methodology, particularly at the foundational
level, are quite significant. First of
all, LT starts with a Marxist analysis of the sociopolitical situation and
liberation of the poor. This is virtually
equated with faith. It is only from here
that theological reflection can occur.
ET, on the other hand, starts with the gospel of the kingdom preached
from the Scriptures, being born again through the risen Christ into the church
community, and a certain disposition toward God through Christ. Only then does the evangelical theologian
think that the social situation can be assessed rightly and the Word heard, understood,
and applied. For ET, there is not an
indifference to the social situation, only a subordination of it to
Scripture. The context cannot provide
all the categories for the church’s mission, though it must be engaged in
obedience to the Lord Jesus for the good of society.
Next, LT does not give a prominent
place to a grammaticohistorical exegesis of the Bible, while ET does. ET does not give a prominent place to any
particular ideology for analyzing the social situation, while LT does. LT defines the theological and hermeneutical
task first in sociopolitical, economic, and anthropocentric terms. ET defines the theological and hermeneutical
task first in gospel and Christocentric terms.
ET in principle gives equal weight to all of Scripture, but LT gives
preference to certain books that are most relevant for the agenda of liberation.
The aims of the two theologies
are also different. Whereas LT aims
chiefly at the liberation of the poor, ET aims more broadly at obedience to the
Lord Jesus which includes gospel proclamation and the transformation of
society.
Critical
Biblical-Theological Reflection
Now for the strengths of each
method. In LT application is favored
over explanation.[52] Application ought surely to be the aim of all
theologizing, and theologizing ought also to be carried out in the path of obedience,
both of which are stated aims of LT.
These elements of LT, which are doubtless strengths, sound like what the
great English Puritan John Owen said hundreds of years ago: “As we learn all to
practice, so we learn much by practice.”[53]
Another strength of LT is the
vigorous holding together of what many modern day North Atlantic Western
Christians divorce: knowledge and practice, faith and action. It also takes very seriously our presuppositions
and cultural, ideological, and ecclesiastical location. This likewise is too often neglected in North
Atlantic Christianity.
Some strengths of ET are the
centrality of the Word, the kingdom framework, dependence on the Spirit and
Scripture, and commitment to contextualization.
The charge of Latin American theologians against the theologizing of the
North Atlantic is that it is too philosophical and detached from action, too
focused on orthodoxy and not orthopraxy.
While true of much American and European theology, this charge would
seem to be ungrounded against Latin American evangelical theology, which is
robustly active and engaged.
Now for some weaknesses of
LT. The influence of Marxist ideology is
surely too central, too controlling, and it distorts the biblical worldview, metanarrative,
and eschatology within which the gospel of the kingdom and its entailments must
be extended to humanity. For all the
talk about reflection in the light of the Word, there is still an abandonment
of scriptural authority. The context and
socioeconomic idealogy are exercising more authority in LT. It deploys categories, an agenda, and a framework
within which Scripture must fit. Moreover, there are favored books to the
exclusion or neglect of large, balancing portions of Scripture. Practice is also narrowly defined, not
defined by all of Scripture. But
obedience to King Jesus is larger than the liberationist’s agenda, as important
as it is to be engaged in the lives of the poor for their good. Liberation theology is also intentionally
political, but not in gospel terms.
Surely one must agree that Christianity has political implications, huge
implications in fact, that is, if one believes that all authority in heaven and
on earth has been given to Jesus, King of kings, Lord of lords. But his kingdom also is not of this
world. So there is a tension here. And LT does not seem to grapple with this
tension. Built into the method of LT is
an over-realized eschatology. Most
disturbing and damaging of all, Christ is not central in LT, although he is
often said to be so. Functionally,
however, he is not. He is also not
considered by some to be the final revelation.
For example, Richard Pablo says that Christ is not the apogee or final
revelation, doubtless due in part to Pablo’s Roman Catholic understanding of
revelation.[54] But Heb. 1:1-2 says that Christ is the
revelation of God par excellence in a culminating manner.
By the admission of one Latin
American theologian, Emilio Núñez, remarking during the 1980s when liberation
theology was stronger, evangelical theology in Latin America was not as
logocentric as it ought to have been.[55] This of course is a weakness, not to mention
shameful for ET. Núñez stated that “the
conservative evangelical community [had] shown a preference for men of action
and a certain disdain for men of reflection,”[56]
which resulted in a deficiency of rigorous engagement with the Scriptures. Evangelicals, at least in the 1980s, gave lip
service to sola Scriptura but did not “walk the walk.” Along with this, there does not seem to be a
robust whole-Bible metanarrative.
Also, probably due both to
contextual pressures and legitimate insight, evangelical theologians of Latin
America often speak about the importance of reflecting on the Word in
community. If this includes untrained
and ungifted members, this is probably a weakness if excessive prominence is
given to the interpretations of those not trained or specially endued by the
Spirit. After all, the Spirit of the
risen Jesus has sovereignly bestowed gifts.
One of those is the gift of teaching (Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12). Teachers are equipped to understand what
Scripture teaches better than are those with other gifts, and not all are
teachers (1 Cor. 12). It seems to follow
that not all believers should be thought of as equally competent interpreters,
even though I acknowledge that interpretation has a very significant communal
element. In both ET and LT the
impression is sometimes given that all Christians can interpret the Scriptures
with equal fidelity and insight. But
this is just not true, neither scripturally, nor experientially. So there does not seem to be any biblical
warrant for saying that all believers are called to do the sort of reflection
that contributes to authoritative teaching in the Church.
Now for some particular
biblical-theological reflections. One of
the pillar texts for LT is Lk. 4:16-21, and the common interpretation does not
seem to take into account some details, like how the text applies to the blind
in this age. If blindness in this text
is taken metaphorically for spiritual blindness, then poverty, oppression, and
captivity should similarly be taken metaphorically. But if it is not taken metaphorically, what
is the application for praxis? Should
all believers become opthamologists?
This text also does not seem to get adequately probed in the framework
of the Bible’s already-not-yet eschatology.
Furthermore, it is often simply asserted that the poor are the
privileged locus of God’s presence and revelation, not proven. I joyfully grant and acknowledge that the
poor are spoken of in Scripture as the usual subjects of God’s favor, but LT
speaks much more strongly and categorically than this.
Now, what is the main theological
matter in a methodology? It is, no
doubt, the starting place of a method. Where
evangelicals start is the Bible, the Gospel of the kingdom, and kingdom
realities in the Church and Spirit.
Liberation theologians start with an idiosyncratic and narrow notion of
praxis flowing from a Marxist evaluation of the Latin American situation. But who is to judge where we ought to
start? If we cannot turn somewhere,
namely, to God himself speaking in Scripture for a God-given hermeneutic and
method, we are swallowed up in the hopeless abyss of human opinion. Liberation theologians say that we can only
understand the Word of God if we have already—a priori—committed to their
notion of praxis. However, even this
notion of praxis must come under divine scrutiny and critique, lest again we
become swallowed up in the pontifications of finite, fallible, and mortal
flesh. Either God will set the agenda
through his Word—or humanity will go the way of the deceitful heart with merely
human agenda after human agenda, devoid of heavenly wisdom. The deities of social science, politics, and
economics—fashioned by the art and craft of flesh as they are—must bow before
and be reformed by the Word of God. Every
knee shall bow, including economic, political, and sociological knees. Marx and his ideology must do obeisance to King
Jesus and his sociopolitical analysis before Marx can serve in his kingdom and
be honored as a servant. In other words,
if his work is to do service, it must be critically assessed and reformed by
the Word of God.
Once someone has bought into the
method of LT, a priori, the interpretation of Scripture is constrained by that
method. Scripture is brought in simply
to criticize and reshape praxis, not liberation theology’s method or
hermeneutic. On the other hand, in
principle, evangelical theology’s method itself allows for critique and
correction of its method.
We all begin with precommitments
and presuppositions. Only, however, with
a commitment to the Christ who has captured the sinner groping in darkness can
there be a truly God-shaped theological method and hermeneutic. Christ is the key to unlocking the
Scriptures. In liberation theology, it
is emphatically stated that the hermeneutical key is the poor. This is wrongheaded and will not do.
We may not jettison the primary
place of Jesus and his Word in our theological and hermeneutical methodology. As pressing as today’s needs are—and they are
painfully and urgently pressing—the analysis and urgency of them are
subordinate to Jesus and his Word. If
this sounds too detached, one ought to recall Jesus response to those who
questioned the lavish attention bestowed upon Jesus to the apparent neglect of
the poor (Mk. 14:3-10). The poor are
always going to be with us, and we dare not neglect caring for them. Nevertheless, we must start with worshipping
Christ and listening to his Word. And
oftentimes Christians ought to unashamedly neglect service in order to sit at
Jesus’ feet to listen to him (Lk. 10:38-42).
And there at his feet we will hear from him how to go about our
practical theology. It is not the other
way around. Christians ought not to
start to do practical theology and then merely let that practical theology be
shaped by Jesus. Without shame and
without apology, the Lord Jesus and his Word ought to have the primary and
all-determining place in the theological and hermeneutical methods of the
Church.
We are all of us, rich and poor
alike, culturally, historically, politically, socioeconomically located. Our location obviously colors the way we
approach texts, as do our individual and corporate experiences. Yet to say that a particular location should
be the starting place for biblical interpretation, or that a particular
experience not necessary to be in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit should be
the starting place, is simply without biblical warrant, truncated, and
theologically inept. It is an imposition
that will not stand under the all-seeing gaze of God’s Word.
The typological nature of old
covenant and new covenant realities also has something to say about liberation
theology’s interpretations such as that of the exodus. In LT the exodus is a paradigm for
revolutionary deliverance from political oppressors. But it seems that it is not taken seriously
enough that the exodus of the old covenant is prototypical in the sense that it
points forward to or anticipates an ultimate exodus, a new exodus, in the
exodus of Jesus’ death. And the exodus
that Jesus accomplished cannot be stuffed back into the old wineskins of what
took place back in Egypt under old covenant structures, for it bursts those
wineskins and far supersedes and outstrips them. Deliverance in Jesus is political, to be
sure, and at the last day it will be total.
But even now the slave is free in Christ (1 Cor. 7:21-23).
A whole-Bible biblical theology also
must shape the way isolated events of Scripture are interpreted and, along with
the gospel of the kingdom (which is what ET highlights well), must be the
framework within which a truly biblical methodology is worked out. Without the biblical metanarrative, and one
that comes to grips with the profound thematic and typological links of
Scripture, the categories and historical events will likely again and again get
misinterpreted and misapplied. The
Bible’s metanarrative with its profound typological connections colors so many
of the realities of which the Bible speaks and illuminates all of life under the
all-seeing gaze and voice of the living God.
Influence
of Latin American Hermeneuticotheological Methodology on My Interpretative
Approach
I am persuaded more after working
through this material that my encounter with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus
in the Spirit-suffused gospel of the kingdom must be my hermeneutical starting
point. An encounter with the risen Lord
Jesus was Paul’s hermeneutical starting point. And Latin American ET seems to stand
here first and always. The Scriptures that bear witness to Christ also must
ever be the foundation for ongoing encounters with King Jesus and his
teaching. And all of Scripture should
inform my theologizing, not just favorite books that address particular
agendas. The liberation theologians surely
wrongly lean on select books and texts. They also seem to ignore the metanarrative of the Bible and the deep
typologies woven into that overarching storyline. Observing how this seems to cause them to misinterpret
and misapply Scripture and go wrong in analyzing the sociopolitical context of
the day, I want to make progress in coming to grips with the Bible’s worldview
and flow and innercanonical connections to avoid large-scale errors in
theologizing as much as possible.
Thinking through the methodologies of Latin America has also caused me to recall afresh the moral dimension of knowledge. The psalmist teaches this (Ps. 119:110), as
does our Lord Jesus (Jn. 7:17). I am
stirred afresh as well to interact with the history of interpretation and the
Church’s best heads and hearts for help from outside my narrow context with all
its blind spots, doing community theologizing that spans the centuries and that
crosses many cultures, not just those of the twenty-first century, which seems
far too narrow. Lastly, after
interacting with Latin American hermeneuticotheological methodology, I am
reminded of what the great Augustine teaches in On Christian Doctrine: Two
hermeneutical keys for interpreting Scripture are the love of God and love of
neighbor. Latin American theologians, a
good number of them at least, seem to be far closer to Augustine’s insight here
than most North Atlantic theologians.
Let us hear them.
Bibliography
Boff, Clodovis. Theology and Praxis: Epistemological Foundations. Translated
by Robert R. Barr.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.
Boff, Leonardo, Boff, Clodovis. Introducting Liberation Theology.
Translated by Paul Burns.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.
Bonino, Jose Miguez. Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977.
1977.
Branson, Mark L and Padilla, René
C, eds. Conflict and Context:
Hermeneutics in the Americas.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Cardoso Pereira, Nancy. "The
body as hermeneutical category: guidelines for a feminist hermeneutics
of liberation." Ecumenical Review 54, no. 3 (July 2002): 235-239.
of liberation." Ecumenical Review 54, no. 3 (July 2002): 235-239.
Costas, Orlando. The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering
Critique from the Third World. Wheaton,
IL: Tyndale House, 1974.
IL: Tyndale House, 1974.
Costas, Orlando. Liberating News: A Theology of Contextual
Evangelization. Grand Rapids,
Michigan. Eerdmans, 1989.
Michigan. Eerdmans, 1989.
Croatto, Servenno J and Barr,
Robert R. Biblical Hermeneutics: Toward a
Theory of Reading as a
Production of Meaning. Dublin: Gill & Macmillian, 1987.
Production of Meaning. Dublin: Gill & Macmillian, 1987.
Escobar, Samuel. The New Global Mission: The Gospel from
Everywhere to Everyone.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2003.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2003.
Escobar, Samuel. “A Latin
American Critique of Latin American Theology.” Evangelical Review of
Theology 7, no. 1 (April 1983): 48-62.
Theology 7, no. 1 (April 1983): 48-62.
Ellacuría, Ignacio, and Sobrino,
Jon, eds. Mysterium Liberationis:
Fundamental Concepts of
Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Obris, 1993.
Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Obris, 1993.
Fawcett, Bruce G. "A
Critical Analysis of Some Hermeneutical Principles Found in Latin American
Theologies of Liberation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (December
1994): 569-581.
Theologies of Liberation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (December
1994): 569-581.
Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler.
"Latin American Liberation Theology." Interpretation 28, no. 4 (October
1974): 441-457.
1974): 441-457.
George, Sherron Kay. "From
Liberation to Evangelization: New Latin American Hermeneutical
Keys." Interpretation 55, no. 4(October 2001): 367-377.
Keys." Interpretation 55, no. 4(October 2001): 367-377.
González, Justo L. Mañana: Christian Theology from a Hispanic
Perspective. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1990.
Abingdon Press, 1990.
González, Justo L. Out of Every Tribe & Nation: Christian
Theology at the Ethnic Roundtable.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll,
NY:Orbis Books, 1988.
Hennelly, Alfred T.
"Theological Method: The Southern Exposure." Theological Studies 38,
no.
4 (December 1977): 709-735.
4 (December 1977): 709-735.
Kirkpatrick, Dow, ed. Faith Born in the Struggle for Life: A
Re-reading of Protestant Faith in Latin
America Today. Translated by Lewistine McCoy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.
America Today. Translated by Lewistine McCoy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.
Klein, William W., Blomberg,
Craig L., and Hubbard, Robert L. Introduction
to Biblical
Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.
Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.
Mackie, Steven G. "Praxis as
the Context for Interpretation : A Study of Latin American Liberation
Theology." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa , no. 24(1978): 31-43.
Theology." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa , no. 24(1978): 31-43.
Míguez, Néstor O. "Latin
American Reading of the Bible: Experiences, Challenges and Its Practice."
Expository Times 118, no. 3 (December 2006): 120-129.
Expository Times 118, no. 3 (December 2006): 120-129.
Núnez C., Emilio Antonio. “Toward
an Evangelical Latin American Theology.” Evangelical Review
of Theology 7, no. 1 (April 1983): 79-88.
of Theology 7, no. 1 (April 1983): 79-88.
Núñez C., Emilio Antonio. Liberation Theology. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1985.
Owen, John. The
Works of John Owen, Volume IV. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1995.
of Truth, 1995.
Padilla, C René. "Biblical
Foundations : A Latin American Study." Evangelical Review of Theology
7, no. 1 (April 1983): 79-88.
7, no. 1 (April 1983): 79-88.
Padilla, René C. Mission Between the Times: Essays on the
Kingdom. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1985.
Eerdmans, 1985.
Parratt, John ed. An Introduction to Third World Theologies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Press, 2004.
Pablo, Richard. “Interpreting and
Teaching the Bible in Latin America.” Interpretation 56, no.
4 (October 2002): 378-386.
4 (October 2002): 378-386.
Pablo, Richard and Loughran, Mary
E. "Popular Reading of the Bible in Latin America." In
Ecumenical movement tomorrow, 239-256. Kampen: Kok, 1993.
Ecumenical movement tomorrow, 239-256. Kampen: Kok, 1993.
Pravera, Kate C. "Latin
American Liberation Theology: An Introductory Essay." Brethren Life and
Thought 29, no. 4 (1984): 199-205.
Thought 29, no. 4 (1984): 199-205.
Segundo, Jaun Luis. The Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1976.
Segundo, Juan Luis. "Faith
and Ideologies in Biblical Revelation." In Bible and liberation, 482-496.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
[1] George, “From Liberation to
Evangelization,” 368.
[2] Ibid.,” 368.
[3] Gutiérrez, “A Theology of Liberation,”
xxxiii.
[4] Parratt, “Third World
Theologies,” 21-24.
[5] George, “From Liberation to
Evangelization,” 368.
[6] Escobar, “A Latin American
Critique of Latin American Theology,” 48.
[7] Gutiérrez, “A Theology of
Liberation,” 9.
[8] Costas, “Liberating News,” 2.
[9] Ibid., 2.
[10] Costas, “The Church and Its
Mission,” 71.
[11] Richards, “Popular Reading of
the Bible in Latin America,” 239.
[12] Boff and Boff, “Introducing
Liberation Theology,” 11.
[13] Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard,
“Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics,” 87.
[14] Ellacuría and Sobrino,
“Mysterium Liberationis,” 65.
[15] Boff and Boff, “Introducing
Liberation Theology,” 22.
[16] Ellacuría and Sobrino,
“Mysterium Liberationis,” 66.
[17] Gutiérrez, “A Theology of
Liberation,” 7.
[18] Ibid., xxxiii.
[19] Boff and Boff, “Introducing
Liberation Theology,” 28.
[20] Ibid., 28.
[21] Ellacuria and Sobrino,
“Mysterium Liberationis,” 65.
[22] Richard, “Interpreting and
Teaching the Bible in Latin America, 80.
[23] Ibid, 84.
[24] Ellacuria and Sobrino,
“Mysterium Liberationis,” 124.
[25] Ibid., 124.
[26] Ibid., 124.
[27] Ibid., 80.
[28] Ibid., 80.
[29] Ibid., 81.
[30] Ibid., 81.
[31] Gutiérrez, “A Theology of
Liberation,” xxxiii.
[32] Ibid., 3.
[33] Segundo, “A Liberation of
Theology,” 8.
[34] Escobar,
“A Latin American Critique of Latin American Theology,” 59.
[35] Ibid., 60.
[36] Ibid., 60.
[37] Branson, “Conflict and Context,”
5.
[38] Padilla, “Mission Between the
Times,” 86.
[39] Branson, “Conflict and Context,”
4-5.
[40] Ibid., 4-5.
[41] Branson, “Conflict and Context,”
6.
[42] Ibid., 23.
[43] Padilla, “Mission Between the
Times,” 87.
[44] Ibid., 85-86.
[45] Costas, “ Liberating News,” 4,9.
[46] Padilla, “Mission Between the
Times,” 86-87.
[47] Branson, “Conflict and Context,”
23.
[48] Padilla, “Biblical Foundations,”
79.
[49] Padilla, “Mission Between the
Times,” 106.
[50] Padilla, “Biblical Foundations,”
86.
[51] Ibid., 87.
[52] Boff and Boff, “Introducing
Liberation Theology,” 33.
[53] Owen, Works IV, 206.
[54] Pablo, Popular Reading of the
Bible in Latin America, 244.
[55] Núñez, “Liberation Theology,” 280.
[56] Ibid., 280.
No comments:
Post a Comment