Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced
This article motivates for the retention of the option for the poor paradigm in response to Michel Temgo’s (2018) proposal for its replacement with “compassion for the vulnerable”. It argues that the two principles, “option for the poor” and “compassion for the vulnerable”, are Biblebased with diffe...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Africajournals
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Pharos Journal of Theology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_31_vol_104_3__wsu.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797810775432101888 |
|---|---|
| author | McGlory Speckman |
| author_facet | McGlory Speckman |
| author_sort | McGlory Speckman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article motivates for the retention of the option for the poor paradigm in response to Michel Temgo’s (2018) proposal for its replacement with “compassion for the vulnerable”. It argues that the two principles, “option for the poor” and “compassion for the vulnerable”, are Biblebased with different functions in the Bible. For that reason, they should not be conflated. The option for the poor principle has, over five decades, undergirded theological activism against exploitation, poverty and injustice - what Gutierrez (1973) refers to as subhuman conditions of the poor. Its value for the poor and oppressed communities cannot be fully appreciated unless
viewed from the perspective of its original context in Medellin (1968). Following an assessment of whether a paradigm shift is justified and a tracing of the foundations of the two principles in Luke’s Gospel, the article concludes that there is no justification for a paradigm shift and that according to biblical evidence, the “option for the poor” is particular, while “compassion for the vulnerable” is general. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:13:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-545f656b07ea4334ace85778a69fba85 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2414-3324 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:13:51Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | Africajournals |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pharos Journal of Theology |
| spelling | doaj.art-545f656b07ea4334ace85778a69fba852023-06-05T14:01:17ZengAfricajournalsPharos Journal of Theology2414-33242023-06-011043https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.104.331Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced McGlory Speckman0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0078-5584Research Professor, Department of Management and Governance Walter Sisulu University, South AfricaThis article motivates for the retention of the option for the poor paradigm in response to Michel Temgo’s (2018) proposal for its replacement with “compassion for the vulnerable”. It argues that the two principles, “option for the poor” and “compassion for the vulnerable”, are Biblebased with different functions in the Bible. For that reason, they should not be conflated. The option for the poor principle has, over five decades, undergirded theological activism against exploitation, poverty and injustice - what Gutierrez (1973) refers to as subhuman conditions of the poor. Its value for the poor and oppressed communities cannot be fully appreciated unless viewed from the perspective of its original context in Medellin (1968). Following an assessment of whether a paradigm shift is justified and a tracing of the foundations of the two principles in Luke’s Gospel, the article concludes that there is no justification for a paradigm shift and that according to biblical evidence, the “option for the poor” is particular, while “compassion for the vulnerable” is general. https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_31_vol_104_3__wsu.pdfoption for the poorpreferential option for the poorcompassion for the vulnerableluke’s gospelmedellin conference. puebla conference |
| spellingShingle | McGlory Speckman Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced Pharos Journal of Theology option for the poor preferential option for the poor compassion for the vulnerable luke’s gospel medellin conference. puebla conference |
| title | Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced |
| title_full | Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced |
| title_fullStr | Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced |
| title_full_unstemmed | Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced |
| title_short | Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced |
| title_sort | option for the poor and compassion for the vulnerable why the two bible based principles should not be conflated or replaced |
| topic | option for the poor preferential option for the poor compassion for the vulnerable luke’s gospel medellin conference. puebla conference |
| url | https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_31_vol_104_3__wsu.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mcgloryspeckman optionforthepoorandcompassionforthevulnerablewhythetwobiblebasedprinciplesshouldnotbeconflatedorreplaced |