Evangelical Theologies of Liberation and Justice

Mae Elise Cannon, Andrea Smith, Mae Elise Cannon, Andrea Smith

• Editorial: IVP Academic
• Año: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780830870967
• Categoría: Theology & Religion
• Categoría: Christian Theology

For many evangelicals, liberation theology seems a distant notion. Some might think it is antithetical to evangelicalism, while others simply may be unfamiliar with the role evangelicals have played in the development of liberation theologies and their profound effect on Latin American, African American, and other global subaltern Christian communities.Despite the current rise in evangelicals focusing on justice work as an element of their faith, evangelical theologians have not adequately developed a theological foundation for this kind of activism.Evangelical Theologies of Liberation and Justice fills this gap by bringing together the voices of academics, activists, and pastors to articulate evangelical liberation theologies from diverse perspectives. Through critical engagement, these contributors consider what liberation theology and evangelical tenets of faith have to offer one another.Evangelical thinkers—including Soong-Chan Rah, Chanequa Walker-Barnes, Robert Chao Romero, Paul Louis Metzger, and Alexia Salvatierra—survey the history and outlines of liberation theology and cover topics such as race, gender, region, body type, animal rights, and the importance of community. Scholars, students, and churches who seek to engage in reflection and action around issues of biblical justice will find here a unique and insightful resource. Evangelical Theologies of Liberation and Justice opens a conversation for developing a specifically evangelical view of liberation that speaks to the critical justice issues of our time.

PART ONE

LIBERATION
METHODOLOGIES

Chapter One

CENTERED VERSUS
BOUNDED

Moving Beyond Divide and Conquer Strategies for Liberation

Paul Louis Metzger

SO OFTEN, THE FALLEN POWERS DIVIDE and conquer communities that seek liberation. Divisions easily result in liberation communities because they emphasize what differentiates them to the detriment of what unites them, sometimes as the result of an overbearing hermeneutic of suspicion. One of the ways that we can break free from such deconstructive strategies is to move from bounded to centered sets of discourse for the sake of liberation. In the ensuing discussion, we will argue for a centered-set approach as it pertains to evangelical liberation strategies bearing on caring for the orphan, widow, and alien in their distress. The aim of the essay is to foster ways evangelicals from different theological traditions can come together and not allow various boundaries to sabotage solidarity as they cultivate a more liberating theology. The key is to center the discussion on the gospel of the kingdom in service to those on the margins. The outline for this essay is as follows. First, we will provide definitions of centered and bounded sets of discourse, along with a biblical exposition of these categories, as well as a historical backdrop to extreme versions of bounded sets. Second, we will unpack a centered- over against a bounded-set approach to evangelical liberation theology. This approach will include consideration of the theological underpinnings as well as a brief case study that brings together various atonement theories in service to this centered-set model favoring those on the margins. It will be followed by principles required for consideration in future conversations on liberation theology among evangelicals.

CENTERED- AND BOUNDED-SET
APPROACHES TO THEOLOGY

What is the difference between centered and bounded sets?

A centered-set approach focuses on goals and what brings individuals and groups together. A bounded-set approach focuses on the boundaries and who is in and who is out of the movement. Roger Olson says of the bounded-set model, “The bounded set model ends up allowing little or no distinction between the center (the gospel) and the boundaries (orthodoxy). It also leads inevitably to obsessive boundary maintenance and inquisitorial judgments about whether persons and groups are Christian.”1 The centered-set approach has a great deal to offer the evangelical Christian community in pursuing justice across the evangelical theological spectrum.

Why does a centered-set approach prove more strategic for evangelical theologies of liberation? As a movement, evangelicals need to build momentum that accounts for and draws from our diversity within the broad evangelical tradition. Diversity can and often should be a strength, not a weakness! Focusing on boundaries often holds the evangelical movement back, instead of evangelicals moving forward together in shared justice aims. Many evangelical groups frame partnerships in bounded theological categories or sets. While this has its place in certain quarters at various times, it is likely not advantageous in this context that focuses on ethics, not doctrine. Centering on the biblical categories of caring for the alien, widow, and orphan in their distress provides order and direction without having to invest major energies on what distinguishes and perhaps even divides the movement theologically. David Bebbington’s centering categories for evangelicalism has merit:

Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life-long process of following Jesus;

Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts;

Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority;

Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.2

Still, for the purposes of this volume, it proves more strategic to frame the discussion in terms of a question: What are the biblical and theological resources that help us prophetically address Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom care for the orphan, widow, and alien in their distress? While theology is critically important, it makes more sense given the present volume’s concrete justice aims to discuss how the Bible and theology inform evangelicalism’s respective views of applied justice for the orphan, widow, alien, and the like. With this point in mind, we are reminded of Jesus’ challenge to the religious scholar in the story of the Samaritan of exceeding mercy (Lk 10:25-37). Jesus did not tell the religious leader who had come to test him about eternal life to go and think a certain way so that he might live, but to go and act a certain way so that he would live (Lk 10:37).

What are some biblical examples of bounded and centered sets, and how do we discern when and where to apply them?

A great contrast between the bounded-set and centered-set approaches is found in Mark 9:38-41. There we find Jesus’ disciples taking exception to someone casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Instead of rejoicing, they sought to stop the person. Why? Because he was not part of their circle. They were operating from a bounded-set approach to ministry, whereas Jesus’ response to his disciples was a striking example of a centered-set approach:3

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.” (Mk 9:38-41 ESV)

The New Testament includes examples of both bounded-set and centered-set approaches to faith and ministry. Mark 9:38-41 is an example of a centered-set approach (in the case of Jesus, though not his disciples), whereas the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 is an example of a bounded-set approach. There James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and others debated the significance of circumcision in the Christian life, especially for Gentiles. Given the Spirit’s movement in Gentile believers’ lives through faith apart from circumcision, they determined that this rite should not be required of Gentile believers, and those who sought to persuade Gentiles to be circumcised should be prohibited. The issue had become a cause of great turmoil and division, and needed to be resolved for the sake of unity in the church at large. Even so, the boundaries that were put in place were ultimately for the sake of unity in mission: instead of excluding the Gentiles unless they were circumcised, they were included as equals through faith alone in Jesus and shared experience of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Another example of a bounded-set approach is 1 John 2:18-27 in conjunction with 1 John 4:1-6. The author of this epistle expressed grave concern over those who had left the fellowship because of their claim that Jesus has not come in the flesh. Their teaching reflected the spirit of the antichrist, not the Holy Spirit. As with the Jerusalem Council, where saving faith in Jesus was accompanied by the manifestation of the Spirit, here doctrinal truth centering on the incarnation was viewed as central to confession in the Spirit. The spirit that denies Jesus’ incarnation is not of the Spirit, and not of God (1 Jn 4:2-3). Even here, though, the aim is not doctrine as the end, but as the means to the end of love. It follows that those who deny the incarnation could easily deny embodied love, whereas those who affirm the incarnation must embody love. It supernaturally follows (1 Jn 4:7-21).

The preceding discussion suggests that there is a biblical basis for bounded sets, specifically when trying to navigate teachings that are promoting disunity in the church. However, even in these situations, the aim is not ultimately to exclude, but to foster unity among the faithful for greater impact in life and ministry.

Jesus was not engaged in boundary maintenance at every turn in his ministry. While he engaged in teaching about the kingdom of God, what God is like, and about his own person and work, the aim was never teaching as such. Rather, it was about mission to the world. One of the most striking examples of Jesus’ emphasis came in response to John the Baptist and his disciples recorded in Luke 7:18-23. John was in prison and was pondering if Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Jesus did not engage in a long doctrinal exercise in answering John. Rather, he placed emphasis on acts of mercy toward those in great need and the proclamation of the gospel to the poor. Only after John’s disciples departed did Jesus make the staggering claim that while no one born of woman is greater than John, everyone who belongs to the kingdom of God inaugurated in Jesus’ person is greater than John (Lk 7:28). This claim is doctrinally important—Jesus is the center. However, the teaching is not an end in itself. Jesus’ aim is proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom to the marginalized and demonstrating it in acts of mercy.

The focus on the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom also appears in Matthew 9:9-13. This passage records an incident where the Pharisees sought to ensure boundary maintenance and found Jesus failing miserably. Jesus had just called Matthew the tax collector to follow him. He was eating in Matthew’s house with fellow tax collectors and sinners.4 How could Jesus be a legitimate rabbi if he was not maintaining clear boundaries by excluding association with the morally impure? Jesus rebuked the Pharisees: “But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’” (Mt 9:12-13 ESV).

The irony in this passage is that the Pharisees’ emphasis on boundaries related to purity made it impossible for them to reach out to those whom God sought to reach. Moral and doctrinal purity have their place, never as ends in themselves, but always as ends to mercy. How else do we make sense of God’s holiness? In view of Jesus’ life, teaching, and example, we see that God’s holiness does not entail setting himself apart from sinners. Rather, God’s holiness sets him apart from sin for sinners.

Could a case be made for claiming that the false teachers in the New Testament were not simply those whose teaching was off to a degree? Could it be that biblically speaking, false teachers were and are those who use orthodoxy and heterodoxy to oppress and exclude outsiders and the downtrodden, rather than reach out to them compassionately to invite them to share in Jesus’ life? In contrast, orthodoxy always aims to include others through faith alone in Jesus apart from status, especially the outsiders and downtrodden. That is why James tells us that biblical religion includes caring for widows and orphans in their distress, and not simply for keeping oneself unpolluted by the world (Jas 1:27). James discounts mere concern for doctrinal truth and personal faith that does not entail robust care for the poor and excluded from society. Faith that matters always works, specifically on behalf of the orphan, widow, and alien in their distress. Thus, personal liberation through faith in response to God’s grace always entails works of righteousness.

In answering the question in the subheading above, centered sets reflect a missional heart that reaches out and includes the poor and lower class (Jas 1–2), the moral outcast (Mt 9:9-13), and the Gentile outsider (Gal 2:11-14). Through faith in Jesus, they become one people with the supposed well-to-do, righteous, and insiders. The bounded set of doctrinal and moral purity serves this missional thrust. When the church fails to include the marginalized, such as Gentiles, women, and slaves, excluding them for the sake of the Jews, men, and the free (Gal 3:28), among others, the likes of Paul will stand up and demand inclusion in the faith community, just as he did with Cephas (Gal 2:11-14), and even more so, the Judaizers (see Paul’s letter to the Galatians as well as Phil 3). Thus, the bounded rebuke to the legalists, the proto-Gnostics, and those favoring the rich serve to liberate the gospel center from false boundaries. In each of these cases, the boundary is God’s will involving new birth through Jesus, whom we receive and in whom we believe, not natural descent or a husband’s will (Jn 1:12-13),5 not circumcision, maleness, Roman citizenship or nonslave status (Gal 3:28), private and esoteric knowledge (Col 2:8, 18-19), ceremonial purity (Mt 9:9-13), or wealth or class (Jas 1; 2).6

One could make a case that the legalism addressed in Matthew and Galatians, the proto-Gnosticism challenged in Colossians and 1 John, and the classism confronted in James were all grounded in faulty power dynamics of elitism and exclusion. They run contrary to the gospel, which is a different kind of power—the power of God available to all through faith. As Paul writes in Romans 1,

I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Rom 1:14-17 ESV)

What import might this biblical claim have for the cultivation and flourishing of an evangelical liberation theology today? Among other things, it entails reframing the word evangelical so that it does not entail power politics that excludes many for the sake of the chosen few, the righteous, and the well-to-do. Rather, it involves returning it to its biblical roots of good news—the evangel—especially for the orphan, widow, and alien in their distress. It involves taking back evangelical to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in England and the United States—prior to the Scopes Trial and its a...