Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable
Why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13114972 |
|---|---|
| Authors | McGlory Speckman (0000-0003-0078-5584, Walter Sisulu University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Issue | 104(3) |
| Publication date | 2023-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Pharos Journal of Theology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2414-3324 • E-ISSN: 2414-3324 |
| Publisher | FrIcAjOuRnAlS (PUBLISHER • ZA) |
| DOI | 10.46222/pharosjot.104.331 |
| OpenAlex | W4379469543 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
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
Compassion · Conflation · Context (archaeology · Economics · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Gospel · Injustice · Law and economics · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Positive economics · Sociology · Theology · African cultural and philosophical studies · History · Income, Poverty, and Inequality · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Religion, Society, and Development · Social Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |