TEACHING THEOLOGY FOR JUSTICE

A HOLISTIC APPROACH

by

Cesar Marques Lopes

B.Th., Faculdade Teological Sul Americana (Brazil), 1999

M.Th., Faculdade Teological Sul Americana (Brazil), 2001

A COMPREHENSIVE EXAM PAPER

Submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY
(Educational Studies)
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois
May, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
1. Old Testament Understandings of Justice ............................................................. 6
A Sociological Approach to Justice in the Old Testament .............................. 7
Justice as Retribution ....................................................................................... 8
Justice as Distribution ...................................................................................... 11
Summary and Generalization ........................................................................... 14
2. Hermeneutics: Addressing the Way the Text is Addressed .................................. 15
Historical Criticism, the West, and Enlightenment ......................................... 16
Another Reading is Possible: A Hermeneutics of Suspicion and Liberation .. 20
Summary and Generalization ........................................................................... 22
3. Curriculum Theories and Ideologies ..................................................................... 22
Curriculum Theories ........................................................................................ 23
Curriculum Ideologies in Tension ................................................................... 26
The Scholar Academic Ideology .............................................................. 26
The Social Reconstruction Ideology ........................................................ 28
Summary and Generalization ........................................................................... 39
4. Implications for Theological Seminaries .............................................................. 30
Harmony between Biblical Constructs, Hermeneutics, and Curriculum ......... 31
Nurturing Divergence ...................................................................................... 33
Interdisciplinarity ............................................................................................. 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 37
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 40

Introduction

In October 2011 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)

hosted a debate around the question, Is social justice an essential part of the mission of
the church? Participants Jim Wallis and Albert Mohler, espousing respectively a general
yes and no answer to the question, reflected the most common evangelical positions
on the issue, positions that were available in the description of the event (Henry Center
for Theological Understanding 2011):
North American Evangelicals have recently experienced a revival of
interest in issues of social justice. The growing sentiment among many
today is that Jesus preached good news to the poor, and was indeed
among the poor and marginalized. These Christians believe that the
implications of these facts should renew the churchs understanding of the
gospel and its mission. Rightly or wrongly, this interest in social justice is
transforming the blueprint and vision of ecclesial ministry.
For others, this blueprint conjures up concerns about 20th century
liberal Protestantism and a watering down of the gospels message of
salvation. The defining mission of the church, for them, continues to be
the sharing of the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ to all
nations, generations, and social classes. The issue of social justice, though
important, is not to be considered as an essential part of the mission of the
church.
Although this description begins by properly limiting the immediate scope of the debate
to a North American context, such a question about the relationship between justice and
mission is addressed in global contexts as well. In a rough generalization, division over
this issue seems to be strongest in North America, while a relative informal consensus
around a yes option as described above has been reached in Majority World contexts.1
However, as seminaries in the Global South still hold a close relationship with their
1

Among many authors, Philip Jenkins elaborates at length on this generalization (see
2002, 141-162 and 2006, 68-97), but a short excerpt may illustrate this idea: for the growing churches in
the global South, the Bible speaks to everyday, real-world issues of poverty and debt, famine and urban
crisis, racial and gender oppression, state brutality and oppression (2006, 5). See also Carpenter 2006, Rah
2009, Sanneh 2003, and Escobar 2003.

4
partners in the West in terms of bibliographical resources, faculty formation, and
curriculum templates (see, for instance, Wright 2006 and Werner 2010), this issue
remains a major discussion and focal point.
From the beginning it is important to admit that this paper will not claim a
neutral view of this debate. The author is a Latin American who will adopt a holistic
mission perspective2in other words, this paper will assume that justice is indeed an
essential, organic part of the churchs mission. However, the intention of this paper is not
to prove the other perspective wrong.
The concern of this paper circles around a more specific question: how
should seminaries that embrace a holistic mission perspective teach about justice?3 The
question is not about contents, teaching methods, or curriculum, but instead considers
whether justice and mission is really a matter of biblical foundations.
The teaching of biblical justice is an exceedingly relevant theme for a
whole new generation of evangelical leaders. There is much evidence of a growing
concern about social justice issues in the Majority World, in the American context in
general, and among evangelicals in particular. Tim Keller states, there is a host of young
Christian believers who respond with joy to the call to care for the needy. Volunteerism is

Holistic mission is usually synthesized as a concern for bringing the whole gospel to the
whole human being. It was established in a polemic tension against a perspective perceived as more
concerned with saving souls and holding lesser concern for the holistic needs of the people being
evangelized. Authors like Rene Padilla, Samuel Escobar, and Orlando Costas were a constant presence in
US theological circles in the 1970s and 1980s. See Padilla (1985) for a foundational work from this
perspective, Heaney (2008) for an excellent description of the history and main themes of this tradition, and
Escobar (2000) for a contrast between holistic and Western approaches to missiology.
3
This paper will use preferentially the term justice instead of social justice, for two
reasons: first, the later is not actually found in Scriptures though it is arguable that it is the meaning of
many occurrences of the former; second, such as many other buzz words of the day, social justice has the
double effect of both attracting and repelling different audiences therefore, some of the claims this paper
will make about the biblical concept of justice may be lost in the noise around this debate.

5
the distinguishing mark of an entire generation of American college students and recent
graduates (2010, 9).4
This paper adds some elements to this discussion, exploring the strong
non-linear relationship between 1) the establishment of a biblical basis for the subject of
justice, 2) the hermeneutical methods adopted by a school and its teachers, and 3)
curricular options provided by seminaries. More than merely describing these dynamics,
the objective here is to offer a framework from which seminaries may reflect on the
consonance or dissonance among these three elements in their educational practice.
The structure adopted for this paper mirrors the elements mentioned
above: the first section presents a reading of Old Testament concepts of justice; the
second section discusses hermeneutical options that enable such a reading; the third
section offers a similar discussion of curricular issues; and the fourth section presents
some suggestions on how to enhance the consistency among those three elements.
This paper is intended for a global evangelical audience involved in
theological education. The evangelical movement is multifaceted and the implications for
what it means to be part of it are more specific in a North American context and a bit
broader in global settings such as the Majority World. However, there are strong core
elements of evangelicalism, what John Stott called the Word, the cross and the Spirit
(1999, 34): an emphasis on the centrality of Scriptures, a personal
conversion/commitment to Jesus Christ, and the sanctification and missionary zeal
enabled by the Holy Spirit. If it is indeed true that the evangelical church in the Global
South views justice as connected to the core of the Christian mission, a careful reflection
on how biblical views of justice, hermeneutics, and curriculum are intertwined may offer
4

See also Cannon 2009, Crosby 2011, and McCracken 2010.

6
precious insights and help seminaries in this part of the world in their efforts to prepare
new leaders.

1. Old Testament Understandings of Justice

If two evangelical authors, researching a general topic like politics or a

specific issue like immigration in the United States, investigate the Bible with rigor and
sound scholarship, will they arrive at the same conclusions, or at least generally similar
conclusions? The answer is a clear no. To verify this conclusion, one might read pairs of
books such as Jim Wallis Gods Politics (2005) and Wayne Grudems Politics
According to the Bible (2010), or James Hoffmeirs The Immigration Crisis (2009) and
Daniel Carroll R.s Christians at the Border (2008). These book pairs deal with the issues
of politics and immigration, and their conclusions are totally contradictory.
So what is happening in those pairings? Is one perspective biblically
incorrect while the other is accurate? Is it possible that both are, at least to some extent,
correct? This section will address the issue of justice in the theology of the Old
Testament from a dual perspective, describing it not as a precise, monolithic, and
hermetic concept but as a construct embracing a dynamic tension that ultimately allows
for different conclusions and plans of action. It is important to stress again that this paper
embraces a holistic perspective on the relationship between justice and mission; the
objective here, however, is not to speak against a more strict view, but to portray a
holistic approach as viable and biblically sound.

7
A Sociological Approach to Justice
in the Old Testament

The notion that the Old Testament espouses conflicting views of concepts
like justice is not new. Walter Brueggemanns article, Trajectories in Old Testament
Literature and the Sociology of Ancient Israel (1979), is an important piece that addresses
this tension. The author analyzes Old Testament theology in its five major time periods
(Mosaic, united monarchy, divided monarchy, exile, and post-exile), tracing a pervasive
tension between two traditions (or, in his words, trajectories): liberation/Mosaic and
royal/Davidic.5
In fact, Brueggemann argues, these trajectories are in some instances
diametrically opposed. While the royal trajectory texts speak about general and abstract
myths of unity, stress continuity, focus on the glory and holiness of God, and have a
social conservative conserving tone, the prophetic trajectory makes use of concrete
stories of liberation, speaks about discontinuity, focuses on the justice and righteousness
of God, and has a revolutionary tone. According to Brueggemann, these competing truth
claims led to dramatic confrontations, exemplified by clashes between prophets and royal
or priestly figures, such as Elijah/Jezebel (1 Kgs 21), Nathan/David (2 Sam 12), and
Amos/Amaziah (Amos 7:10-15).
In another article, Brueggemann (1992) continues to elaborate on this
tension. The Old Testament does legitimize the religious, social, and political structure of
Israel, but it also embraces the pain of all those who are on the underside of such a

Brueggemann is explicit in affirming that the liberation narrative is the one with which
he identifies himself. Although this original text is more than 30 years old, the author remains consistent
with this option, as it is evidenced by two of his most recent books destined to a broader audience (2010,
2011).

8
structure. Although he believes that both sides have rightful utterances to make,
Brueggemann affirms that Israels experience of liberation in the Exodus is decisive and
tips the scale: the Israelites voiced their pain, their hurt, and God listened to them. From
that moment on, with the help of liturgy, they knew that God takes action against the ones
who promote suffering. The conclusion is that while there is balance between the royal
and prophetic trajectories, this balance does not lead to neutrality, since God attends to
hurt wherever it is present (Brueggemann 1992, 49).
Perspectives on justice in the holy text will vary according to these
trajectories. Furthermore, Brueggemanns conclusion in the original article is that the
trajectories constitute a tension that can be found within Christianity even today. In fact,
he construes an association between the royal trajectory and conservative Western
hermeneutics on one side, and between the prophetic trajectory and what he calls
liberation hermeneutics on the other. This will be a topic for Section 2 of this paper, but
for now it is possible to affirm that some clashes between opposing viewpoints in
Christianity, exemplified by the 2011 debate between Wallis and Mohler at Trinity, are
nothing more than reenactments of this ancient tension. They are also typical
representations of two distinctive views of concrete justice: retribution and distribution.

Justice as Retribution

Western societies in general, and perhaps American society in particular,

understand justice as primarily retributive (persons get what they deserve), and many
interpreters of the Bible indeed see this dimension of justice as the most preeminent.
Gary Shogren, for instance, begins his definition of justice in the Evangelical Dictionary

9
of Biblical Theology by stating that justice is rooted in the very nature of God (Isa
40:14). He evenhandedly rewards good, and he does not ignore the sins of any (Shogren
1996, 440). Shogrens entry includes an abundance of terms such as judges,
condemning, guilty, and verdict. In one small passage, Shogren does address the
idea of pursuing justice in life, but only in a marginal way.
Certainly Shogren is not distorting the biblical concept of justice with his
selection of words. This is indeed a possible understanding, but some scholars point to
the fact that part of the meaning of justice is lost by treating this as its exclusive
dimension. For Seifrid, the English words justice and righteousness refer,
respectively, to a forensic context and to personal ethics. However, [for] the biblical
authors, their concerns lie in other lines. The lexical distinction we are accustomed in
English is absent from the Scripture (2000, 740). He also stresses the communal
approach (as opposed to an individualistic personal ethics approach) that the Bible takes
even to the idea of righteousness, since the Hebrew usage of this expression tends to be
relational and concrete; one is righteous with respect to another human being or to God
(2000, 740).
K. Koch (1983, originally published in German in 1955) goes further and
thoroughly denies the very existence of retributive justice in the Old Testament. For him,
bad consequences flowing out of wicked actions are nothing more than natural sequences
of actions and reactions, deeds and consequences. It is not, he insists, a matter of Yahweh
personally intervening in a certain circumstance and punishing evil or rewarding good
it is just how life is. This kind of natural effect would be especially present in Proverbs
and Psalms. Chapters 25 through 29 of Proverbs describe a whole collection of deeds and

10
consequences while barely mentioning Yahwehs name. Furthermore, wicked people
have a path to follow (see, for example, Psalms 1, 32, 58, and 125), and sometimes
Yahwehs forgivenessmanifested through language of asking Him to forget wicked
deeds and remember good actions, offerings, and times of sufferingis seen as an
artificial interruption of this natural process (Psalms 10, 20, 25, and 132 provide some
examples).
Longmans discussion of the book of Proverbs acknowledges that though
there is sometimes the impression that Yahweh has something to do with the
punishment (2008, 544), an actual agent of possible retribution, either rewards or
punishments, for good or bad acts is rarely mentioned. However, his solution to this
dilemma differs radically from Kochs: Longman attributes all the consequences to
Yahweh. Using again the simple terms employed above, even natural consequences are
supernatural in essence. The built-in consequences were built in by Yahweh himself.
Finally, Crenshaw uses a strong image when concluding that few scholars concur with
his [Kochs] view that Yahwehs sole function was that of a midwife assisting in birthing
the inevitable consequence of behavior (2010, 88 n.2).
Retributive justice is certainly a prominent theme on the Old Testament,
and the forensic approach is definitively not a creation of post-Reformation Westerners
influenced by their views of laws and courtrooms. However, Kochs objections against a
reductionist view of justice as merely retribution are extremely important, especially in a
North American context influenced by a culture of meritocracy. In fact, the very
arguments used by his critics do nothing but reinforce his main point: it is possible to see
a set of retributive laws built in by Yahweh, with good actions resulting in good

11
consequences and vice-versa by His own design. The solution to the deistic flipside of
this statement is to perceive Yahweh as personally committed to other dimensions of
justice: for example, to distributive, redemptive justice.

Justice as Distribution

For some scholars, this second dimension of justice is not only present but
primary in the Old Testament text (Brueggemann 1997, 736-738).6 Knierim is even more
precise when he describes the contents of such distribution. From the foundational
statement of Leviticus 19:9-10 (do not reap the edges of your vineyard or go through it a
second time for the sake of the poor and foreigner), he concludes that:
This is an expression of justice as related to land and food, and of human
stewardship of Yahwehs land, with specific emphasis on the inclusion of
the poor and sojourner in the right to food and with an explicit reference to
the fact that nothing less than the identity of the God of Israel is at stake.
(1995, 241)
In this context land and food are basic means to a minimal existence in human dignity.
Food is a means to healthy living, while in the agrarian context like the one experienced
by the people of God in Old Testament times, land is a means to a worthy way of work.
Furthering Knierims argument, it is possible to suggest that any kind of justice in which
there is no access to land and food is in dissonance with how the Bible reveals the
character and identity of Yahweh.
From this perspective it seems that distributive justice distances itself from
the courtrooms and takes the path of daily relationships and structural issues. It speaks
about the provision of basic rights, not about punitive actions against those who
6

Brueggemann himself also recognizes the importance of retributive justice by saying

that no doubt the practice of retributive justice has a presence in the Old Testament (1997, 737).

12
transgress the law. Such basic provision sometimes requires partiality on the part of God
himself:
Hundreds of biblical verses show that God is especially attentive to the
poor and needy. God is not biased. Because of unequal needs, however,
equal provision of basic rights requires justice to be partial in order to be
impartial Partiality to the weak is the most striking characteristic of
biblical justice. (Mott and Sider 1999, 27italics added)
In Latin American liberation theologies, such impartiality, known as the preferential
option for the poor (see Gutierrez 1973, Boff and Boff 1987), is a foundational concept.
In more evangelical circles, there are formulations like that of Rene Padilla (2011), a
Baptist biblicist who understands the retributive justice of God as impartial, since both
powerful and powerless are to be somehow punished for wrongdoing, and social justice
as positively partial, since it seeks to correct a destructive partiality.
It is important to notice that even distributive justice has a retributive
element: as early as 1907 Walter Rauschenbush claimed that the prophets conceived
Jehovah as the special vindicator of these voiceless classes (1907, 3). In his
comprehensive survey of the Bible as a book of law, Burnside arrives at a similar
conclusion: Gods justice and righteousness are seen most clearly in rescuing the weak
and the oppressed (2011, 106). He goes even further, saying that this type of justice
clearly establishes two sides: there is the restoration of the powerless, and the
consequence is the ruin and overthrowing of the oppressors. Peter Enns (1997, 1144)
echoes this view: the topic is often a breach of justice suffered by Israelites at the hands
of their corrupt leaders. As a result, the Lord himself enters into judgment with his own
people.

13
A final issue regarding justice as distribution is a challenge to one aspect
of Ennss quote above: he describes the breaches of justice as something made by
persons, by corrupt leaders. In other words, evil actions are personalized, and from this
perspective the problem is not with a structure but with deviant individuals who, because
of their sin, distort the order established by Yahweh. Liberation theologians in the
twentieth century, however, came to call unjust relationships or systems structural sin.
Although the obvious opposite criticism of the risk of having sin de-personalized is
valid, there is also validity in the liberationist perception. Furthermore, this concept is
actually helpful for traditional white evangelicals in the United States. Michael Emerson
and Christian Smith, addressing racial issues in the American evangelical church,
diagnose an antistructuralism or inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social
structural influences (2000, 76). This blind spot results in a worldview that sees
individuals as existing independently from structures, being completely and
unequivocally responsible for what happens to them.
This is not to say that breaches of justice have to be understood only as
structural, and never as individual. That is definitely not the case. Some biblical texts are
very specific in targeting those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the
widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice (Mal 3:5).
Individuals are indeed guilty of actively perverting justice. However, there is also a
systemic, cultural, structural dimension to these problems.
In summary, it is possible to see different layers or dimensions of justice
in the Old Testament. Though the most common understanding emulates contemporary
concepts of justice as retribution for crimes or reward for good behavior, it is also

14
possible to see in the Hebrew Scriptures the strong presence of distributive justice, an
actual intervention by Yahweh and His people on behalf of the disenfranchised. The
danger, says Burnside, lies in isolating one element of an inseparable whole to the
exclusion of the others Either approach, on its own, quickly leads to injustice (2011,
139).

Summary and Generalization

A tentative generalization may be possible at this point, starting from

Brueggemanns original suggestion and following the lines discussed so far. The royal
trajectory in the Old Testament stresses a retributive conception of justice: the emphasis
is on individual decisions that will be rewarded or punished, and God is seen as the
guardian of justice, the arbiter who will weigh both sides with neutrality and issue His
verdict. Social injustice is seen as consequence of individual distortions, and the remedy
for it lies in personal commitment to ethical decisions that will eventually benefit the
whole society.
The prophetic trajectory, in turn, emphasizes distribution. It stresses the
active construction of a just society, and God is seen as the vindicator of the oppressed, as
the One who sides with the disenfranchised against the people who, though complying
formally with the requirements of the law, build cycles of poverty through their own
enrichment. Social injustice is seen as structural sin, and Gods alignment with the poor
reflects a call for His people to take action against it.
This returns us to the question posed in the debate at Trinity: is social
justice an essential part of the mission of Gods people? From the royal perspective, the

15
answer is no: social justice is nothing but a consequence of a sanctified life. From the
prophetic perspective, however, the answer is yes: social justice is a fundamental part
of the mission.
Therefore, a seminary concerned with the holistic teaching of justice
should promote the prophetic trajectory and remember that justice is equally distributive
and communal, even though retribution and individual responsibility must continue to be
important elements of this reflection. Such a balance is not alien to the message of the
Bible. Although it is not the common alternative taken by mainstream evangelicalism in
North Atlantic spheres, it is perfectly compatible with the Scriptures and with the context
in which many churches live in the Majority World.

2. Hermeneutics: Addressing the Way the Text is Addressed

Apart from the obvious implications that hermeneutics offers for the
immediate act of reading the Bible, it also has implications for theological and ministerial
commitments and styles. The way a pastor does mission and ministry, the way an
organization engages (or refuses to engage) concrete societal struggles, the way a church
promotes the Kingdom of God, all of these issues are ultimately related to the way one
reads the Wordand, consequently, the world.
This is also true for the present paper: the dual reading of justice in the
Old Testament is only possible because its author embraced certain hermeneutical
approaches before addressing the topic. This section will examine two hermeneutical
approaches that are relevant to this discussion, though the two stand in tension with one
another. The first is a more restricted view of the (non-)relationship between justice and

16
mission, in which justice is primarily retributive, related to a more restricted approach to
the Bible. For lack of a better term, this first approach will be referred to as Western
hermeneutics. The second approach is a more holistic one that views justice as
distribution and sees the Bible as a program of social transformation. This second
perspective will be called liberation hermeneutics, though this term is also limited and
imprecise. In the light of post-colonialism, genitive hermeneutics have been brought to
the center stage of biblical studies, and it is now common to speak about Latin American,
African, Asian, Native American, Latino, Black, and Feminist hermeneutics.
Liberation, though a loaded term that raises all sorts of red flags for more conservative
evangelicals, is an umbrella expression for these hermeneutical streams, among others.

Historical Criticism, the West, and Enlightenment

Biblical studies in the West is a rich, vast, and productive field. Several
different approaches may be put under the broad umbrella of Western hermeneutics,
many of which have competing and even opposing claims. It is possible, however, to
speak about a broad tendency in Western hermeneutics, at least in theological education.
According to Dale Martin (2008, 2-3), almost all postgraduate education in biblical
studies depends heavily on the historical-critical method. Although acknowledging
that schools self-defined as evangelical tend to affirm the usage of a grammaticalhistorical method, Martins definition encompasses both: the use of linguistic and
historical analysis to establish the ancient meaning of the language of biblical texts
(2008, 9). He arrives at an interesting conclusion about this method and its promoters:

17
Apparently, in spite of some of the best intentions of biblical scholars in
theological schools, the perceptions of their students and their colleagues
sometimes suggest that students are learning mainly historical-critical
approaches to Scripture along with the notion that other meanings of the
text may be inappropriate or at best secondary. In worst cases, biblical
scholars are actively playing roles as gatekeepers for biblical
interpretation. (2008, 17)
Martin not only highlights the predominance of the historical-critical method in
theological education but also exposes the position of professors as sanctioners (or
censors, if one takes a more negative perspective). More importantly, the concrete effect
of studying other perspectives only briefly is the reinforcement of the official method,
since other approaches are classified, in Martins words, as inappropriate or secondary.
Although the historical-critical and grammatical-historical methods are
certainly relevant to the pursuit of meaning in the biblical texts, there are some notable
limitations to both. The first is a de-historicization and de-contextualization of the reader
of a historical and contextualized text. Tan (2010, 61) points to the fact that this method
rightfully speaks about the need to reconstruct the historical context of the biblical texts
but fails to see the need to do the same regarding the reader or even the reading process.
A second critique of the method is that it produces a narrow interpretation
that creates a single-meaning approach to reading Scriptures. This method proposes a
mechanistic, modern, autonomous, and rationalistic study of the text, governed by proper
tools and a comprehensive critical apparatus that should in theory lead the reader to the
one true meaning of a certain passage.
This approach is an heir of the Enlightenment, and it ends up repressing
other possible readings of the text. Brueggemann speaks about this indirect effect:
Historical criticism has become a mode of silencing the text by eliminating
its artistic, dramatic subversive power It is nonetheless clear that

18
historical criticism is no objective, disinterested tool of interpretation, but
it has become a way to trim texts down to the ideology of Enlightenment
reason and autonomy and to explain away from the text all the hurts and
hopes that do not conform with the ideology of objectivity. (1992, 64-65
italics added)
As Brueggemann points out, the material result of one reading cannot be considered the
only meaning of a text, since all interpretations, even supposedly objective ones, are
interested and loaded with presuppositions and tensions.
Conversely, John Woodbridge (1986) refutes the hypothesis that biblical
objectivism was a creation of the Enlightenment era. According to him, there is a long
tradition, tracing back to Augustine, of considering the Bible to be objectively true.
Implicit in this statement is the idea that objective truth has only one face. From an
evangelical point of view, it is possible to agree with Woodbridge. Yes, the Bible is
objectively true. However, this agreement does not bestow the right to any school of
interpretation to claim ownership of that truthneither a genitive nor a supposedly
genitive-free reading is able to support such a claim.
According to the British theologian and hermeneutics scholar Anthony
Thiselton (1992), the claim of truth ownership made by the historical-critical method is
actually harmful and oppressive. Thiselton questions the possibility of applying
supposedly value-neutral exegetical tools to the biblical text and arriving at a meaning
that is close enough to the original one. He also expresses his great suspicion of the
neutrality of such tools. The intentions, political instance, context, and assumptions of the
reader all contribute to the construction of a body of knowledge that is interest-charged.
Though such objections may sound dangerously post-modern to some conservative
evangelicals, the question cannot be easily dismissed: what if traditional, Western

19
evangelical hermeneutics fail to bring a critique of neutrality claims, and in doing so end
up reinforcing current structural injustices?
This is not just a vague hypothesis. Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza criticizes
the prevailing hermeneutical approaches, stating that they lead to exactly this cycle:
The scientific ethos of biblical studies insists that readers must silence
their interests and abstract from sociopolitical situations in order to respect
the alien character of the text and the historical chasm between the
contemporary reader and the biblical text. This rhetoric of
disinterestedness and presupposition-free exegesis silences reflection on
the political interests and functions of biblical scholarship. Its claim to
public scientific status suppresses the rhetorical character of biblical texts
and readings and obscures the power relations through which they are
constituted and kept in place. (Schussler-Fiorenza 2009, 16italics
added)
In light of these and similar criticisms, Segovia speaks about a collapse of the
methodological and theoretical consensus that had been operative in biblical criticism for
quite a long period of time (Segovia 2003, 107). Here the discussion reaches a point of
no return, because the methodological consensus has collapsed.
There is, however, a fundamental point to be made. This consensus
collapse and the critiques above do not imply an abandonment of historical-critical or
grammatical approaches. They simply indicate that a new consensus, negotiated around
the table of the Kingdom, needs to be construed. In fact, much of genitive hermeneutics
makes good and thorough use of those classical methods, in their entirety or in part, but
maintains some distance from their pitfalls. Brueggemanns description of the two
trajectories in the Old Testament, explored at length in the first section of this paper, is
evidence of that, for his reading is a result of the use of historical-critical tools. The nonnegotiable issue for critics of Western hermeneutics is the fact that the biblical text can
no longer be read under claims of objective neutrality.

20
Another Reading is Possible: A Hermeneutics of Suspicion and Liberation

From a Latin American perspective, the methodological consensus has

been collapsing for almost half a century. Since the end of the 1960s, both Catholic and
evangelical theologians have been speaking in terms of liberation. Though presenting
different nuances and variations, Fernando Segovia correctly summarizes liberation
hermeneutics as the interpretation of biblical and related texts from a self-conscious
perspective and program of social transformation (2003, 106).
This self-conscious perspective is based on a highly suspicious attitude
towards doctrinal affirmations that claim to be value-free or neutral. At this point it is
important to stress that this suspicion extends toward both the other and the self.
There should be a fundamental recognition that our reading is as limited and filled with
interests and prejudices as the reading of the other. Instead of claiming to be free of
such inclinations, readers taking this perspective acknowledge and embrace them.
Bearing in mind this input, the task of biblical hermeneutics is not only to provide tools
for biblical reading, but also to make sure those tools are not sponsoring relationships and
structures of oppression. Arguably, every type of biblical reading should lead to
liberation: liberation from sin, from eternal death, and from evil. The point is, all of these
liberations should occur both personally and structurally.
If there is one single concept to be isolated as the most important for
liberation hermeneutics, it should be the perception that going to the Bible is a second
act (Gutierrez 1973; see also Segundo 1976). This expression conveys the idea that what
the people of God encounter first is not the biblical text, but their own concrete life, with
all its problems, struggles, and beauties. First, there is the experience of faith, of the

21
Triune Gods action among people in the world. Reflection about the Word of God in
light of these life experiences and circumstances comes later.7 In Majority World
contexts, such life experiences and circumstances are marked by the omnipresence of
human misery due to causes such as violence, poverty, inhuman living conditions,
hunger, homelessness, and political corruption. But although in the Majority World this is
an overt and overwhelming reality, it is also true that not even the worlds richest nation
is able to eradicate these conditions from its own context.
According to this reasoning, attempts to make sense of the Bible before
making sense of this reality may eventually lead into a kind of preaching that is dogmatic
but disconnected from life. Accurate propositions may be constructed, but they almost
unavoidably stand hanging in the air. Furthermore, this kind of reading could even
stimulate a personal disconnection from the world and an aspiration pointing exclusively
toward a future liberation at the end of time.
The commitment to a concrete, real, temporal liberation is also one of the
key themes liberation hermeneutics. In Latin America, one safeguard commonly used to
avoid the pitfall of an oppressive reading is political commitment. Political does not
refer to partisan politics, but to power relationships among human beings. Liberation
hermeneutics questions vehemently the assumption that one must maintain a neutral
position when reading the Bible. Its assumption is that the God of the Bible does not
remain neutral when it comes to human or political conflicts. He takes a position. He
makes a choiceand His option is usually for the oppressed (Gutierrez 1993, Sobrino
2008, Lohfink 1995).
7

The works by Gutierrez and Segundo mentioned above are foundational for the whole
Liberation Theology movement, but for a more comprehensive methodological approach, see Boff 1987.
For a very basic, but extremely helpful approach, see Boff and Boff 1987.

22
Summary and Generalization

This section questions the claim of neutrality and disinterestedness made

by classic Western hermeneutical methods such as historical-critical and grammaticalhistorical approaches, proposing an alternative approach that commits to special
attentiveness to the situation of the powerless. There are some commonalities between
the first two sections of this paper. The royal trajectory, as described in the last section,
claims neutrality as a central value for justice, while the prophetic trajectory emphasizes a
God who sides with the disenfranchised. These are the central claims of the perspectives
that have been described as Western and liberation hermeneutics.
At this point a tentative connection or generalization, to be further
explored in Section 4, may be suggested. Western readers who do not belong to minority
groups seem to favor a hermeneutical approach that values neutrality. Consequently, they
interpret a theme like justice from a position of presumed neutrality. For readers in the
Majority World or members of minority groups, an engaged view of hermeneutics seems
to make more sense, and justice will be seen in a similar fashion. It is not accidental that
several such contextual, engaged theologies have been seen as prophetic.

3. Curriculum Theories and Ideologies

This paper has been focusing on the general guiding question, how
should seminaries teach about justice from a holistic perspective? So far it has described
broad tendencies in the study of the theme of justice in the Old Testament and in

23
hermeneutics. The ancient tension between the traditional and the new, between
conservation and innovation has been a constant so far, even within the biblical text itself.
The present section will verify the existence of the same tension in the
field of curriculum studies and its correspondence to the motivating question of teaching
about justice. It will begin with a general presentation of the state of the debate on
curriculum theories and toward corresponding curricular models.

Curriculum Theories

Nailing Jell-O to the wall. This is how Wright (2000) summarizes his
attempt to describe major characteristics of the current state of curriculum studies in the
United States. It is easy to see his point. In a field that cannot come to agreement even on
a broad direction for the definition of its core concept (Marsh 2009), pinpointing
definitions and characteristics may be challenging. This may be why so many authors in
the field rely on analytical models or ideal types to make their assessments (see, for
example, Eisner 2002 [1979], Null 2011, Schiro 2008, Ellis 2004, Reid 2006). Using this
strategy, Wright succeeded in his attempt to nail Jell-O to the wall by concluding that
one of the main characteristics of curriculum theory is a non-reductionist tension between
traditional and reconceptualist approaches.
The traditional approach is epitomized by the so-called Tyler Rationale,
presented in Ralph Tylers Basic Principles of Curriculum Instruction (1949).
Considered the Bible of curriculum making (Jackson 1992, 24) and the single most
influential curriculum text ever written (Pinar et al. 2008, 148), the book is organized
around four questions that are intended to develop a rationale for viewing, analyzing and

24
interpreting the curriculum and instructional program of an educational institution (Tyler
1949, 1). The questions address four basic areas of the curriculum: objectives,
educational experiences, organization, and evaluation. In summary, the rationale urged
schools and educators to reflect on their educational purposes, choose experiences that
would enable such achievements, organize them effectively, and verify, at the end of the
process, whether the purposes were attained.
Critics of this linear paradigm assert that it may lead to curriculum
planning that tends to lean on behavioral and prescriptive (Slattery 2006), instrumental
(Kelly 2009), and technical (Reid 2006) approaches. A key critique comes from Kliebard
(1970), who employs a language that has already been thoroughly used within this paper,
asserting that Tyler assumes a value-neutral view of curriculum.
On the other hand, it is impossible to escape from some of the points
raised by Tyler. For instance, the idea of clarifying aims and objectives in order to think
about curriculum is also present in other approaches. Tanner and Tanner (2007, 134)
even affirm that although various modifications have been proposed, Tylers explication
of the curriculum paradigm has not been fundamentally changed. The disagreement does
not concern the issues Tyler included in his rationale, but an entire set of layers and
assumptions that were not included. Curriculum theorizing is not just a matter of
reflecting on what educational objectives or content are going to be addressed, but also
whose knowledge is going to be celebrated, or how this knowledge was constructed.
Apple summarizes the idea by noting that what counts as core knowledge has all too
often been someones core, not everyones core (2008, 35).

25
Aiming to address such unanswered questions, the reconceptualist
approach took shape in the 1970s. Deemed by some as a true paradigm shift in
curriculum studies (Pinar et al. 2008, 186), it consisted of an attempt to rebuild concepts
and methods in this field. Slattery argues that this approach indicates that we can no
longer remain ahistorical, detached, and behaviorally objective (2006, 70), and
suggests relating historical events to the autobiographies of teachers and students.
The shape of the reconceptualist field is diverse, with different approaches
dialoguing with different social science theories. In fact, some authors, including Null
(2008), point to a three-fold division in the field, drawing on a sociological or critical
pedagogy perspective as part of this trinomial. Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead
rightfully cry out against a grouping together of such disparate theorists as Elliot Eisner
and Henry Giroux (2006, 76). However, Wrights model does not ignore Nulls third
stream, but groups it in the broad realm of the reconceptualists. This position is supported
by Reid (1998), who prefers to label the traditional perspective dominant.
The bottom line is that there is indeed a creative spectrum in the field of
curriculum studies. Nuanced positions can be found all across the spectrum, but they tend
to gravitate around these two centers, traditional and reconceptual. Schubert asserts that,
despite differences within the movement, the shared perspective of reconceptualists
marked a decline of the dominant, traditional curriculum development model and an
infusion of an emphasis on moral purpose as well as social, political, and economic
justice (Schubert 2002, 194-197).
With this in mind, it is possible to locate a fundamental struggle in
curriculum theory around an issue that also produces a creative tension in hermeneutics:

26
scholars are increasingly aware of the fact that claims of objective neutrality are not
easily supported. The subsequent movement is toward an engaged scholarship. The
following paragraphs will focus on how this tension reflects on actual models of
curriculum.

Curriculum Ideologies in Tension

So far this discussion has centered on the general theoretical debate on

curriculum theory, but there is a practical implication of the duality between traditional
and reconceptualist approaches. Actual models or ideologies8 (Eisner 2002 [first edition
1979]) of curriculum may also be placed on a continuum that reflects the creative tension
between different approaches and eventually filters down to concrete issues such as the
study of justice in an evangelical seminary. There is a broader spectrum of models or
ideologies represented in the literature, but this paper will focus on two of them that are
more directly connected to the theoretical poles described above: the scholar academic
and social reconstructionist models.

The Scholar Academic Ideology

The scholar academic9 ideology emphasizes the mastery of disciplinary
knowledge. The school is seen as a place for socializing students into the realm of
8

The meaning of ideology in curriculum theory is more connected to a philosophical

undergirding of the curriculum than to an instrument of social reproduction and control, as Marxian
approaches understand this expression. Schiro, for instance, sees ideology as referring to a worldview that
embodies the way a person or group of people believes the world should be organized and function (2008, 8).
9
With very similar (although certainly nuanced) characteristics, other authors use
different labels for this model. For instance, Ellis (2004) uses knowledge-centered, Null (2011) and Reid
(2006) use systematic, and Deng and Luke (2008) and Eisner (2002) use academic rationalism.

27
hierarchical community (Schiro 2008, 25), in which they constitute the bottom of a
pyramid, with scholars on the top and teachers as intermediaries. In straightforward
terms, Ellis (2004, 93) describes the goal of this ideology as to learn the canon.
In theological studies, this ideology is exemplified by schools or programs
characterized by high degrees of specialization. Students will tend to do their research in
highly theoretical terms when they study areas such as systematic theology or biblical
studies, and practical issues are relegated to areas of pastoral or practical theology.
According to Schwab (1964), under this paradigm even the practical tends to be reframed
as theoretical. This separation between purely theoretical and more applied areas and
the transformation of the practical into the theoretical are marks of the scholar academic
ideology (Reid 2006, 48-49), testifying to its origins in the Enlightenment and
positivism.10
This approach stresses specialization and sees each discipline as more or
less independent and isolated. In practice, classes following this model emphasize the
state of the art of a discipline, chronologically describe its major discussions and
controversies, and lay out major figures in the field. The textbook is a centerpiece, both
as a normative or canonical guide and as an example of the rational, objective,
impersonal, neutral, and ordered shape that knowledge is supposed to take. The flipside is
that the textbook also exercises the function of the official arbiter of official knowledge
(Apple 2008).

10

The origin of the disciplined study of Practical Theology can be traced to Friedrich
Schleiermacher and his attempts to reconcile Enlightenment and theological thought in the early nineteenth
century. For an excellent discussion of this discipline and its place in the theological curriculum, see
Heitink 1999.

28
Both the metaphor of canon and Apples observation gain special
relevance when discussing theological education. Under a scholar academic perspective,
there is a risk in equating the theoretical development of disciplines such as biblical
studies with matters of faith and devotion. A theoretical disagreement with the academic
canon as expressed in the textbook, therefore, indicates unorthodoxywhat in religious
terms approaches heresy. Furthermore, many scholars and university professors view
curriculum as nothing but an extension of their specialized field (Null 2011, 30), and it
is not uncommon to have professors qualifying their discipline as the very center of the
theological process and acting accordingly.

The Social Reconstruction Ideology

The social reconstruction ideology11 starts with some basic assumptions.
First, it assumes that even in the most democratic societies, such as those found in North
Atlantic countries, democracy is tenuous and there are massive social strata living with
less freedom than their human dignity entitles them to experience. In other words, there is
a reality of oppression holding people back. Second, it assumes that education is always a
political activity (Freire 1993). Curricula that claim neutrality do nothing but reinforce
current social (dis)orders.
The assumptions above summarize the main goal of a social
reconstructionist approach to curriculum: the educational process should focus on
building a society that is more equal, free, and humane, paying special attention to those
who are downtrodden by systemic violence (Null 2011, 87; Schiro 2008, 133).
11

Once more, it is possible to find different expressions generally referring to the same
construct, including the terms radical (Null 2011 and Reid 2006) and society-centered (Ellis 2004).

29
Epistemologically, social reconstructionists understand that human experience,
education, truth and knowledge are socially defined (Schiro 2008, 143italics in the
original).
In the United States the social reconstructionist ideology houses several
perspectives with competing agendas. Scholars representing ethnic minorities, women,
homosexuals, and other groups that see themselves at the margins of society find shelter
under this ideology, firing their criticisms against official knowledge and its curriculum
(see Apple 2000). In a global setting, this ideology may also serve as an effective
curricular framework for evangelicals from Majority World contexts engaged in efforts
such as holistic mission or liberation hermeneutics.
A final remark about the social reconstructionist perspective relates to its
view of disciplinary knowledge: subject matter is a means, not an end (Null 2011, 109).
This is not, in principle, a rejection of disciplinary knowledge, but the mastery of
disciplines is seen not as an end in itself but as the means through which society will be
reconstructed.

Summary and Generalization

Is there a connection between political views and curriculum ideologies?

The answer seems to be yes. Social reconstructionist ideas are largely based on notions of
democracy and common good, and its proponents usually dialogue with Marxian and
Neo-Marxist theories. Conversely, political conservatives may be loosely connected to a
scholar academic framework, since they tend to favor simple forms of intervention
through content-based specifications for curriculum and elementary forms of

30
achievement testing (Reid 2006, 9) and underscore the importance of the transmission
of disciplinary knowledge for the development of the intellectual capacity of students and
for the maintenance and reproduction of culture (Deng and Luke 2008, 70italics
added).
It is not a major stretch to conclude with a final generalization, extending
the conclusion of Section 2: white Westerners have the tendency to emphasize a
royal/priestly view of justice, be influenced by a hermeneutical approach that assumes
neutrality, and prefer a scholar academic ideology for the curriculum of their theological
seminaries. On the other hand, Majority World scholars may identify themselves with
prophetic views of justice, feel more free to use an engaged hermeneutic, and plan
curriculum from a social reconstructionist perspective. Once more, the non-strict
character of such generalizations has to be emphasized. To put it simply, not all Majority
World evangelicals are leftists who embrace holistic mission, and not all Westerners are
rightists who prefer disciplinary knowledge. However, this broad-stroke painting still has
its value, since it does reflect the general state of the question and the sides of the debates
taking place in global evangelical forums.

4. Implications for Theological Seminaries

After discussing issues in biblical definitions of justice and evaluating the

hermeneutical and curricular dimensions of teaching justice, this paper will now focus on
integrating these three strands of discussion in order to draw insights for teaching justice
from a holistic perspective. Once more, the intention is not to present actual content or

31
methods, but to offer a framework from which seminaries may reflect about the
integration of these three elements in their educational practice.
This section proposes three suggestions for schools that want to embrace a
holistic perspective. In order to enhance their practice, these seminaries should strive for
harmony between biblical constructs, hermeneutics, and curriculum; they should embrace
and nurture the notion of divergence; and they should adopt interdisciplinarity as a
central value.

Harmony Between Biblical Constructs,

Hermeneutics, and Curriculum

The first concrete implication of this discussion for theological seminaries

embracing a holistic perspective is the need to establish a harmonious integration
between the three areas addressed in this paper. In simple words, these schools should
enhance their educational practice by privileging the prophetic view of justice, the
liberationist perspective on hermeneutics, and the social reconstructionist curriculum
ideology.
This is not a small issue. Many schools in the Majority World were
founded by Western organizations that tried to adapt their curricular models to the reality
of the mission field and its younger churches. Even newer schools, founded by nationals,
tended to structure their curricula around a scholar academic ideology that also celebrates
a North Atlantic theological heritage (see, for instance, Tennent 2007; Laing 2009;
Wright 2006; Werner 2010).

32
Although in such contexts there is a debt of gratitude to organizations in
the Global North for pioneering theological studies in the Global South, the concrete
result is a dissonance between what is studied in seminaries and the actual needs and
practices of Christian ministries. The challenge of integrating theological education and
ministerial practice is not exclusive to schools embracing a holistic perspective, nor is it
unique to Global South contexts (see, for example, Banks 1999), but in the specific
situation of Majority World seminaries longing for a holistic practice, the scholar
academic ideology, with its disciplinary structure and ethos, may not be the best option
for an educational practice that bridges theory and practical challenges. Bourdieu and
Passeron help explain why this is the case by describing curriculum as a powerful agency
that
tends to impose recognition of the legitimacy of the dominant culture [i.e.,
its values and knowledge] on the members of dominated groups or classes,
it tends at the same time to impose on them, by inculcation or exclusion,
recognition of the illegitimacy of their own (1977, 41).
In other words, through the normalization of an academic discourse that emphasizes
disciplinary knowledge over integration, schools with a holistic perspective using a
scholar academic curricular model may be inculcating in their students a perception that
their concerns are not legitimate in the academic context.
In summary, the focus on a closer relationship between justice and mission
demands a holistic approach to the biblical construction of the concept of justice, seeing
it not only as retribution but also as distribution. It also demands a hermeneutic of
commitment instead of neutrality. The biblical text must be seen as a program of both
individual and social transformation, not approached with a focus on the first and only
some hopes that the second will eventually occur. Finally, a closer relationship between

33
justice and mission demands a curricular ideology that moves away from a closed,
disciplinary approach to theological knowledge and looks for the construction of a
relevant theology that is closer to the actual needs of the people.

Nurturing Divergence

The most common feature of the three areas studied in this paper is a
creative tension that actually furthers knowledge. A prophetic look at the concept of
justice challenges the emphasis on a kind of retributive justice that punishes individual
crimes but allows structural sins to continue. The same happens with hermeneutics: a
liberation perspective challenges traditional Western. It is, however, impossible to do
liberation hermeneutics without an apparatus developed under the historical-critical or
grammatical approach. Finally, a reconstructionist view of curriculum challenges the
traditional approach by pointing out blind spots, but still makes use of some of its
foundational constructs.
In each of these developments, divergence played a pivotal role. In each
case, a new set of assumptions was constructed from an initial disagreement with the
traditional body of knowledge. The opposing visions described in this paper are not
simply light disputes, since real tensions are in place. In fact, Lloyd addresses these
tensions by calling them enmities, but argues that they are not only healthy but
necessary for the advancement of a discipline, since important insights have often
depended on a reaction to the work of those seen as intellectual rivals (2009, 27 n22).
The suggestion of considering the value of opposing viewpoints is also
more than just suggesting a superficial conciliatory or pluralistic speech. Disagreement is

34
necessary even for the self-understanding. Writing about the social psychology of
knowledge, Jovchelovitch (2006, 133) touches on this issue:
Without the capacity to see itself through a decentred perspective, which is
the perspective of the other, self cannot conceive of its own position
recognition is intertwined with a full appreciation of the perspective of the
other in its own right, that is, with an understanding that intrinsic to the
formation of self is the understanding of plurality of perspectives.
At the same time, however, a rough generalization indicates that established scholars in a
field tend to operate against innovation, since proposals for curriculum reform are often
resisted by those who see or imagine that their own expertise is in the process of being
superseded (Lloyd 2009, 176). Lloyd points to the fact that sometimes ideas are not
refused or fought on conceptual grounds, but are also a matter of personal visibility.
Conversely, one can argue more cynically (and reasonably) that innovators are not only
pushing new ideas or advocating betterments but also battling for a place in the spotlight.
Thomas Kuhn refers to an essential tension between divergence and
convergence (1977). According to him, every innovation in science begins with a
divergent way of studying a phenomenon that, if proven reasonable, will eventually lead
to a new convergence of studies. The consequence is that this essential tension should
be not only be welcomed, but nurtured, since the very essence of scientific progress is
based on it.
The point here is that such dissidence is also needed in theological studies.
Within a subject that is not only an object of study but is also loaded with personal and
religious commitments, the practice of such an idea is extremely difficult. Evangelical
students and professors should remember, however, that this tension is present in the very
pages of Scripture, as evidenced by a study of the Old Testament trajectories.

35
The bottom line for the study of justice in seminaries with a holistic
approach to mission is that schools should adopt a two-fold attitude. First, they much
realize that this holistic perspective is still seen as dissidence in the academic world and
be at peace with that. A focus on distributive justice naturally clashes with a focus on
justice as retribution. For evangelicals who embrace the former, the social order is seen to
be broken, and testifying to the lordship of God includes concrete social action and an
attitude of combating structural sin. For evangelicals focusing on the latter, sin is
personal, and social reform is a natural consequence of conversion and the fleshing out of
a sanctified life. Organizing a curriculum that questions the social order entails assuming
a posture of confrontation.
Second, it is necessary to welcome the disagreement of scholars who take
a more strict approach to hermeneutics, a retributive view of justice, and a linear
curriculum design. In fact, the embracement of one side of the debate described in this
paper need not imply the exclusion of the other. The best teaching of justice as
distribution includes reflection on retribution, emphasizes an engaged hermeneutics while
using classic tools for reading the text, and is achieved through a curriculum that sharply
promotes a further integration among theological disciplines. This is the last suggestion
of this section: an interdisciplinary approach.

Interdisciplinarity
Like social justice, interdisciplinarity is an issue whose popularity may
generate a strong first reaction that attracts or repels different audiences. However, this
proposal for interdisciplinarity goes beyond the mere repetition of a buzz word, since

36
interdisciplinarity is a both a consequence and a requirement of the hermeneutical and
curricular options suggested here. At a very elementary level, the overcoming of what
this paper has referred to and criticized as objective neutrality demands a strong dialogue
with social sciences. Dialogue with social sciences is foundational to the identity of both
liberation hermeneutics and the social reconstructionist view of curriculum, since both
require critical interpretation of the socio-political context.
It is important, however, to be careful with this celebration of
interdisciplinarity. Though arriving at different conclusions than this section proposes,
Louis Menand issues an important warning about this. His point is that, although scholars
keep referring to interdisciplinarity as a quasi-magical solution for problems such as
academic siloing and as a somewhat superior order of knowledge in comparison to
outmoded disciplinary approaches, inter-disciplinarity actually requires the existence
disciplines (2010). Foster also refers to this fact, and adds a very relevant concern: many
young people now come to interdisciplinary work before they come to disciplinary work.
As a result they often fall into an eclecticism that does little work on any one discipline
(1998, 162). Disciplines and interdisciplinarity should therefore not be seen as opposites
or alternatives, but as complementary approaches.
With this complementary mindset, Lloyd points out that disciplines may
indeed be constraining, but they are also liberating since they enable the student
potentially to reach the frontiers of knowledge in the field (2009, 181). Schiro further
indicates that the scholar academic concern with disciplinary knowledge has done much
to give intellectual vitality, excitement, depth, rigor, and currency to the school
curriculum (2008, 49). It is indeed necessary to appreciate the kind of structure,

37
specialization, and deep analysis made possible because of the disciplinarization of
knowledge in modernity. Bruner helps connect this idea to curriculum studies by noting
that designing curricula in a way that reflects the basic structure of a field of knowledge
requires the most fundamental understanding of the field (1977, 32). In a sense, other
curriculum approaches will end up relying on the most fundamental understandings of
certain fieldseven if their goal is to deconstruct a field.
The design of a curriculum with an emphasis on justice is greatly
improved by the resources offered by a disciplinary model. In practice, this means that a
reflective practitioner concerned with the development of ministerial models in a
contextual situation will profit from the insights of specific disciplines in biblical studies
or systematics. A comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to the issue of justice will
therefore require a solid foundation in the theological disciplines.

Conclusion

The last section sought to integrate the issues raised in the other three
sections by pointing out some possible implications for the relationship between Old
Testament concepts of justice, hermeneutics, and curriculum for theological education.
The idea of harmony between these three areas has already figured in this discussion, and
one last element may appear as a proper way to conclude this reflection.
The German theologian Jrgen Moltmann is certainly someone who
operates under an engaged view of justice and hermeneutics. As a personal reflection
about his walk of theological reflection, the following quote provides an excellent
illustration of how to integrate the concepts described in this paper.

38
For me, theology was, and still is, an adventure of ideas. It is an
open, inviting path. Right down to the present day, it has continued
to fascinate my mental and spiritual curiosity. My theological
methods therefore grew up as I came to have a perception of the
objects of theological thought. The road emerged only as I walked
in. And my attempts to walk it are of course determined by my
personal biography, and by the political context and historical
kairos in which I live. I have searched for the right word for the
right time Theology springs out of a passion for Gods kingdom
and its righteousness and justice, and this passion grows up in the
community of Christ. In this passion, theology becomes
imagination for the kingdom of God in the world, and for the world
in Gods kingdom. (2000, xv-xviitalics in the original)
Many elements could be explored in this beautiful summary of Moltmanns walk as a
theologian, but this conclusion will restrict itself to three particular elements as they
relate to this papers contents: first, a road that emerged as he walked in connects to the
discussion of curriculum; second, the perception of objects of theological thought leads
to the issue of hermeneutics; and third, Moltmanns mention of a passion for Gods
kingdom and its justice points to a view of justice that is close to a prophetic
perspective.
Moltmann perfectly synthesizes the harmonious relationship between
these three topics. It is not possible to think in terms of a sequential, linear relationship
between them, as if a certain curriculum led to a particular hermeneutical approach,
which in its turn led to a single understanding of justice. All of these elements are
integrated, and each develops organically in relationship to the others. The walk through
the theological curriculum takes place from the perception of theological objects and is
fed by a passion for justice. This very same passion helps to correct such a walk, helping
to establish better paths, which in turn lead to new theological objects.

39
Biblical concepts of justice, hermeneutics, and theological curriculum
should function in the same way. The study of each of these three elements requires
changes and enhancements in the others. They function much as Berger and Luckmann
articulate a social construction of reality in terms of internalization, exteriorization, and
objectivation (1966). This open and dynamic relationship should stimulate all players
involved in theological education, whether they are scholars, professors, students, or
curriculum planners, and whether they work under a holistic or a traditional framework,
to keep pursuing the right word for the right time and to keep developing imagination
for the kingdom of God in the world, and for the world in Gods kingdom.

REFERENCE LIST

Apple, Michael W. 2008. Curriculum planning: content, form, and the politics of
accountability. In The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction, edited by F.
M. Connelly, M. F. He and J. Phillion. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
_____. 2000. Official knowledge: democratic education in a conservative age. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Banks, Robert J. 1999. Reenvisioning theological education: exploring a missional
alternative to current models. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.
Bennett, Harold. 2006. Justice. In The New Interpreter's dictionary of the Bible.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality; a
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Boff, Clodovis. 1987. Theology and praxis: epistemological foundations. Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books.
Boff, Leonardo, and Clodovis Boff. 1987. Introducing liberation theology. Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society
and culture, Sage studies in social and educational change v 5. London ; Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Brueggemann, Walter. 1979. Trajectories in Old Testament literature and the sociology
of Israel. In Journal of Biblical Literature: Society of Biblical Literature.
___________. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, dispute, advocacy.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
___________. 2010. Journey to the common good. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press.
___________. 2011. Out of Babylon. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Brueggemann, Walter, and Patrick D. Miller. 1992. Old Testament theology: essays on
structure, theme, and text. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1977. The process of education. Cambridge,: Harvard University
Press.

40

41
Burnside, Jonathan P. 2011. God, justice, and society: aspects of law and legality in the
Bible. Oxford ; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Cannon, Mae Elise. 2009. Social justice handbook: small steps for a better world,
BridgeLeader books. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books.
Carpenter, Joel A. 2006. The Christian Scholar in an Age of Global Christianity. In
Christianity and the soul of the university: faith as a foundation for intellectual
community, edited by D. V. Henry and M. D. Beaty. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic.
Carroll R, M. Daniel. 2008. Christians at the border: immigration, the church, and the
Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
Crosby, Robert C. 2011. A New Kind of Pentecostal. Christianity Today, August 2011.
Deng, Zongyi, and Allan Luke. 2008. Subject matter: defining and theorizing school
subjects. In The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction, edited by F. M.
Connelly, M. F. He and J. Phillion. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Eisner, Elliot W. 1979. The educational imagination: on the design and evaluation of
school programs. New York: Macmillan.
______. 2002. The educational imagination: on the design and evaluation of school
programs. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, Arthur K. 2004. Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on
Education.
Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. 2000. Divided by faith: evangelical religion
and the problem of race in America. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University
Press.
Enns, Peter. 1998. Mispat. In New international dictionary of Old Testament theology &
exegesis, edited by W. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub.
House.
Escobar, Samuel. 2000. Evangelical missiology: peering into the future at the turn of the
century. In Global missiology for the 21st century: the Iguassu dialogue, edited
by W. D. Taylor. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
______. 2003. The new global mission: the Gospel from everywhere to everyone,
Christian doctrine in global perspective. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Foster, Hal. 1998. Trauma studies and interdisciplinarity. In The anxiety of
interdisciplinarity, edited by A. Coles and A. Defert. London, UK: BACKless
Books/Black Dog.
Freire, Paulo. 1993. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New rev. 20th-Anniversary ed. New
York: Continuum.

42
Glatthorn, Allan A., Floyd Boschee, and Bruce M. Whitehead. 2006. Curriculum
leadership: development and implementation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Grudem, Wayne A. 2010. Politics according to the Bible: a comprehensive resource for
understanding modern political issues in light of Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan.
Gutirrez, Gustavo. 1973. A theology of liberation: history, politics, and salvation.
Maryknoll, N.Y.,: Orbis Books.
Heaney, Sharon E. 2008. Contextual theology for Latin America: liberation themes in
evangelical perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Heitink, Gerben. 1999. Practical theology: history, theory, action domains: manual for
practical theology, Studies in practical theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co.
Henry Center for Theological Understanding. Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the
Mission of the Church? 2012 [cited 3/6/2012]. Available from
http://www.henrycenter.org/ programs/trinity-debates/.
Hoffmeier, James Karl. 2009. The immigration crisis: immigrants, aliens & the Bible.
Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Jackson, Philip W. 1992. Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In
Handbook of research on curriculum: a project of the American Educational
Research Association, edited by P. W. Jackson. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.
Jenkins, Philip. 2002. The next Christendom: the coming of global Christianity. Oxford ;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Philip. 2006. The new faces of Christianity: believing the Bible in the global
south. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Keller, Timothy J. 2010. Generous justice: how God's grace makes us just. 1st ed. New
York, N.Y.: Dutton, Penguin Group USA.
Kelly, A. V. 2009. The curriculum: theory and practice. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Kliebard, Herbert M. 1970. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. New
York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Knierim, Rolf P. 1995. The task of Old Testament theology: substance, method, and
cases: essays. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans.
Koch, Klaus. 1983. Is there a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament ? In Theodicy
in the Old Testament, edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

43
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and
change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laing, Mark. 2009. Recovering missional ecclesiology in theological education.
International Review of Mission Apr 2009.
Lloyd, G. E. R. 2009. Disciplines in the making: cross-cultural perspectives on elites,
learning, and innovation. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Longman III, Tremper. 2008. Proverbs 1: Book of. In Dictionary of the Old Testament:
wisdom, poetry and writings, edited by T. a. P. E. Longman III. Downers Grove,
Il: InterVaristy Press Academic.
Marsh, Colin J. 2009. Key concepts for understanding curriculum. 4th ed, The teacher's
library. London ; New York: Routledge.
Martin, Dale B. 2008. Pedagogy of the Bible: an analysis and proposal. 1st ed.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.
McArthur, Jan. 2010. Time to look anew: critical pedagogy and disciplines within higher
education. Studies in Higher Education 35 (3):301-315.
McCracken, Brett. 2010. Hipster Christianity: when church and cool collide. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
McDougall, Joy Ann. 2005. Pilgrimage of love: Moltmann on the Trinity and Christian
life, Reflection and theory in the study of religion. Oxford ; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Menand, Louis. 2010. The marketplace of ideas. 1st ed, Issues of our time. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Moltmann, Jrgen. 2000. Experiences in theology: ways and forms of Christian theology.
1st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Mott, Stephen, and Ronald Sider. 1999. Economic justice: a biblical paradigm. In Toward
a just and caring society: Christian responses to poverty in America, edited by D.
P. Gushee. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Boooks.
Null, J. Wesley. 2008. Curriculum development in historical perspective. In The SAGE
handbook of curriculum and instruction, edited by F. M. Connelly, M. F. He and
J. Phillion. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Null, J. Wesley. 2011. Curriculum: from theory to practice. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Padilla, C. Ren. 1985. Mission between the times: essays. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co.

44
Pinar, William, William M. Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter Maas Taubman. 2008.
Understanding curriculum: an introduction to the study of historical and
contemporary curriculum discourses, Counterpoints,. New York: P. Lang.
Rah, Soong-Chan. 2009. The next evangelicalism: releasing the church from Western
cultural captivity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books.
Rauschenbusch, Walter. 1907. Christianity and the social crisis. New York: Macmillan
Co.
Reid, William A. 1998. "Reconceptualist" and "Dominant" Perspectives in Curriculum
Theory: What Do They Have to Say to Each Other? Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision 13 (3):287-96.
Reid, William Arbuckle, and J. Wesley Null. 2006. The pursuit of curriculum: schooling
and the public interest. 2nd ed, Research in curriculum and instruction.
Greenwich, Conn.: IAP, Information Age Pub.
Sanneh, Lamin O. 2003. Whose religion is Christianity?: the gospel beyond the West.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.
Schiro, Michael. 2008. Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Schubert, William Henry. 2002. Curriculum books: the first hundred years. 2nd ed,
Counterpoints,. New York: P. Lang.
Schssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 2009. Democratizing biblical studies: toward an
emancipatory educational space. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.
Segovia, Fernando F. 2000. Decolonizing biblical studies: a view from the margins.
Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.
_______. 2003. Liberation Hermeneutics: Revisiting the Foundations in Latin America.
In Toward a new heaven and a new earth: essays in honor of Elisabeth Schssler
Fiorenza, edited by F. F. Segovia. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.
Segundo, Juan Luis. 1976. Liberation of theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.
Seifrid, M. 2000. Justice. In New dictionary of biblical theology, edited by T. D.
Alexander and B. S. Rosner. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Shogren, Gary. 1996. Justice. In Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, edited by W.
A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Mich.Carlisle, Cumbria: Baker Books; Paternoster
Press.
Slattery, Patrick. 2006. Curriculum development in the postmodern era. 2nd ed. New
York: Routledge.
Stott, John R. W. 1999. Evangelical truth: a personal plea for unity, integrity, and
faithfulness. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

45
Tan, Yak-hwee 2010. Social location: dis-ease and/or dis-cover(y). In Transforming
graduate biblical education: ethos and discipline, edited by E. Schssler Fiorenza
and K. H. Richards. Boston: Brill.
Tanner, Daniel, and Laurel Tanner. 2007. Curriculum development: theory into practice.
4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tennent, Timothy C. 2007. Theology in the context of world Christianity: how the global
church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan.
Thiselton, Anthony C. 1992. New horizons in hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Pub. House.
Travis, Stephen. 2008. Christ and the judgment of God: the limits of divine retribution in
the New Testament thought. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster.
Tyler, Ralph W. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago,:
University of Chicago Press.
Wallis, Jim. 2005. God's politics: why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.
1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Werner, Dietrich. 2010. Handbook of theological education in world Christianity:
theological perspectives-- regional surveys--ecumenical trends, Regnum studies
in global Christianity. Oxford: Regnum Books International.
Wolcott, Harry F. 2011. "If there's going to be an anthropology of education...". In A
companion to the anthropology of education, edited by B. A. Levinson and M.
Pollock. Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Woodbridge, John D. 1986. Some misconceptions of the impact of the "Enlightenment"
on the doctrine of Scripture. In Hermeneutics, authority, and canon, edited by D.
A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books.
Wright, Christopher J. H. Addressing the NorthSouth Divide 2006. Available from
http://icete-edu.org/pdf/C-06%20Wright%20Addressing%20the%20NorthSouth%20Divide.pdf.
Wright, Handel Kashope. 2000. Nailing Jell-O To the Wall. Educational Researcher 29
(5):4-13.