Review of

Benjamin Valentín, ed. In Our Own Voices: Latino/a Renditions of Theology. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2010), 197 pp.

Reviewer: Robert J. Rivera riverarc@bc.edu.

In Our Own Voices, edited by Benjamin Valentín, brings together a stellar group of U.S. theologians, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to reflect on, reassess, and reformulate Christian themes and doctrines from a distinctively Latino/a theological perspective. Engaging biblical texts, Christian and non-Christian traditions, contemporary formulations of doctrines, as well as cultural and theoretical resources, In our Own Voices “seeks to contribute to the discussion of key theological concepts and doctrines within Latino/a theology specifically and in the field of theology more generally” (p. xiii). Six areas of theological reflection are addressed: the doctrines and symbols of God, creation, theological anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

Valentín points out that U.S. Latino/a theology “has burst forth with all sorts of important interpretive innovations in the last thirty years or so” (p. xi). These “influential theological innovations” (Segovia, 1996, p. 19) are readily attested to in systematic and constructive theology, biblical studies, feminist theologies and ethics, pastoral theology, and social ethics. These innovations include theological appropriations and critiques of the concept of mestizaje (i.e., racial and cultural hybridity); an understanding of popular religion as a source for Latino/a theology; an emphasis on the epistemological and hermeneutical importance of lo cotidiano (i.e. daily lived reality); the development of a collaborative model of theology (teologia en conjunto); the use of postcolonial theory in biblical and theological studies, and many more.

Valentín is concerned, however, that this list of accomplishments offers little evidence of a sustained and persistent interest in the study of classical theological loci, or in the analysis of Latino/a theology’s recent handling of them (p. xii). Though there have been studies devoted to particular doctrines (e.g., Christology and theological anthropology), Valentín notes the lack of “formal, systematic, and reconstructive” analyses of key Christian symbols and themes (p. xii). He makes clear that Latino/a theologians have undertaken serious analysis of theological doctrines, but suggests “that we [U.S. Latino/a theologians] can add to our ingenuity by exploring the possible meanings and applicability of the different Christian symbols, concepts, and doctrines more often and in a more methodical and intentional manner” (p. xii, emphasis mine).

The impetus for this book, then, lies in Valentín’s initiative to respond to what he deems the reasonable and sound request for “a greater level of theological reflection on matters of doctrine or on the configurations of classical theological themes within Latino/a theology” (p. xiii). Interpreting, scrutinizing, and reformulating are important tasks that Valentín takes to be integral to understanding the potential meanings of theological doctrines. Indeed, he thinks it behooves Latino/a theologians to engage in this type of effort and continue adding to the Latino/a doctrinal corpus. Toward this end, he enlists a diverse group of Latino/a theologians to critically examine, evaluate, and elaborate on some of the main theological loci.

While not ignoring their Western European, North American, Central and South American counterparts, the authors nevertheless speak in their own voices. This is in keeping with Latino/a theology’s early insistence that, as articulated by Orlando O. Espín, “‘we are we’ and therefore ‘we are not they’” (2005, p. 100). Distinctly Latino/a sources and categories are privileged in their approaches to and analyses of key Christian doctrines. No longer silent strangers, Latinos/as have discovered their distinctive theological voices, and have employed them in the academy for several decades. This volume represents further evidence of the maturity, creativity, and vibrancy of U.S. Latino/a theological voices. The authors represent diverse approaches, perspectives, religious and cultural backgrounds. This diversity is not a difficulty to be overcome in the name of unity; rather, it is a fact to be celebrated and embraced.

Beginning with the doctrine of God, Luis N. Rivera-Pagán offers a clear and concise analysis of the social-historical context for the emergence of liberation theologies, which “brought to the conversation not only a new theme—liberation—but also a new perspective on doing theology and a novel way of referring to God’s being and action in history” (p.1). He points to a “vigorous reawakening of liberation theology” (p. 14-15) in the face of current forces of oppression, marginalization, and violence. The next two essays take up the theme of creation. Jeanette Rodriguez elaborates what she calls “La Tierra Theologies” (i.e., a theology of and for the earth), drawing on biblical writings, Catholic tradition, Hispanic/ Latino(a) cultural resources, familial religio-cultural sources, and voices of Latin American religio-cultural ancestors (p. 21). She emphasizes the interconnectedness between people and land, the dignity of both creation and creature, and advocates for justice for the earth and all its inhabitants.

Carmen Nanko-Fernádez’s essay is one that merits particular attention given her explicit, critical and constructive use of postcolonial theory. Nanko-Fernández’s essay takes into account the daily reality of hybridity that Latinos/as experience in urban spaces and places. Theirs is a reality “marked by fluidity in languages, traditions, migrations, cultures, identities, and even in the ethnic and racial constitution of families” (p. 44). Her essay employs a “postcolonial lens with a cosmo-politan optic” attending to the “intersections of cosmos and city” (p. 44). Analyzing a text from Genesis 1 that has been influential on the reflections of Latino/a theologians’ understandings of creation, she goes on to critically evaluate the proposals of three Latino/a theologians with regards to creation, and finally puts forth her own proposal.

Nanko-Fernández’s “cosmo-politan” perspective attends to the intersecting relations between cosmos and metropolis, a space where peoples and cultures negotiate new ways of living together. This is a space that may result in “voice and visibility to a whole series of social, ethnic, cultural, and sexual persons and sectors that are usually deprived of any voice or image, and that are never represented on maps or in tourist guides” (Cortés, 2008, p. 10, cited in Valentín, p. 44). Further, this is a space that takes seriously the relation between creation, eschatology, and ethics (p. 59).

Michelle A. González’s essay centers on theological anthropology. González offers an overview of Augustine, Aquinas, and Rahner, and surveys contemporary Latino/a thinking related to anthropological matters. Drawing from, and expanding on, historical and contemporary voices, she elaborates a theological anthropology that takes the concrete faith and lives of Latino/a communities seriously. She highlights four themes particular to a Latino/a anthropology: mestizaje/mulatez (plurality and difference); community/family; relationships; and grace and culture (p. 71). She further adds the dimension of race in relation to our notions of the human—an area awaiting further development by Latino/a scholars. Rubén Rosario-Rodríguez (2008) is a Latino theologian who has explicitly engaged race from a Latino/a perspective.

Benjamin Valentín’s and Michael E. Lee’s essays reflect on Latino/a Christology. Valentín evaluates the Christological articulations of three Latino/a theologians, highlighting their contributions and engaging in a constructive critique. He discerns three Christological patterns in the works examined: an inclination toward a Christology from below, a “penchant for a high Christology,” and an espousal of a liberationist Christology (p. 107-108). Lee’s essay reflects on the “Christ-word” put forth by Latino/a theologians (p.113). Lee summarizes three important insights—an openness to new voices, an emphasis on the life and ministry of Jesus, and reflections on discipleship—that “signal key changes in how Christology must be done in the future” (p. 115-117). Lee goes on to note three main contributions to Christology from a Latino/a perspective: the aesthetic, cultural, and prophetic dimensions. Lee suggests that younger generations of Latinos/as can take the Christ-word uttered by a previous generation and proclaim it in new ways—ways that give heed to and empower the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, and challenge elite voices to a kenosis of privilege and power.

The essays by Roberto S. Goizueta and Harold J. Recinos address ecclesiology. Goizueta  suggests that, “when undertaken from the perspective of contemporary U.S. Latino/a experience and theologies emerging from that experience, a critical retrieval of Catholic ecclesiology will highlight particular aspects of the notion of the church that can be liberating and countercultural vis-à-vis both the larger church and society” (p. 133). Goizueta critically retrieves and concretizes different ecclesiological models, making them more amenable to the experiences and contexts of U.S. Latinos/as. The result is an ecclesiology that emphasizes communion, sacrament, people (i.e., “people of God,” and “the crucified people”), and the multi-discursive, borderland nature of the church (p. 140). Recinos explores the identities and mission of mainline Protestant churches, arguing that these churches “can find God in the details of hip-hop culture, which is a public site of learning that provides a voice to voiceless youth—a voice that offers renewal for Christian experience” (p. 156). Recinos challenges a mentality present in some sectors of society and the church that is pessimistic and dismissive of the contributions that urban youth can make to church and society. He emphasizes that hip-hop, and rap in particular, “is something good from the barrios and slums, stories about life experiences, perspectives with which to renew church and ministry” (p. 164).

Finally (no pun intended), Ada Maria Isasi-Díaz discusses the subject of eschatology, inquiring into the biblical metaphor of the “kingdom of God.” She notes the transformations this metaphor has undergone, and how to it “endorses understandings that counter the values that can be ascertained from the Gospels” (p. 172). The misuse of the metaphor “kingdom of God” leads Isasi-Díaz to introduce a new metaphor, “kin-dom of God,” from a specifically mujerista (i.e., womanist) perspective. Kin-dom of God opens “new vistas as to how to live the Gospel message of justice and peace in our world in the twenty-first century,” resonates with the importance of family in Latino/a cultures, and promotes mutuality and equality of relationships (p. 186).

Two observations are in order. First, had the book offered two essays for each doctrine analyzed, there would have been a greater diversity of perspectives. Second, given Valentín’s concern about the scarcity of doctrinal analyses within Latino/a theology, the absence of essays on pneumatology and soteriology represent a notable omission. The work of Samuel Solivan (1998) has been crucial in articulating a pneumatology from a Hispanic Pentecostal perspective; yet, there remains further work to be done engaging pneumatology from broader denominational and dialogical perspectives. The recent work of Michael E. Lee (2009), and Nancy Pineda-Madrid (2011), are major contributions to the development of soteriology from Latino/a perspectives.

In Our Own Voices is a critical, creative, and constructive contribution to contemporary theology, and more specifically to Latino/a theology, and should be required reading for courses in theology. The book also furthers ecumenical and collaborative efforts taking place among Protestant and Roman Catholic Latino/a theologians (see Espín, 2009). The essays demonstrate a common commitment to “inquire into the contours and meanings of classical Christian themes and doctrine,” and a unity in the belief that Latinos/as “have made and can continue to make a great contribution to the field of theology” (p. xvi-vii). The editor and the publisher are to be commended for putting forth such a fine volume.     

References

Espín, Orlando O. ed. Building Bridges, Doing Justice: Constructing A Latino/a Ecumenical Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009.

________. “The State of U.S. Latina/o Theology.” In Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta, and Eldin Villafañe, eds., Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21^st Century: Apuntes in Honor of Justo L. Gonzalez  (pp. 98-116). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.

Cortés, José Miguel G. Dissident Cartographies. Madrid: Seacex, 2008.

Lee, Michael E. Bearing the Weight of Salvation: The Soteriology of Ignacio Ellacuria. New York: Crossroad/Herder & Herder, 2009.

Pineda-Madrid, Nancy. Suffering and Salvation in Cuidad Juárez. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011.

Rosario-Rodríguez, Rubén. Racism and God-Talk: A Latino/a Perspective. New York: NYU Press, 2008.

Segovia, Fernando F. “Introduction: Aliens in the Promised Land: The Manifest Destiny of U.S. Hispanic American Theology.” In Fernando F. Segovia and Ada María Isasi-Díaz, eds., Hispanic/Latino Theology: Challenge and Promise (pp. 15-44). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Solivan, Samuel. The Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic Pentecostal Theology. New York: Continuum, 1998.

 Robert J. Rivera is a Ph. D. Candidate at Boston College.

Download PDF copy of review

Review of

Christopher Stanley, ed., The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes (Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), xvi+365 pp.

Reviewer: Christopher B. Zeichmann, christopher.zeichman@utoronto.ca

Given the obscurantism that often accompanies postcolonial criticism—as with other theory-dense frameworks—the mental gymnastics required to enter the discourse occasionally proves overwhelming to prospective students. In The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes, editor Christopher Stanley has collected sixteen essays on the apostle Paul with a logical progression to form a less intimidating introduction to the topic. While it is difficult to identify any single thematic or textual strand that runs through all the essays—except perhaps ambivalence to the notion of Christianity’s “pure origins”—this diversity of topic proves conducive to the book’s appeal. The volume is divided into three parts, with subdivisions within its longest section. The first part introduces the reader to key concepts within postcolonial studies. The second adopts various topics or loci within the Pauline corpus for analysis within a postcolonial framework (Acts, in general, plays little role in the volume). The concluding section contains essays that address the history of Pauline interpretation in relation to modern colonial projects. Throughout the volume, the “Paul and Politics” section of the Society of Biblical Literature, the work of Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, and the editorial work of Richard Horsley loom especially large. Several of the contributors have published monographs on Paul and the Roman Empire, including some in the same Fortress book series, Paul in Critical Contexts.

Stephen D. Moore’s chapter, “Paul after Empire,” provides a useful discussion of the status quaestionis for postcolonialism and Paul, and problematizes the common narrative that depicts Neil Elliott, Dieter Georgi, and Helmut Koester as the first to engage in “empire-attuned” (p. 16) Pauline scholarship. Moore instead argues that the beginnings are far more interdisciplinary than the historical-critical brand of scholarship that Horsley focuses on.

Suasan B. Abraham’s “Critical Perspectives on Postcolonial Theory” is a critical introduction to postcolonial concepts that are employed by later essays in the volume. She is particularly interested in two of its analytic frames: feminism and pedagogy. The increased prominence of postcolonial criticism within the academy, she argues, ultimately compromises its polemical force and political goals, rendering it an institution.

Neil Elliott’s “Marxism and the Postcolonial Study of Paul” notes the dearth of biblical scholarship that positively addresses both Marxism and postcolonialism, despite the overlapping concerns and methods of critique. He concludes by offering a lengthy series of “Marxist challenges” (p. 42) for postcolonial interpreters of Pauline literature.

In the second section, Jeremy Punt’s “Pauline Agency in Postcolonial Perspective,” begins a recurring theme throughout the work, namely the ambivalence Paul held toward the political institutions in his day. Critical of “this world,” Paul does not appear to have a problem with systems of domination, merely those who presently dominate.

Gordon Zerbe’s “The Politics of Paul” goes further and contends that outright contradictions exist between Paul’s various formulations on political institutions of his day, especially those of the “powers.” However, Paul’s apocalyptic worldview leads Zerbe to caution against identifying Romans 13 as the ultimate formulation of Paul’s opinion on the state.

Davina C. Lopez’s “Visualizing Significant Otherness” offers a provocative argument that even ostensibly liberationist biblical readings partake in the social hierarchies they condemn. In order to avoid the more problematic parts of Bhabha’s theory of hybridity (i.e., those most dependent on the linguistic turn), she proposes a greater focus on visual representations of hybridity in antiquity, particularly that of Trajan as the first non-Italian emperor.

L. Ann Jervis’s “Reading Romans 7 in Conversation with Postcolonial Theory” is a departure from the typical postcolonial analyses of the volume and instead employs Bhabha’s notion of hybridity as an analogy to Paul’s discussion of faith in Romans to his Jewish audience. Both men propose a struggle to achieve a “third space” (p. 97) that is not predetermined by colonial context.

Christopher D. Stanley’s “Paul the Ethnic Hybrid?” provides a helpful overview of Bhabha’s idea of hybridity including secondary literature that has elaborated upon or noted its shortcomings. He argues that the concept of hybridity is not as obviously applicable to the apostle Paul as is generally assumed.

Tat-Siong Benny Liew’s “Redressing Bodies at Corinth” addresses the intersection between politics of the body and politics of the empire, observing the loss of status that the Corinthians would have suffered due to conversion to the nascent Christ cult. Liew observes that Paul expends considerable effort in asserting his own masculinity to the congregation, held suspect because of his Asian identity, in the process conflating masculinity with social agency.

Joseph A. Marchal’s “Imperial Intersections and Initial Inquiries” addresses the shared goals of feminist and postcolonial biblical criticism. He draws attention to the methods of Musa Dube and Kwok Pui-lan, and in doing so suggests—like Punt earlier in the volume—that any opposition Paul expresses towards the Roman Empire is primarily because it is Roman and not because it advocates unequal social relations.

Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre and Laura S. Nasrallah’s “Beyond the Heroic Paul” is undoubtedly the most audacious essay in the book, contending that a truly postcolonial perspective on the Pauline epistles would decenter the apostle himself and focus on the manner in which his letters are “embedded in a contested, complex, and shifting context that includes both ancient empire and modern neocolonialism.” (p.167)

Jennifer G. Bird’s “To What End?” also takes up the meta-interpretive method and analyses the manner in which 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 acts as a locus of scholarly imperialism wherein exegetes identify with Paul in order to delimit (and thus control) the authority the apostle granted women in the Corinthian congregation.

Beginning the third section, Robert Paul Seesengood’s “Wrestling with the ‘Macedonian Call’” provides an historical look at how biblical missions and other colonial activities during the nineteenth century found ample justification for their practices through then-dominant readings of Paul.

Brigitte Kahl’s “Galatians and the ‘Orientalism’ of Justification by Faith” contends that Pauline polemic against certain Judaizing opponents has aided colonial agendas by providing convenient categories of faith and works that distinguish Westerners from Eastern colonial subjects. This reading, she contends, is diametrically opposed to the “depolarization of Self and Other” actually found in the epistle to the Galatians (p. 222).

Jae Won Lee’s “Paul, Nation, and Nationalism” draws upon the work of Aijaz Ahmad to argue that “progressive” nationalism and quests for transnational justice are not mutually exclusive (p. 230), as evinced in Korean nationalist language of reunification and Paul’s own desire for the reunification of Israel.

In “Constructions of Paul in Filipino Theology of Struggle,” Gordon Zerbe argues that three ways of addressing Paul predominate in late 20^th century liberation theology from the Philippines: overt criticism, disregard, and critical appropriation. This is demonstrated through an overview of numerous Filipino theologians.

Throughout the volume there is a tendency to engage postcolonial criticism first and use Paul as a site for thinking through the challenges that such theories offer, thereby suggesting the book’s subtitle “Paul through Postcolonial Eyes,” is entirely accurate. In terms of its accessibility, breadth, diversity of topics, and generally exegetical focus, it is easy to recommend—including to those not yet acquainted with the academic study of postcolonialism. Any number of essays will interest a given reader, regardless of their political background or theoretical interests. Precisely because so many of the essays were written to provoke, the book’s contents are particularly appropriate for use in a group discussion or seminar setting.

As seems common in biblical studies, there are few deviations from the theories engaged and, while the ideas of postcolonial criticism are relatively new for Pauline scholars, this intense focus on theory occasionally leads the contributors to overlook ample historical data that would aid their constructive enterprise. It is not always clear that the various forms of domination and subservience demonstrated are specifically imperial in terms of origins, assumptions, or articulation; one need not live in an empire to be sexist, xenophobic, etc. Consider for example Jeremy Punt’s discussion of the imperial context of Corinth, a matter that receives no attention in the essay after its summarization (p. 56–57). There are instances to the contrary (e.g., Marchal’s discussion of Paul as an imperial intermediary, Kahl’s discussion of Celtic warriors, Lopez’s comparison of Paul and Trajan), but many essays’ intense focus on theoretical concerns allows their eminently historical topics—Paul and various sites of comparison—to slide away from their distinctive contexts. Understandably, the contributors do not want to distract their readers with debates over composite letters or the demographic makeup of a given congregation, but these issues might have aided in offering concrete images for less experienced readers to draw upon.

Christopher Stanley has done a service in reprinting articles that were previously in more obscure venues as well as collecting new essays that are valuable contributions in their own right. One hopes they spur further interest in this topic.

Christopher B. Zeichmann is a doctoral student in the New Testament at Emmanuel College, Toronto.
Download review as PDF

Review of

Peniel Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and Possibilities
(Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010)

Reviewer: James Massey, cdss@bol.net.in

The origins of Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and Possibilities lie in author Peniel Rajkumar’s “personal discontentment at Dalit theology’s failure to be effective in a practical manner” (p. 183). Here one can see the deep feeling of a young Dalit theologian and a teacher in one of the most prestigious theological colleges in India. To understand such feeling one needs to know the history of contextual or liberation theologies.

“On the one hand,” Rajkumar argues, “we have the growing academic influence of Christian Dalit theology as a form of contextual theology, whereas on the other hand we have the glaring discrimination of Dalits within Christianity as well as the continued passivity of the Church to engage in issues of Dalit liberation. This incompatibility in my opinion is symptomatic of the practical inefficacy of Dalit theology. Dalit theology does not seem to have significantly influenced the social practice of the Indian Church” (p. 1). Rajkumar’s words are particularly true of the 1980s and 1990s, when Dalit theology took its roots, but the situation has changed much today.

In most cases, acceptance of a new theology by the Church and even by some in the academic world comes very slow. In the case of Dalit theology, acceptance came in a very short period of two decades, and today it has become part of the core curriculum of the Bachelor of Divinity of the Senate of Serampore College in West Bengal, India. It is true that response from the Churches is still slow, but during the last decade it has been gaining momentum. The best example of such a response is the keen interest both Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches (included their heads) have shown in my edited work, the Dalit Bible Commentary: New Testament (Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2008), while attending release functions in Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Vijayawada and Pune.

Besides the introductory and concluding chapters, Rajkumar has divided his work into two parts: the first consists of four chapters, in which he identifies the reasons behind the churches’ response to Dalit theology; the second part offers an alternative biblical paradigm for Dalit theology in three chapters.

In Chapter One Rajkumar makes a clear survey of the existing status of Dalit theology by posing three basic questions: “Why did Dalit theology emerge? What are its objectives? How does Dalit Theology attempt to achieve these objectives?” (p. 23). As part of the first generation of Dalit theologians, I must admit that the author has helped even me to understand the development of Dalit theology during the last two and half decades. As an answer to his first question, Rajkumar has referred to two most important pioneers of Dalit theology: M.E Prabhakar and A.P. Nirmal. He rightly quotes Prabhakar, according to whom Dalit theology emerged due to “the insensitivity of the Church and the Indian Christian theology to Dalit concerns” (Prabhakar, 1998, p. 203, cited in Rajkumar, 2010, p. 25). Building upon A.P. Nirmal’s argument, the author concludes “that no attention was paid to the oppression, suffering, aspirations and cultural expressions of Dalits as ingredients of a truly indigenous theology was an important contributory factor to the emergence of Dalit theology” (Nirmal, 1998, p. 215, 217, cited in Rajkumar, 2010, p. 36).

About the objectives of Dalit theology, Rajkumar quotes a number of earlier Dalit theologians, such as Franklyn Balasundaram, who argues that “Dalit theology should be informed by a transforming social vision based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity” (Balasundaram, 1997, p. 89-90, cited in Rajkumar, 2010, p. 41). But how will Dalit theology achieve these objectives? His answer is based in part on my own view that solidarity among Dalits (both Christian and non-Christians) is essential for the Dalit struggle because “only through a commitment to solidarity” can Dalits “generate power among themselves to face the challenge of their opponents” (Massey, 1997, p.78, cited in Rajkumar, 2010, p. 41).

Rajkumar has also looked into the caste discrimination against the Dalits. He is right in pointing out that “One of the failure of Dalit theology is that no sufficient study has been conducted so far on the far-reaching consequences of the notions of purity and pollution and the influence they wield on the ‘caste psyche’ with regards to Indian caste system. Rather there has been simplistic ‘casual linkage’ between notions of purity and pollution and caste based discrimination” (p. 60). The main reason why Indian Churches are unable to respond to caste discrimination against the Dalits according to Rajkumar is the lack of “ethical guidelines to divert people’s response to caste” (p. 60).

In Chapter four, Rajkumar offers a model for a Christian ethical framework of action. He begins his discussion based upon a work of Robin Gill entitled Healthcare and Christian Ethics. Specifically, he uses the six features of the Synoptic healing stories identified by Gill: “passionate emotion, faith, mercy or compassion, touching, uncleanness, and reticence/restraint” (Gill, 2006, p. 81-82, cited in Rajkumar, 2010, p. 97). In his discussion the author has also made reference to the Latin American liberation theologians (like Jon Sobrino), but here one has to question if these sources can help the Dalit theologians, because they were not dealing with caste-based social order supported by religious tradition that makes the Dalit theology distinct from other contextual theologies.

Rajkumar’s own contribution is found in Chapter five, six and seven, where he examines three healing stories from the Synoptic Gospels: Jesus cleans a Leper (Mark 1: 40-45), Jesus heals the Geresene Demoniac’ (Mathew 8: 28-34; Mark 5: 1-20; Luke 8: 26-39) and the Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15: 21-28; Mark 7: 24-30). From his introductory notes on “Reading for Liberation” (p. 113-114), Rajkumar’s method is clearly based upon that which he names “the liberationists” way of reading scripture (p.113). But in his detailed treatment of the healing stories in Chapters 6 and 7 he refers to only a few Indian authors and depends mainly on Western sources and scholars who do not deal directly with the caste-based Dalit context.

Rajkumar has indeed succeeded in his attempt to raise several crucial issues about the role and future of Dalit theology. His basic thesis is that Dalit theology is able to make full marks in academic circles, but has to go a long way before it will become part of the Indian Church’s inner being, energizing the Church to engage with the Dalit struggle for their full liberation. Therefore, overall, this is a book seriously recommended to the specialist and general reader in India as well as other global contexts.

References
Balasundaram, Franklyn. 1997. Dalit Struggle and its Implications for Theological Education. Bangalore Theological Forum 29 (3/4): 69-91.

Gill, Robin. 2006. Healthcare and Christian Ethics. Canterbury: University of Kent.

Massey, James. 1997. Down Trodden: the Struggle of India’s Dalits for Identity, Solidarity and Liberation. Geneva: World Council of Churches.

Nirmal, Arvind P. 1998. Towards a Christian Dalit Theology. In James Massey (Ed.), Indigenous People: Dalits, Dalit Issues in Today’s Theological Debate (pp. 215- 217), Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Prabhakar, M.E. 1998. The Search for a Dalit Theology. In James Massey (Ed.), Indigenous People: Dalits, Dalit Issues in Today’s Theological Debate (pp. 203-204), Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

James Massey is the Director of the Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies in New Delhi.

Download PDF copy of review