Contemplating an Ethics of Scripture Engagement

Extracted text from The_Ethics_of_Scripture_Engagement_for_FOBAI_2016_Abbrev.ppt:

FOBAI SEDG April 2016 Roy E. Ciampa Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship My presentation today reflects my own views and not necessarily those of ABS or the Nida Institute I am not a ethicist by academic training or specialization I have studied biblical and theological ethics and Christians tend to consider ourselves at least amateur ethicists, but the fact is there are people who specialize in ethics (see the Society of Christian Ethics; scethics.org) and I am not one of them. I want to advocate for the inclusion of ethicists on our agency boards and leadership teams.Here I do not provide ethical solutions but seek to raise ethical questions (and some ethical concerns) that I think merit greater attention in our circles. What I have in mind by an ethics of Scripture is not the use of SE to teach ethics, or the question of whether Scripture engagement is ethical, but intentional attention given to the questions, What kinds of Scripture engagement (and approaches to teaching or programing Scripture engagement) are ethical, and what makes them ethical? I have sometimes been left with the impression that although Scripture engagement is understood differently by different groups or people the underlying assumption is that, whatever it is, our goal is simply to see more of it going on. The assumption is that however we define Scripture Engagement it is always something good, right, and beneficial.Biblical texts themselves remind us that Scripture can be (and has been) used to do harm and to teach unhealthy things. Biblical authors do not share our unbridled optimism about biblical engagement always being beneficial.Jobs friends use Scriptural themes (like those found in Proverbs) to pile a presumption of guilt on top of his other suffering. Various prophets condemn some priests focus on biblical teachings about sacrifices because they carry them out without respecting ethical expectations also included in the Scriptures.  Amos 5:22-24 (NRSV): 22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings [God had commanded that they be done!], I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. 23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. 24 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.In the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness the devil engages Scripture when he quotes from the Psalms as part of the temptation, saying, If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone. and Jesus responds with other biblical texts.In the antitheses in Matthew 5, Jesus says, You have heard that it was said ... (.e.g., You shall not commit adultery.) But I say to you ... The scribes and Pharisees engage the Scriptures when they rebuke Jesus for working (by healing or letting his disciples prepare food) on the Sabbath. Peters and Pauls opponents engaged the Scriptures when they tried to marginalize Gentile believers and force them to be circumcised.In Romans 7 Paul helps us understand that sin is such that it can even take Gods own Law (the Scriptures) and use it to promote sin: 7 If it had not been for the law, aI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet. 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead....11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.In 1 Timothy 1:7 we are warned about some people [who were] desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we read about Paul and his letters that There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. The Scriptures are shot through with warnings reminding us that many uses and applications of Scripture are dangerous and/or harmful!Being aware of both the good and the harm that have been carried out in the name of the Bible, we need to ask what lessons regarding the ethics of Scripture engagement people from other nations and cultures might wish they could go back and discuss with Christians of past centuries in order to try to avoid or mitigate as much of the damage as possible.Most people involved in the translation of the Bible have had highly positive experiences of the Bibles ability to impact ones life for the better. It has brought a life- changing understanding of God, oneself, salvation, purpose in life, etc., etc. Given such a positive relationship with the Scripture and, usually, a very high regard for its authority and inspiration, there can sometimes be an assumption that the Bibles impact on new peoples and cultures will inevitably be almost completely positive. But looking at Christian history, as well as the history of biblical interpretation, we see not only wonderful examples of redemptive transformation, but also the truth that there is a dark side to the history of the Bible. This is seen both in aspects of Western culture and in the way the Bible has been used to justify the colonization and cultural imperialism which have left their marks on the continents of our world. We are sometimes tempted to think how much better the word would be if government leaders were immersed in Scripture. But the biblically immersed state of Texas affirmed, in its Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. That the doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color [was] a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.That declaration went on to say that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations. See George Anastaplo, Reflections on Slavery and the Constitution (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012), 175.Alexander Hamilton Stephens, a US and then Confederate congressman defended slavery (as did most others) on the basis of Scripture. He wrote, I know of but one sure standard in determining what is, and what is not sin or sinful. That standard is the written law of God as prescribed in the Old and the New Testament. By that standard the relation of master and slave, even in a much more abject condition than existed with us, is not founded in sin. Alexander H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results (Philadelphia, Pa: National Publishing Company, 1868), 2:80. The vast majority of the worlds countries are either former Christian colonizing nations or nations that have been colonized by one of those nations at one time or another....http://www.vox.com/2014/6/24/5835320/map-in-the-whole- world-only-these-five-countries-escaped-europeanSo few countries have never been colonized that they stand out. For example, we read statements like, Despite European pressure, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian nation to never have been colonized. (Wikipedia)Colonial governments (and churches that supported them) presented their colonial projects as benign or benevolent work. Even in recent years, the British governments Home Office produced a booklet Life in the United Kingdom which gave a slanted (or perverse) interpretation for readers wishing to apply for British citizenship:However for many indigenous peoples in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, continent, and elsewhere, the British Empire often brought more regular, acceptable and impartial systems of law and order than many had experienced under their own rulers, or under alien rulers other than European. The spread of the English language helped unite disparate tribal areas that gradually came to see themselves as nations. Public health, peace and access to education, can mean more to ordinary people than precisely who are their rulers.' What this supposedly peaceful and progressive colonial history fails to disclose to the soon-to-be British citizens is the other face of atrocities committed by the empire. R. S. Sugirtharajah. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Kindle Locations 89-95).From the colonization of of the Americas we have this example: A letter signed by Andean Indians and addressed to John Paul II when he visited Peru in 1985: We, the Indians of the Andes and of the Americas would like to take this opportunity of John Paul IIs visit to give the Bible back to him, because, in five centuries, it has not given us love, nor peace nor justice. Please take back your Bible and hand it over to our oppressors because they need it more than we do. In fact, since Christopher Columbus set foot here, one culture, one language, one religion and values intrinsically European were imposed upon America by force. (Noss, ed., A History of Bible Translation, 391-2)We shouldnt be at all surprised to discover that many people in these contexts will be deeply suspicious of any hermeneutic or approach to reading Scripture originating from or associated with churches or cultures that had no compunction about subjugating other nations and peoples in the name of Christian civilization. We all want people to engage the Scriptures. But how comfortable are we about giving them the freedom to engage the Scriptures from starting points or in ways that are rather different from our own?When mainstream biblical critics pose their questions to the text, they are driven by Reformation and Enlightenment agendas. When those who are not shaped exclusively by Western cultural norms employ postcolonialism, their approach is not necessarily motivated by a European ecclesiastical or intellectual agenda. Essentially, postcolonial biblical criticism is about exploring who is entitled to tell stories and who has the authority to interpret them. R. S. Sugirtharajah. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Kindle Locations 44-47). Kindle Edition. Postcolonial criticism enabled us for the first time to frame our own questions rather than battling with somebody elses. It provided us with a new set of conceptual tools to investigate the text and interpretation. R. S. Sugirtharajah. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Kindle Locations 33-37). Kindle Edition. Hirai was able to take passages from the Sermon on the Mount and recontextualize them in order to mock the moral lapses of Western Christians: I read in the Bible, whoever shall smite on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also, but I cannot discover there any passage which says: whoever shall demand justice of thee smite his right cheek, and when he turns smite the other also. Again, I read in the Bible: If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also, but I cannot discover there any passage which says: if thou shalt sue any man at law, and take away his coat, let him give thee his cloak also. R. S. Sugirtharajah. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Kindle Locations 1448-1452). Kindle Edition. These are not just problems of the past or of other cultures. Last October there was a news story about a church counseling session in which two boys were subjected to beatings over the course of several hours in the hopes that each would confess to prior sins and ask for forgiveness. You and I may think that this behavior indicates that they were part of a cult but an ex-member defended the church saying, I realize this situation makes it look like this, but if you listen to the teachings, they are accurate to the Bible. Ray Sanchez and Steve Almasy, 6 N.Y. church members arrested after teen dies in assault; October 14, 2015, http://us.cnn.com/2015/10/14/us/new-york-church-assault- case/index.html.It is not just that many Christians fail to live up to the clear demands of Christian discipleship. Its that we cant even agree on what those demands are.... Worst of all has been my discovery in recent years of versions of Christianity that actually make people worse human beings than they might otherwise have been. Here churches, pastors, or individuals interpret Scripture or faith in such a way that they do harm they would not do if they were just good old-fashioned pagans. I never anticipated that I would think: If we could just keep people out of (this version of) church, they would be better people. http://davidgushee.religionnews.com/2016/04/05/religion-makes-people-worse/#sthash.RzUI0kOL.dpufYoung people are critically aware of Christianitys flaws. The 2007 book, Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity-- and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2007) by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, detailing the results of a study conducted by The Barna Group, reveals that evangelical Christians are perceived to be insensitive, and judgmental, anti-gay people, hypocritical, and more, and much of the behavior that is discussed is justified by those who behave that way on the basis of Scripture.So the situation faced by SE today is not one of a contrast between people who have no perception of Scripture due to lack of exposure and those who have been exposed and thus have a positive perception. We are very often dealing with the question of how to reintroduce Scripture in environments where it is currently perceived to be morally culpable based on previous negative experiences. And the next generation is watching to see how we address these issues. Young people today are, thankfully, particularly concerned about issues of justice and equity and also with the perception that Bible-believing Christians have not always been aligned with the side of justice or known for their reflection of the grace of Christ. They remind us that what some Christians might think of as faithful Scripture engagement has actually led many to conclude that Christians either know little or nothing about God (or that perhaps God does not really exist after all).But we shouldnt address this issue as a strategy to reach the next generation, but because as Christians we are committed to correcting our ethical failures.It seems to me that anyone promoting SE from a background with a long Christian tradition probably needs to adopt the posture similar to that of a wounded healer someone who realizes that they have as much to teach others from their cultures weaknesses and historical failures as from their achievements.Being aware of both the good and the harm that have been carried out in the name of the Bible, we might think about what lessons regarding the ethics of Scripture engagement people from other nations and cultures might wish they could go back and teach those who came before us. What could have been done differently to try to avoid or mitigate as much of the damage as possible? I want to advocate for an approach in which the ethical responsibility tied to the particular ways SE is promoted and carried out in particular cultural and cross-cultural contexts is given ever more serious attention in light of the power the Scriptures have to do both incredible good and devastating harm when it is used in ways that are not sufficiently self-critical.Prescriptive / Directive / Imperialistic Hermeneutics Non-prescriptive / Non-directive / Nave Hermeneutics Figural interpretations: we and others in our society are like those in the Bible (Joshua and the Canaanites) Non-figural interpretations: Direct-transfer readings (identity mapping) these people in our society are those mentioned in the BibleA key challenge is to navigate between the Scylla of an imperialistic hermeneutic (let us teach you how to make meaning our western way) and Charybdis of an optimistically nave hermeneutic (make meaning how you will and everything will be good).One problem with optimistically nave approaches is exacerbated by the common Bible translation ideology of direct transferability. Direct transferability is seen as highly desirable (and thanks to the ideology of many, quite natural) but, in my opinion, is also the source of much danger and abuse...Many missionary translators have felt their translations should engage their readers directly and personally and give them the sense that the Bible, in its details, speaks directly to them. And it is a common outcome: Nave audiences often consider God to be speaking to them directly through Scripture. Harriet Hill, The Bible at Cultural Crossroads, 30-31.For the first time in their life, after years of listening to the Word in Spanish, they heard God speaking to them directly in their own language. http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/10690 One of the greatest impacts of the translation, of course, is that ordinary people ... could more easily hear God speaking to them directly, through the words of the Bible. http://www.manchestercathedral.org/news/3/2011-year-of-the-bibleIt is a significant problem that readers are usually not fully aware of the extent to which their context differs from that being addressed by the biblical texts. One result of this lack of awareness is what I call the mapping of identities. The mapping of identities takes place when people or groups in the biblical text are identified with people or groups in the culture and context of the modern reader, with one identity being mapped onto another.This takes place, for instance, when modern readers directly apply labels for social or demographic groups (e.g., Jews, slaves, or wives) to people they believe fit those labels in their own society. Readers tend to assume cultural similarities between the group in the biblical world and those in their own world and tend to overlook crucial differences. This has played out with horrible consequences for many different kinds of minorities in various Christian cultures through the centuries.Jews (then and now?) Statements made about particular Jews in the New Testament have been taken to be accurate descriptions of, and appropriate affirmations to make about, Jews of different (or all) times and places. Gospel of John 5:16-18 (ESV) 16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.... 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Modern readers easily forget that all of the characters in the story are Jews as were Jesus, his disciples and the author of the book. Martin Luther, On The Jews and Their Lies (1543). Luther was a Bible scholar who had been a monk and a lecturer in a German university, but his intuitive approach of reading the text as directly transferable with a mapping of the identity of the ancient opponents of Jesus onto all Jews of all times resulted in one of the ugliest episodes of Scripture Engagement in Christian history.Martin Luther, On The Jews and Their Lies (extracts) He did not call them Abraham's children, but a brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, He has a demon [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a brood of vipers; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today. What follows is a blood-curdling call for pogroms with unspeakable historical implications.Husbands and Wives Slaves and Masters Ancient sexual vices and the modern LGBT community? Native/Aboriginal peoples (Canaanites?) Others? Kings/chiefs; sick-demon possessed? Do approaches to Scripture Engagement give the impression that biblical texts refer directly to particular people in contemporary society? Are people aware of the ethical problem of applying critical texts to minorities in the contemporary world?The issue Ive just raised can become an issue either because outside agencies and their translations are promoting the idea the the text addresses the local context and culture directly. But I think it also arises naturally in each local context. This is a case where I wonder if some basic warnings about the ethical interpretation of Scripture should be given by all those involved in translation and SE leadership. Most of the other questions I raise have to do with possible hermeneutical impositions or blind spots.At this point I want to simply put forward some ethical topics for inquiry rather than suggesting resolutions to various problems or trying to provide definitive answers. I hope to simply help start a conversation, realizing I have many questions but few if any answers. Im counting on an engaging conversation among us! I wonder if,, together, we couldnt come up with a series of questions for SE practitioners to keep in mind as they go about their work, realizing that there are often no simple or satisfying answers. So, here are some potential and preliminary questions that might be asked as part of an attempt to attend to the ethics of Scripture engagement: What hermeneutical approaches are assumed, or how many hermeneutical and interpretive lenses or approaches might be contemplated, and who decides? Do we recognize the church has been edified and nurtured by diverse interpretive approaches, indebted to diverse cultural influences through history? Are we prepared for new cultures to apply their own reading strategies to Scripture as they engage it?Should a historical approach to interpretation be taught as the exclusive model? Should any approach to interpretation be taught as the only valid approach? Is theological interpretation modeled? Do we help people understand how narratives shape understanding? Do we teach a narrative approach to Scripture? If so, how many different narratives might be considered legitimate scriptural narratives? Who decides?To what extent to we recognize that our interpretations of Scripture are not forced on us but result form innumerable interpretive decisions in light of values and unexamined ideological commitments? Do we accept ethical responsibility for our interpretations and approach to SE or do we project responsibility onto God? How much attention is paid to the different ways meaning is made, mediated and nurtured in particular contexts and cultures? Is Scripture engagement promoted and carried out in ways that are respectful of the approaches to meaning- making in the local context? Does SE give sufficient attention to the cultural location and embeddedness of people, and to the need to seek to determine the values, issues and forces of culture that shape worldview, personal and social identity, and meaning so that Christ might be brought to fresh expression in the lives of Christians- in-community in that specific context and culture?To what extent might the power dynamics of particular contexts and cultures be allowed to coopt the authority of Scripture for agendas that are not consistent with Gods kingdom, righteousness and justice? How might that be mitigated?What media are most appropriate for SE in each context and who gets to decide which media will be employed, and how it will be employed? What are the most ethical educational approaches and methodologies that might be applied in specific situations and how do they relate to the identity formation and power dynamics of those who experience it?One missiologist advocates for print literacy as a key for Scripture Engagement because it encourages individuality, forces logical and linear thinking, forces objectivity, and makes it possible to handle a wide range of abstractions. This particular approach to Scripture Engagement through print media sounds an awful lot like advocacy for an approach that has the potential to turn people into good post-enlightenment Westerners! Viggo Sgaard, Media in Church and Mission: Communicating the Gospel (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1993), 179.Do our approaches to SE lead to or reinforce social stratification by using tools that appeal more to certain demographics than others? The South Asia SE survey information suggested the digital approaches were used mainly by those with higher socio-economic status and educational levels. That does not make it ethically problematical to use those tools, but does suggest agencies might need to check to see if they are investing just as much (if not more) in strategies for those with fewer resources.Do our approaches to SE work to the advantage of those who are better at learning individualistically than those who are group learners and dependent upon processing material in community? Much of discussion about spiritual growth has rated people in terms of their use of Scripture in private/personal contexts (how often do they read it in private devotional times during the week). Most Christians in Church History engaged Scripture almost exclusively in group contexts, and most people today may do so as well.Do our approaches to SE reinforce the status quo including neglecting those who are already neglected or marginalized in a particular context? For example, how often have we promoted SE in ways that left the deaf community and other minority communities out of the conversation? What groups are not hiding in plain sight but, rather, being ignored despite being in plain sight? Or are there marginalized people, kept out of plain sight, who are excluded from SE work because we are complicit in keeping them out of view?How will our approach to SE deal with issues of difference and otherness? Does it promote dialogue between divergent perspectives or serve to shut down dialogue? Do we treat the Bible merely as a source of authoritative answers to our questions? Is it allowed to serve as a source of important questions, ones that it might encourage us to engage in a variety of ways? Again, I think the next generation is looking for alternative ways of engaging than previous ones did.Timothy Beal represents a common perception (right or wrong), when he writes: The Bible is a cultural icon of faith as black-and-white certainty and religion as right-and-wrong morality. Its no accident that the most common visual image of the Bible is that of a closed black book. The cultural icon of the Bible represents religious faith as what closes the book on questions about the meaning and purpose of life.... The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book (pp. 5-6).The cultural icon of the Bible often becomes a substitute for a vital life of faith, which calls not for obedient adherence to clear answers but thoughtful engagement with ultimate questions. The Bible itself invites that kind of engagement. The iconic image of it as a book of answers discourages it. The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book (p. 21). Moving on to further questions ....What new conversation partners would illuminate our thinking? What groups are giving or would give push-back on what SE is being done (or planned)? Have their concerns been truly heard? Are we drowning out any voices that we should be hearing? If 1/3 of the board of each of our agencies was composed of young adults,(from various countries around the globe) how would they end up shaping our approaches to SE?We need Christian ethicists, and to remember that to be a Christian ethicist is quite different from being a Bible scholar (I am the latter, not the former). Here are just a few thoughts from a couple of Christian ethicists that might belong as part of a conversation with an even wider conversation between them and the work that we do.Though Christian Scripture speaks often about justice, it neither gives a definition nor offers a theory of justice. It assumes that we know well enough what justice is. What it does do, over and over, is enjoin its readers to act justly and to right injustice. It enjoins them to do so out of love for justice. It sets those imperatives within a theological context that explains why we should love justice, why we should right injustice, and how we should understand what we are doing when we act justly and right injustice. And it establishes priorities for doing justice and for seeking to right injustice. (Nicholas Wolterstorff)He goes on: Here, then, is my suggestion as to how the love that Jesus attributes to God and enjoins on us should be understood. Such love seeks to advance the good of the other. The good of the other (and of oneself) has two dimensions: the dimension of the well-being of the other, and the dimension of respect for the worth of the other. Love attends to both dimensions not just to the former. Love seeks to promote the well-being of the other, but love also sees to it that the worth of the other is respected.Love does not promote the well-being of someone at the cost of treating that person or anyone else in a way that does not befit his or her worth or dignity. Promoting the well-being of someone at the cost of wronging someone is impermissible. What makes paternalistic benevolence wrong is that the agent seeks to advance the good of the recipient while failing to pay due respect to his or her worth. Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Journey toward Justice: Personal Encounters in the Global South (Kindle Locations 1761-1767).Ethics is, and must remain, the dismantling of social mechanisms that benefit one group at the expense of another, regardless of whether the group privileged is white, black, brown, yellow, red, or any combination thereof. For those doing Christian Ethics from the margins, the starting point is analyzing the situation faced by the disenfranchised of our world, our nation, and our workplace and then reflecting with them theoretically, theologically, and hermeneutically in order to draw pastoral conclusions for actions to be taken. Miguel A. de la Torre, Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (2nd edition).For those doing Christian Ethics from the margins, the starting point is analyzing the situation faced by the disenfranchised of our world, our nation, and our workplace and then reflecting with them theoretically, theologically, and hermeneutically in order to draw pastoral conclusions for actions to be taken. Using the eyes of the marginalized, or observing from below, becomes the first step in arriving at any ethical response; it informs how God is understood, how Scripture is read, and how society is constructed. Miguel A. de la Torre, Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (2nd edition).At this point, I hope you feel as ethically challenged as I do! Our shared passion is for all people to come to experience the life-changing message of the Bible. We need to think about the ethics of our work simply because it is the right thing to do as Christians. And if we want people - especially the next generation - to experience the Scriptures in truly redemptive ways, we cannot afford to ignore the ethical questions raised by Scripture Engagement in the past, present and future.Anastaplo, George. Reflections on Slavery and the Constitution. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012. Callahan, Allen Dwight. The Talking Book: African Americans and the Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Ciampa, Roy E. Ideological Challenges for Bible Translators in the International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28:3 (2011): pages 139-48. [http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/28_3_PDFs/IJFM_28_3- Ciampa.pdf]Harrill, James Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. Kinnaman, David, and Gabe Lyons. Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity - and Why It Matters. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2007.Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Snchez-Cetina, Edesio. Word of God, Word of the People: Translating the Bible in Post-Missionary Times. In A History of Bible Translation. Edited by Philip A. Noss. Rome: Edizioni de storia e letteratura, 2007; pp. 387-408. de la Torre, Miguel A. Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2004.Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Journey Toward Justice: Personal Encounters in the Global South. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.