“It is always wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another” Assess this view.
Introduction
Define: Preferential option for the poor- Preference for the poor in socio-economic matters- central
feature of Liberation theology.
Importance: Preferential option for the poor is a form of inequality which some Christians would not
condone under any circumstance, however some would find it acceptable because the poor’s needs
to be prioritised if true equality is to be created.
Scholars: Gutierrez, Boff, Pope John Paul II, McBrien
Conclusion: It is not always wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another
Paragraph 1
Point: It is always wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another
Argument: The idea of the preferential option for the poor might be said to be at odds with the idea
of God’s universal love.
A liberal theologian might argue that it is naïve to read the Old Testament and think that he actually
intervened and took sides. It might be more likely to be the case that the biblical writers wrote their
history in a way that reflected their beliefs and they assumed God to be on their side.
Liberation theologians might be guilty of selective use of the evidence when it comes to choosing
what biblical texts they use. Furthermore, they might have a rather one-dimensional reading of the
texts that they do use.
Counterargument: McBrien- LT seems to focus almost exclusively on some Biblical themes, like
poverty in Exodus & far more attention is given to Luke’s Gospel than John’s Gospel. It defines
oppression in economic terms, ignoring other kinds of oppression that derive from cultural forces,
like sexism & racism.
Liberation theologians would argue that the Bible supports the idea that God demonstrates a
preferential attitude towards those who suffer.
In the Exodus story God heard the people cry and sided with the Hebrews (later to become the
Israelites) against their oppressors the Egyptians.
The book of Proverbs cautions the rich 'Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not
crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder
them' (Proverbs 22:22)
Psalm 68:5 describes God as 'A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows' (i.e. as someone who
stands up for the weak).
Paragraph 2
Point: It is not wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another.
, Argument: Liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez thought that achieving justice required a
preferential option for the poor. He believed that: God has a preferential option for the poor and the
Church should likewise show a commitment to the cause of the poor.
This links to the idea of positive discrimination in which people from a disadvantaged group are
given preference over those from more advantageous backgrounds in order to compensate for their
original disadvantage.
However, the idea can defended on the grounds that those who are disadvantaged need extra help
in order to actually have an equal chance in life. It can be argued that if the situation is unjust then it
is impossible to not take sides. This is because if you do nothing in the face of injustice then you are
implicitly condoning that injustice and you are acting as though you are on the side of the
oppressors.
Counterargument: The idea that a just or fair system should include preference seems counter
intuitive. It also seems to challenge the traditional idea of God’s omnibenevolence and universal love
of all mankind.
Paragraph 3
Point: It is not wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another.
Argument: Leonardo Boff agreed that God has a special concern for those in need. He wrote ‘He
always acts in favour of life, defending the weak’. This could be compared with a parent who loves
all their children equally in an absolute sense but who might have a particular concern for a child
who was ill or who was being bullied. The child is not loved more overall, but in that context that
child is sided with because the solidarity is necessary for their wellbeing.
Counterargument: Pope John Paul II: The Preferential Option for the Poor constitutes a great
opportunity for the moral, cultural & even economic growth of humanity. But the church also
includes a concern for spiritual poverty & doesn’t focus exclusively on material or economic poverty.
Introduction
Define: Preferential option for the poor- Preference for the poor in socio-economic matters- central
feature of Liberation theology.
Importance: Preferential option for the poor is a form of inequality which some Christians would not
condone under any circumstance, however some would find it acceptable because the poor’s needs
to be prioritised if true equality is to be created.
Scholars: Gutierrez, Boff, Pope John Paul II, McBrien
Conclusion: It is not always wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another
Paragraph 1
Point: It is always wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another
Argument: The idea of the preferential option for the poor might be said to be at odds with the idea
of God’s universal love.
A liberal theologian might argue that it is naïve to read the Old Testament and think that he actually
intervened and took sides. It might be more likely to be the case that the biblical writers wrote their
history in a way that reflected their beliefs and they assumed God to be on their side.
Liberation theologians might be guilty of selective use of the evidence when it comes to choosing
what biblical texts they use. Furthermore, they might have a rather one-dimensional reading of the
texts that they do use.
Counterargument: McBrien- LT seems to focus almost exclusively on some Biblical themes, like
poverty in Exodus & far more attention is given to Luke’s Gospel than John’s Gospel. It defines
oppression in economic terms, ignoring other kinds of oppression that derive from cultural forces,
like sexism & racism.
Liberation theologians would argue that the Bible supports the idea that God demonstrates a
preferential attitude towards those who suffer.
In the Exodus story God heard the people cry and sided with the Hebrews (later to become the
Israelites) against their oppressors the Egyptians.
The book of Proverbs cautions the rich 'Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not
crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder
them' (Proverbs 22:22)
Psalm 68:5 describes God as 'A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows' (i.e. as someone who
stands up for the weak).
Paragraph 2
Point: It is not wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another.
, Argument: Liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez thought that achieving justice required a
preferential option for the poor. He believed that: God has a preferential option for the poor and the
Church should likewise show a commitment to the cause of the poor.
This links to the idea of positive discrimination in which people from a disadvantaged group are
given preference over those from more advantageous backgrounds in order to compensate for their
original disadvantage.
However, the idea can defended on the grounds that those who are disadvantaged need extra help
in order to actually have an equal chance in life. It can be argued that if the situation is unjust then it
is impossible to not take sides. This is because if you do nothing in the face of injustice then you are
implicitly condoning that injustice and you are acting as though you are on the side of the
oppressors.
Counterargument: The idea that a just or fair system should include preference seems counter
intuitive. It also seems to challenge the traditional idea of God’s omnibenevolence and universal love
of all mankind.
Paragraph 3
Point: It is not wrong for Christians to prioritise one group over another.
Argument: Leonardo Boff agreed that God has a special concern for those in need. He wrote ‘He
always acts in favour of life, defending the weak’. This could be compared with a parent who loves
all their children equally in an absolute sense but who might have a particular concern for a child
who was ill or who was being bullied. The child is not loved more overall, but in that context that
child is sided with because the solidarity is necessary for their wellbeing.
Counterargument: Pope John Paul II: The Preferential Option for the Poor constitutes a great
opportunity for the moral, cultural & even economic growth of humanity. But the church also
includes a concern for spiritual poverty & doesn’t focus exclusively on material or economic poverty.
