...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Academy of Religion >Liberation Theology in Late Modernity: An Argument for a Symbolic Approach
【24h】

Liberation Theology in Late Modernity: An Argument for a Symbolic Approach

机译：现代后期的解放神学：一种象征方法的争论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Over the past twenty years, many Latin American liberation theolo-ngians concede a loss of initiative in shaping their societies. Whileninsisting that God acts in history on the basis of a “preferential optionnfor the poor,” they admit it has made little practical difference. I attri-nbute this loss to a lack of fit between the apparently empirical prop-nosition that God is a being who has and acts upon personalnpreferences and the “cultural physics,” so to speak, of late modernnsocial change. I detail this view in terms of three cultural dynamics ofnmodernization: historical consciousness, evolutionary explanation, andninter-religious contact. Liberation theologians may reply that the lacknof fit is perennial, but always trivial in the face of inhuman suffering.nTheir argument is religiously potent, but does not satisfy metaphysicalndoubt regarding the divine option for the poor. Treating God’s optionnfor the poor as, instead, a symbolic engagement with ultimacynincreases the likelihood that the lack of fit is a creative tension, rathernthan a fatal mismatch. The article concludes by pointing toward hownsuch an approach might proceed.
机译：在过去的20年中，许多拉丁美洲的解放神学家承认失去了建立自己的社会的主动权。他们坚持认为上帝在历史上是根据“穷人的优先选择权”行事的，但他们承认，上帝的做法几乎没有什么实际意义。我将这种损失归因于显然是经验主义的主张（上帝是拥有并根据个人偏好行事的人）与后期现代社会变革的“文化物理学”之间的失调。我用三种文化现代化的动力来详细说明这一观点：历史意识，进化解释和宗教间的接触。解放神学家可能会回答说，缺乏适应是常年的，但面对非人的痛苦却总是微不足道的。他们的论断在宗教上是有力的，但并不满足于对穷人的神圣选择的形而上怀疑。相反，将上帝对穷人的选择视为一种终极象征性的参与，增加了不合身是一种创造性的张力，而不是致命的不匹配的可能性。本文最后指出了这种方法的进行方式。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of the American Academy of Religion》 |2010年第4期|p.921-960|共40页
  • 作者

    Andrew B. Irvine;

  • 作者单位

    *Andrew B. Irvine, Maryville College, 502 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37803,USA. E-mail: andrew.irvine@maryvillecollege.edu. The ideas and argument presented here havebeen improved by many friends and colleagues over a long time. I especially thank M.T. Davila,David Tombs, Chris Tirres, Wesley Wildman, Bill Meyer, and the anonymous reviewers for JAARfor conversation and critique, and Chuck Mathewes and Chad Wayner for their encouragementand guidance in seeing the piece into print.;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号