Option for the Poor and Compassion for the Vulnerable: why the two Bible-based principles should not be Conflated or Replaced

Abstract

This article motivates for the retention of the option for the poor paradigm in response to Michel Temgo’s (2018) proposal for its replacement with “compassion for the vulnerable”. It argues that the two principles, “option for the poor” and “compassion for the vulnerable”, are Biblebased with different functions in the Bible. For that reason, they should not be conflated. The option for the poor principle has, over five decades, undergirded theological activism against exploitation, poverty and injustice - what Gutierrez (1973) refers to as subhuman conditions of the poor. Its value for the poor and oppressed communities cannot be fully appreciated unless viewed from the perspective of its original context in Medellin (1968). Following an assessment of whether a paradigm shift is justified and a tracing of the foundations of the two principles in Luke’s Gospel, the article concludes that there is no justification for a paradigm shift and that according to biblical evidence, the “option for the poor” is particular, while “compassion for the vulnerable” is general.