Hermeneutics

A New Testament professor said to me yesterday, "Vanderbilt's goal is to train theologians, pastors, and other religious scholars in a hermeneutic of suspicion." I do agree with his statement. Today, I am writing a small paper on Las Casas (an advocate for human rights in the time of Christopher Columbus and the beginning of colonialism). I read a short summary of his life and accomplishments--completely blown away by what one man accomplished in the face of systematic tyranny. True, awful and gruesome things continued to happen because economic gains. True, Las Casas was a Spaniard--a member of the oppressing group. But, is it true that I have to criticize this man who functioned as a foreshadowing of liberation theology? Do I have to suspiciously read his historical accounts and suspect his own agenda or self-interest in various projects? For all my good academic-critical training, my first readings of Las Casas have resisted Vanderbilt's careful training. The question resulting from this experience is: what about this text pushed me toward appreciation rather than suspicion? The answer, I fear, would require exploration of myself with psychological tools. Not my game, sorry. A theological reason might be my inclination toward modern liberation theologies and respect for a single theologian willing to resist the normative culture. In the same way I appreciate the biblical prophets in their boldness and tenacity, I appreciate historical individuals like Las Casas who advocate a genuine imago dei among the historical, political-economic influences.