If you have had your TV on recently chances are you have seen a commercial for companies like 23 and Me or Ancestery.com. Testing one’s DNA in order to discover the origins of their family has become a new craze that seems to have taken the nation by storm. Personal DNA testing is a truly fascinating advance in technology. By simply spitting into a vile and sending it to a lab for testing, you can have a comprehensive report of your DNA to show which modern countries your ancestors originated from. I myself have done the test and was quite surprised by the results. Being adopted from Brazil, I have very little family history or details of where I came from. Like many other Latinx individuals, I knew that I was of mixed race; both of Iberian and native decent, descended from both conqueror and conquered. It is a mix that encapsulates much of the Latin experience and culture. But I was surprised to find out that I was also of Congolese and Ukrainian descent. These results reinforced what I already knew: I am mestizo, mixed, and proud of it.

 Mestizaje is the common Latin experience, it is in everything that we are as all the various people groups have contributed to the experience. Mestizaje is in our food, our music, history, culture, and even our Christian faith. The Latin experience has been shaped by both the conqueror and the conquered, the oppressors and the oppressed. And it is through mestizaje eyes that we see the image of God through Christ Jesus. The Latin theology of mestizaje is a crucial and often forgotten aspect of the Christian understanding of the Imago Dei, and in today’s context of rising political and racial tensions and division in the United States, this theology needs to be at the forefront of Christian discussions and actions as it encapsulates both the oppressed and the oppressor. In order to gain a full understanding of the importance and need for Latin Theology in our understanding of the Imago Dei, this paper will seek to explore the development of race in both the proto and modern race contexts, as well as explore the biblical defenses for and against slavery and the domination of others. It is through this historical understanding that we will then be able to explore the differences between Eurocentric and homogeneous views of the Imago Dei verse the Latin mestizaje view. The goal of this paper is to enhance ones understanding of the history of race and to make a case for the adoption of a mestizaje view on the theology of the Imago Dei. Let us begin this journey together.

Key Terms Used in this Paper

Before we can begin this examination and exploration of Mestizaje theology, we must first define some of the terms and definitions that will be used throughout this paper. The first word that we must define is mestizaje. Mestizaje finds its origins in the Spanish word mestizo, and translates to miscegenation which is the noun for the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types. It is the mixing of ancestries, people groups, cultures and religious experience. In terms of mestizaje theology and practice, it “can serve as a starting point for developing strategies of resistance and liberation because in our collective history Latino/as have been both oppressed and oppressor in much the same way that the church has contributed both to the formation of racist ideologies and the rise of progressive social movements that seek to dismantle racism.”[1] Thus, as we move forward in this paper and begin to examine mestizaje theology, we will be operating out of this definition and viewing mestizaje theology as a blending of various theologies and practices which have developed from various groups of people within the church, both from the mainline groups and from the margins, which move to work against racism and seeks to build bridges rather than wall. As this blending of theology has developed primarily within mestizaje communities, considerable focus will be given to the Latinx experience, although this is not exclusive.

As mestizaje derives from a Latin context, it is also important to note just what Hispanic and Latin means, and show the terminology that will be used to refer to this group. The categories of Hispanic and Latin are, like all other categories of race, a social construct. However, the term Hispanic and Latin, unlike the other categories were created by the US Census Bureau in order to categorize a growing immigrant population that did not conform to the biracial categories as prescribed by the US.[2] Many Latin and Hispanic lineages do not derive from a single homogenous racial group but rather are a mixture of European, Native, African, Arabic and Asian descent. But there is a major difference between Latin and Hispanic people that many misinterpret and misunderstand. The term Latin applies to anyone born in Latin America (south of Miami), however the term Hispanic only applies to Spanish speakers. So, for individuals who are Brazilian, like myself, they are Latin but not Hispanic as they speak Portuguese. This term is important to note as it is a major difference and further enhances the diversity of mestizaje. Following this definition, we must define Latinx. Simply put, Latinx is a gender-neutral, all-encompassing term that will be used as a substitute for Latino/as and Hispanic.

Having detailed the nature of mestizaje and Latinx, we must now define race. Race, within old/outdated academic discourse, refers to the existence of biologically distinct human subspecies. However, this definition has today been rejected by many academic disciplines. Throughout the academic world, race can be defined through a number of different variations. The most common definitions of race are as follows: (1) Race can and is often used as a synonym for the entire human species which places a strong emphasis on genetic unity and the creation of all of humanity by God. (2) Race can be used as a synonym for ethnicity, placing a strong emphasis on national or ethnic groups such as Jewish, Haitian or Kurdish communities. (3) Social science uses the term “race” to “identify a group of people who share a collective identity on the basis of physical markers (skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.) and/or analogous social locations in their respective societies even when belonging to distinct national or ethnic groups.”[3] Throughout this paper, the definition of race which will be used will be our third definition which follows the social sciences rather than using a definition which can either be too generic or hyper focused. With a definition of race, we must now define the negative actions taken against various races by defining what racism is.  “Accordingly, the term racism describes a broad range of negative or hostile attitudes by one social group towards another on the basis of these same factors.”[4]

Racism can take many different forms and/or practices, but it is usually always motivated by ethnocentrism which is the almost universal human tendency to prefer members of one’s own social group. In the presence of racism and toxic ethnocentrism, communities become extremely susceptible to turning into racialized societies. A racialized society “is a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities and social relationships. A racialized society can also be said to be a society that allocates differential economic, political, social, and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines; lines that are socially constructed.”[5] Having defined the concepts that will lay the foundation for this paper, we must now turn our attention to the history and development of race in the Christian context.

History of Race in the Christian Context

Proto Racism

            In the consideration of the development of the concept of race, it is impossible to ignore the role in which the Christian faith played in its formation. There are far too many examples of Christianity being used as a weapon and a defense for conquest and war, from the Spanish inquisition to the colonization of Africa and the New World. But is racism ingrained in the fabric of Christianity? Is it in the very DNA of Scripture? The simple answer is no. There is absolutely no historical evidence of racism or negative color prejudices (as defined previously) that is found in the Bible.[6] However, through the studies of Frank Snowden’s Black in Antiquity (1970) and Lloyd Thompson’s Romans and Black (1889), we must acknowledge that there was a presence of ethnocentrism and negative color prejudices within the context of the Greco-Roman world, particularly in literature. “In general, references to skin color in the non-Christian and early Christian Greco-Roman literature disclose a rhetorical use of color symbolism in which black is negative/evil and white is positive/good, but such metaphors are not considered instances of color prejudice insofar as this anthropological phenomenon appears cross-culturally (even in some black African cultures).”[7] So while there was no presence of racism found within Scripture (in the modern sense), there is a presence of ethnocentrisms and color prejudice attitudes within the cultures of the ancient world. This ethnocentric attitude derived from the Greco-Roman outlook towards cultures and people groups that were not within the social parameters of Mediterranean civilizations. The Greeks and then the Romans saw all people groups outside of these parameters as uncivilized barbarians. These groups consisted of Germanic and Celtic tribes, as well as much of Sub-Sahara Africa which was considered to be the edge of the known world. With these parameters of civilization set by central Mediterranean powers, many of the European cultures and societies that would form out of the ashes of the Roman empire would carry on these same sentiments establishing the environment in which the modern social construct of race would be born.

Modern Racism

            The modern age of racism began with one of the largest “discoveries” that would change the world forever. With the “discovery” of the New World in 1492 by Christopher Columbus, European powers were given free reign on whatever lands they could take by decree of the Papal Bull “Inter Caetera” issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493. With the edict of the Doctrine of Discovery, European powers like Spain and Portugal were given exclusive rights to the New World as long as the land did not have Christians in it. This meant that people who inhabited these lands; the Inca, Aztec, etc., who had not yet heard of the Gospel from Europe, would be open to conquest and colonization.  Justo L. González notes, “Religious policies in the new lands followed the patterns that had been established during the Middle Ages. In their wars against the Moors in Spain, Christian Spaniards had drawn on the ideals and principles of the Crusades, and now they applied the same principles to the conquest of the Indian ‘infidels.’”[8] And thus, the Iberian powers, and other European powers began to colonize the New World under the authority of the papacy and the full justification of the “gospel,” which gave them clemency for any actions that the conquistadors would undertake. With this colonization came the slave trade and mass genocide, which would effectively wipe out indigenous populations in the Caribbean within 30 years of Columbus’ arrival.[9]

Indigenous population would not be the only people brought under the yoke of violence and slavery, as millions of slaves would also be imported from African and sold in markets to wealth land owners and plantations. However, as we examine the slave trade that began to flourish in the New World, it is evident that this trade was not like other European slavery, it was not geared towards race at this point in time. Instead, slaves would become indentured servants who would have the chance to gain their freedom after a number of years. Whites, blacks, indigenous people, etc., were all found within the class of slavery, but as colonies and plantations began to increase, so did the demand for a larger and more permanent workforce. In order to maintain an increase of the economic profit, the social elite (plantation owners) made the decision to establish a permanent slave class that would bind individuals to the yoke of slavery for life. Through the process of elimination and with the influence of proto racism (as discussed previously), the African people were selected to inherited the yoke of slavery as other white indentured servants could blend into society and indigenous people could escape into the frontier.[10] The African slaves, first brought over to the US in 1619, were foreign to this new land and society and could not blend in to escape. Thus, the establishment of race as a social construct came into existence through the advent of race-based slavery. And so, with the passing of Partus Swquitur Ventrem in 1662, black slaves who were born into slavery would inherit their mother’s slave status, regardless of whether or not the father was free. This in essence gave white land owners a population that would fuel their plantations’ labor demand for generations to come, effectively damning an entire population of society to slavery.

 “Biblical” Defense for Slavery

            As the transatlantic slave trade continued to grow with the demand of products from the New World, white European Christians began to look for biblical justifications for their racial attitudes and actions towards other people groups which they saw as inferior to white European civilization. For many, the Genesis 9 account would become the primary staple of their defense for slavery as, with a racialized reading of the text, they saw the Curse of Ham to be their God given right to enslave people of African descent as blackness was equated to slavery.[11] This justification would become the main biblical defense for the institution of slavery and oppression throughout the Americas from the American Civil War into the twentieth century. However, there is one major issue with the use of Genesis 9:18-27: there is absolutely no reference to ethnicity or skin color in the text. This racialized reading of the Curse of Ham does not originate with any biblical or contextual evidence but rather is a product of the racialized society. Defenders of slavery and cultural genocide drew upon the cultural norms and Eurocentric ideologies held by early church fathers like Origin, who were heavily influence by the Greco-Roman worldviews. The Church Fathers, like the Iberians conquistadors who took hold of the doctrine of discovery, “equated ‘Ethiopia’ and black skin [in scripture] with a spiritually unregenerate state, even extending the metaphor to the point that salvation becomes linked with whiteness.”[12] Famed Puritan leader Cotton Mather noted that, “the best thing we can do for our Indians is to Anglicize them,” indicating his belief that the indigenous languages and cultures were “ill-suited” for the gospel and purpose of Christianity.[13] Mather fundamentally believed that by “anglicizing” people of color, one could make indigenous people and African slaves more righteous and redeemable in the eyes of God. Through his work and position of power, he sought to abolish and destroy indigenous people and their way of life, creating laws and practices which would force converts to become anglicized; forcing them to abandon their language, their people and way of life, all the while not being able to join Eurocentric Churches in worship and fellowship as they were still deemed as lesser beings. With this “biblical evidence” from the Church Fathers and others like Philo of Alexandria as a justification for slavery and the subsequent actions taken by conquistadors, Christianity would forever be linked to the institution of slavery, the social construct of race, and the subjugation of the New World and its people.

Biblical Defense Against Slavery

            While there was a large fight to gain a defense for the institution of race-based slavery, there also grew a massive fight against slavery. Abolitionists/civil rights activists such as Fredrick Douglas, William Wilberforth and Martin Luther King Jr. began to mount a biblical defense against the industry of slavery and the subsequent disenfranchisement of people of color which would continue for the generations which would follow the end of the Civil War. Frederick Douglas, perhaps one of the most prominent proponents for the emancipation of slaves in the 19^th century, took a logical approach to the argument of the Curse of Ham, pointing out its mestizaje (mixed race) error. “Every year… a very different-looking class of people are springing up in the South, and are now held in slavery, from those originally brought to this country from Africa; and if their increase will do no other good, it will do away the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right. If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the South must soon become unscriptural; for thousands are ushered into the world, annually, who like myself, owe their existence to white fathers, and those fathers most frequently their own masters.”[14] This logical approach to the Curse of Ham, points out how the mixing of white and blacks, often times by force, have created generations of mixed race individuals, who would eventually become mestizo.

Others who sought to point out the errors of the justification of slavery through the Curse of Ham, often pointed to the fact that there is absolutely no reference to blackness in the text, nor does the curse come from God, instead originating through Noah who himself was sinful. Proponents of the abolitionist movement also called upon the diversity of the early church as seen in Acts 8 and 13, and Paul’s liberating vision as seen in Galatians 3:27-28. Justo L. González points out this very fact as he examines the authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. “There is another detail that we know about Luke: he was from Cyrene, on the north coast of Africa. It is interesting to note that in the list this Lucius of Cyrene appears next to a certain Simeon who is called ‘Niger’ – that is to say ‘Simeon the black man.’ Since many of the inhabitants of North Africa were of dark complexion, they were often called ‘Niger.’ Could it be then that this Simeon of Niger is the same who appears in the Gospel as Simon of Cyrene? And since Lucius was also from Cyrene, is it possible that he also was dark skinned? And, if Lucius is the same as Luke, will it then turn out to be that this author, the most prolific in the entire New Testament was of dark complexion?”[15] As we examine the New Testament and the movement of Christianity, it is evident to see that salvation and the missional movement of the church was not based on the color of one’s skin, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit which moves and empowers people across all walks of life and racial identity.

So how can there be “biblical” evidence for the enslavement of people? Even Augustine, the great Church father, rejected slavery as a natural condition in which individuals were predisposed due to their skin color stating, “And yet by nature, in the condition in which God created man, no man is the slave either of man or of sin.”[16] It is evident from Scripture (particularly the gospel) alone that racism and slavery in the modern context simply does not align or belong with Scripture or the Christian community. It strips people of the divine gift of being made in God’s image and the sanctity of human life itself. Cesar Chaves writes, “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause, however just it may be.”[17] Thus, as Christians, it is our biblical mandate to seek life rather than to oppress, dismantle or enslave that life.

This biblical mandate does not just impact our theology, but rather impacts the Church and our public theology and engagement with the world. Tim Keller writes, “The freedom of the gospel has to change our attitudes towards everything in life. But broader social change is not Paul’s immediate concern in this teaching. He wants the gospel to bring down barriers within the Christian community.”[18] While it is true that Paul’s vision was to bring down barriers within the Christian community, I do not agree with Keller that social change was not in Paul’s agenda as he wrote the letter of Galatians among many others. Paul, along with the early church saw that the gospel demanded everything from them, everything of who they were and what they did. The gospel impacts how Christians are to interact with the world around them. The early church was extraordinarily active in their community as a force for the social good. They lived out a very public theology. Martin Luther King Jr. affirmed this stance as he wrote, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his body, not only his spiritual well-being, but his material well-being. Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.”[19]

Throughout Christian history, many have sought to find this balance between theology and action, between social activism and faith. One notable contributor to this public theology and way of life was that of Óscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador in El Salvador. Romero gave his life in service of the poor and became a strong advocate against his government and the Catholics church’s treatment of marginalized group based on ethnic and political backgrounds. “Romero boldly proclaimed that the true church of Jesus must the side of the poor: ‘A church that does not join the poor, in order to speak out from the side of the poor against injustices committed against them, is not the true church of Jesus Christ.’”[20] Romero, armed with liberation theology rejected any notion of hyper-individualist salvation and rather drew attention to communal and temporal suffering by promoting justice in the present time. “For Romero, our efforts towards justice have eternal value, and will be brought to ultimate fulfillment upon the return of Christ.”[21]

Domination and Objectification

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from scripture which points to the biblical call of justice and liberation of humanity, not only Spiritually but also physically. So why then do we have racism and injustice if there is absolutely no true biblical defense for race-based slavery? What motivates people to adopt racism and commit acts of injustices? The answer is pretty simple from a theological standpoint: it is pride which draws people to objectify others. Jennings points out the theological implications of this action by stating, “European Christians, from the Iberian through the British Isles, saw themselves as agents of positive, if not divine, change, as it were, the makers of creaturely contingency. They saw themselves as those ordained to enact a providential transition. In so doing they positioned themselves as those first conditioning their world rather than being conditioned by it. They performed a deeply theological act that mirrored the identity and action of God in creating.”[22] In attempting to become that of God, the conquering powers began to objectify people, stripping them of their freedoms and ability to be equals. In essence they would deny others their humanity, dehumanizing the people. Thus, it is through this objectification that dehumanization creates an unjust order of violence and oppression towards the “other.” In doing so the oppressor strips their own soul of its humanity. For “no one can be authentically human while he prevents others from being so.”[23]

A Case for Mestizaje

            Having explored the history and development of race in the Christian context, we must now ask ourselves how we can reshape our theology in order to take hold of the theology of the Imago Dei without the corruption or perpetuation of racism in the Christian context. Simply put, we need to move out of an isolated, western homogenous worldview and theology and begin to pay closer attention to theologies from around the world, particularly those that encapsulate a variety of aspect in humanity, like mestizaje. In their book Churches, Cultures and Leadership, Branson and Martinez lay out a key difference in how different groups process and think through problems. Euro-American cultures tend to gravitate more to inductive thinking and approaches, seeking to gather facts in order to find causes. Meanwhile, many cultures that are outside the Euro-American sphere tend to gravitate towards relational thinking. They highlight how different cultures perceive and operate in various modes of thought.[24] This is not to say that one is better than the other, but rather that a variety of thought will only enhance our understanding whereas an isolated framework will only recycle information. When we remain in isolated frameworks of thinking, we hold others to the standards of that thinking when in many cases, their cultural understanding, theology and worldview will differ greatly from that of our own. Noley writes, “Even today in a time when we claim to live in a more enlightened era, Euro-Americans are still evaluating Native American lives using their own standards as the basis for judgment. Unfortunately, in far too many cases Native American leaders have bought into those standards and so judge their own people.”[25]

            Through operating with mestizaje theology, a mixed theology, Christians can begin to move beyond homogeneous frameworks of thinking in theology and practice, beginning to learn with and from others with diverse understandings and experiences that are different from our own, a mixture. “Learning with others yields authentic partnerships where each probes deeply the mind and heart of the other, bringing interdependent growth and cultural sensitive ministry.”[26] By mixing our theological understanding, expanding our thinking framework and seeing how others see/experience Christ among us, we are able to challenge the ideologies of nationalism, racism, ethnocentrism and other essences of cultural supremacy that has infected the Christian faith in America. This hybridization of theology not only binds us to each other spiritually but also physically as much of the implications and applications of this theology carries with it political and social ramifications. “By recognizing the interested perspective of every explanatory narrative, Latinx theology encourages intersubjective conversation as a corrective against the tendency to universalize particular points of view, making the task of theology a necessarily public endeavor.”[27] This ecumenical assertion is perhaps the greatest contribution of mestizaje theology as it liberates Christians from the binds and barriers of division, driving the church to extend its confession of salvation for all beyond its walls. “So, while mestizaje is at its core the mixing of different cultures, its theological use entails a spiritual conversion from the old way of viewing human relationships as relationship of domination (the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy) to a new, Christ-centered vision of human relationships as a ‘discipleship of equals.”[28]

Conclusion

            While there is no perfect theology, practice or framework of thinking, Mestizaje is vital to the Christian understanding of the Imago Dei as it reminds us all with the universal truth that God’s love is for all humanity and is not reserved for only a select few, but is fully given at the cross for both the oppressed and the oppressor. As we continue to confront the ongoing rise of political and racial tensions that are ever present within our context, let us use Mestizaje theology as a building block in which we can begin to build bridges in the church rather than barriers. As Christians, it is important for us to know our story; to know how our theology has been twisted to fit a racialized reading of scripture and how it has been used to oppresses others in both the ancient and modern context. But just as equally important, we must take hold of Mestizaje theology as a biblical defense against racism, not so that we may have solid theology alone, but so that this theology can be a foundational motivation for our public and social interactions with those around us. It is through historical reflection, critique and analysis of the formation of racism and the subsequent development of Mestizaje theology, that we are able to enhance of our view of the Imago Dei, the Image of God. The great Latin theologian Justo L. González wrote, “When we look at Jesus through different cultural eyes, our image of Jesus is enriched.”[29] So let us now begin to take hold of this enrichment and see Christ Jesus through new eyes.

Work Cited Page

---

[1] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 66

[2] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 66

[3] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 25

[4] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 25

[5] Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford University Press, 2000. P, 7

[6] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 29

[7] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 29

[8] González Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Harper & Row, 1984. P, 450

[9] Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. 2, Orbis Books, 2012. P, 4

[10] DeYoung, Curtiss Paul. United by Faith: the Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race. Oxford University Press, 2004. P, 43-45

[11] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 36

[12] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 31

[13] DeYoung, Curtiss Paul. United by Faith: the Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race. Oxford University Press, 2004. P, 102

[14] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 39

[15] González Justo L. The Story Luke Tells: Luke’s Unique Witness to the Gospel. Eerdmans, 2015. P, XI

[16] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 37

[17] Chávez César, and Richard J. Jensen. The Words of César Chávez. Texas A & M Univ. Press, 2008. P, 96

[18] Keller, Timothy. Galatians for You. The Good Book Company, 2017. P, 94

[19] Askew, Thomas A., and Richard V. Pierard. The American Church Experience: a Concise History. Wipf & Stock, 2008. P, 214

[20] Romero, Robert Chao. Brown Church: Five Centuries of Latina/o Social Justice, Theology, and Identity. IVP, an Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2020. P, 168

[21] Romero, Robert Chao. Brown Church: Five Centuries of Latina/o Social Justice, Theology, and Identity. IVP, an Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2020. P, 169

[22] Jennings, Willie James. The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race. Yale University Press, 2011. P, 60

[23] Freire, Paulo, et al. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. P, 85

[24] Branson, Mark Lau, and Martínez Juan Francisco. Churches, Cultures & Leadership a Practical Theology of Congregations and Ethnicities. IVP Academic, 2011. P, 180

[25] Kidwell, Clara Sue., et al. A Native American Theology. Orbis Books, 2002. P, 28-29

[26] Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility. IVP Books, 2006. P, 106

[27] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 83

[28] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 109

[29] Rodríguez Rubén Rosario. Racism and God-Talk: a Latino/a Perspective. New York University Press, 2008. P, 201