







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   45 

  

 

Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study 

in Decolonial Theological Research 

 

Clark Buys and Maria A. Andrade V. 
 

 
 

In 2018, Tearfund embarked on an exploration of "Economic and Environmental Sustainability" 

(EES) theology, seeking to adopt unconventional research methods shaped by Latin American 

decolonial thought. The approach sought to amplify marginalised voices, embrace non-English 

perspectives, and acknowledge the significance of oral traditions. The journey unfolded through 

regional "missional listening," collective discernment, and intercultural synthesis. Challenges included 

the significant time and financial investment, holding space for diverse ideas, and transitioning from 

collating global perspectives to articulating Tearfund's perspectives on the subject matter. The resulting 

"Abundant Community Theology" offers an alternative anthropology rooted in interconnectedness, 

challenging the historical legacy of dominion theology. This report reflects on the importance and 

value of the consultative, collaborative journey and the nuanced role of language in fostering ongoing 

conversations for social and environmental justice. 

 

 
An Invitation to Challenge and Grow 

Allow us to begin with a confession: this theological 

research project did not start because of decolonial 

theories, but rather because of decolonial intuitions. 

Latin American liberation theology proposes a 

theological and pastoral method with three stages—“see-

judge-act“—as a way of emphasising that reason is always 

a “second step,” as experience comes first. Somehow, 

this is what happened with our theological research on 

economic and environmental sustainability: when we 

decided to undertake it, we did not have complete 

theoretical and methodological clarity, but we knew that 

we needed to build a process that could allow us to 

listen, honour, and learn from some of the voices that 

are usually left behind in the mainstream theological 

space.
1

 Once we had done this, decolonial thinking 

helped us make sense of our initial intuitions and 

provided us with a good theoretical framework to 

organise our findings. We also knew that this choice 

required an attitude of humility, a spirit of curiosity, and 

a dose of stubbornness, as the mainstream academic 

 
1

 Here we use “mainstream” to refer to the part of society which is relatively more powerful (like the main part of a 

river). We use “margins” to refer to the part of society with less power; that is, those who tend to be excluded and left 

behind: “The mainstream are the ones who decide the rules of society, what is and is not acceptable, and how people 

should and should not behave. The mainstream sets the culture while the [margins] are those who have to abide by the 

rules that have been set for them” (Tearfund 2020).  
2

 Note the use of “decolonial”, proposed by Latin American scholars, instead of “postcolonial.” which was proposed 

first by scholars such as Homi Bhabha, Edward Said, and Frantz Fanon, among others. 

space is usually dominated by Cartesian rationality—“I 

think, therefore I exist”—which would not easily accept 

the lack of precision and control that we had at that 

point. On the other hand, we were fortunate that 

Tearfund was open to support this innovative 

theological research process, with the promise of 

deeper, richer and more relevant outcomes. 

Now, before moving forward, we want to state our 

place of enunciation: where we write from. This is 

important, because it helps the reader understand 

where our comments and arguments come from. One 

of the authors of this paper, Maria Ale, comes from 

Latin America and has been part of this research 

process from its very beginning, which partly explains 

the bias in this article toward Latin American decolonial 

perspectives, theories, and authors.
2

 The other author, 

Clark, comes from South Africa but has lived in the UK 

for several years; he became involved in the project 

while the second report was being drafted and then co-

led the remainder of the project. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   46 

  

Tearfund, where the authors serve, is a Christian 

Non-Governmental Organisation born and established 

in the United Kingdom; it partners with churches on 

issues related to development, advocacy for justice, and 

humanitarian response. Tearfund’s Christian identity 

has been affirmed and reaffirmed throughout its more 

than fifty years of existence and is foundational to the 

organisation’s why, how, and with whom. This is why 

the organisation has, historically, actively invested time 

and energy in reflecting theologically around its main 

areas of ministry, including issues related to poverty, 

church and community-led development, gender, 

disability, peace and reconciliation, migration, 

economic and environmental justice, among many 

others. As an organisation, our desire is to allow 

ourselves to be shaped—and when necessary shaken—

by the scriptures. One of the concrete ways we do this 

is through conducting theological research, aiming to 

deepen and enrich our understanding on these topics 

as well as to contribute to the public theological 

discourse on them among policymakers, civil society 

movements, programmes, churches, and supporters. 

The process of undertaking theological research within 

Tearfund has taken different forms throughout the 

organisation’s history, but for the most part it has been 

permeated by a Global North perspective, expressed 

through the identity of the researcher(s), the language 

of the research, the methodologies used, the format of 

the outputs, and the use of the findings as true and valid 

to every context in which Tearfund works.
3

 One of the 

problems with this approach is the false assumption of 

“universality” that is subtle but quite common in 

mainstream spaces, keeping non-mainstream groups in 

the margins, invisible, and in silence. Today, we 

recognize that there are ways of approaching theology 

that can contribute to legitimising power systems that 

perpetuate injustice; therefore, as a team, we have made 

a commitment to undertake theological research 

processes that, intentionally, contribute to challenge 

unjust structures and promote power-sharing dynamics. 

Because we have been so accustomed to using certain 

research methods, we have had to be particularly 

creative, humble, and curious to learn from other 

epistemologies and approaches, and we have found 

decolonial thinking to be particularly insightful in 

putting together and reflecting on these types of “upside 

down” research processes. 

This paper assesses a concrete theological research 

process on the intersection of environmental and 

economic sustainability through the lens of decolonial 

theories in theological research. The first section 

explores the concepts of decoloniality of “power,” 

“being,” “knowledge,” and “belief,” proposed by Latin 

 
3

 In this paper, terms such as “Global North,” “Global South,” and “West” refer to ideological and geopolitical 

constructs, not only geographic boundaries. 

American decolonial scholars, which provide a 

theoretical framework for assessing our research effort. 

The second section provides a quick overview of the 

process itself, highlighting those aspects that decolonial 

theory brings to light, as well as the phases of the 

research process. Section three explains the essence of 

the theological proposal that arose as a result of this 

research process—which we have called “Abundant 

Community Theology.” The fourth section addresses 

the positive impact that our decolonial intuitions made 

to the paper, both for the paper itself and for our own 

team. Finally, section five of this paper acknowledges 

some of the challenges and limitations of our quest. 

 

Decoloniality of “Power,” “Being,” 

“Knowledge,” and “Belief,” in Latin 

American Decolonial Thought 
Scholars and researchers from different disciplines 

and parts of the world have proposed diverse ways to 

approach culture and power. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the 

“postcolonial theories” academic stream emerged with 

thinkers from India, the Middle East, and the United 

States, such as Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Chakravarty 

Spivak and Edward Said, who reflected on the heritage 

of British colonisation in the 19th and 20th centuries, 

but also on issues related to civil and political struggles 

(Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos 2018). 

In Latin America, these “subaltern” theories took their 

own essence and shape. They were called “decolonial 

theories” and reflected on the heritage of the Spanish 

colonisation that took place between the 16th and the 

20th centuries, that was sustained through exploitation, 

domination, and conflict, and that is still present today 

in different forms. For Latin American decolonial 

thinkers, modernity and coloniality are two phenomena 

that emerged at the same time; they are connected and 

depend on each other, like the two faces of the same 

coin (Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos 

2018). Decolonial theories conceive race as a central 

issue, because it is the first form of modern “otherness” 

connected to coloniality. As “colonisation” evolved into 

the ideological system of “coloniality,” it uses disciplines 

like history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and 

theology to build its case and justify the logic of 

domination of some peoples over others. Latin 

American subaltern scholars conceive coloniality as 

being multi-faceted and identify different dimensions of 

it: “coloniality of power,” of “being,” of “knowledge,” 

and, more recently, of “belief.”  

“Coloniality of power” denounces the living legacy 

of European colonialism in Latin America, which is 

reflected in racial, political, and social structures. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   47 

  

According to Quijano, the relationships of dominion 

that took place during the European conquest were 

built on a false idea of racial superiority; that is, a 

supposed “biological” difference—with theological and 

political motivations—that situated the European 

conquerors over all non-European populations (2014, 

778). As a result, conquered peoples were treated as 

“naturally” inferior, along with their phenotypic traits, 

their cultures and traditions, their ancestral wisdom, 

and their thinking (Ibid., 780).  

That sense of inferiority is what anthropologist 

Walter Mignolo calls “coloniality of being” (Mújica 

García and Fabelo Corzo 2019, 1-9), which began when 

colonised individuals were defined through the logic 

and lenses of the colonisers, and which led to the denial 

of their human condition, identity, autonomy, culture, 

and faculties. It affects individual self-identity. Following 

Frantz Fanon’s thinking (Ibid.), the colonised 

individual, dispossessed of their humanity, is also 

stripped of their capacity to practise the privilege of 

sharing their gifts. Without the possibility to contribute 

to others, the colonised being was nullified and became 

a “condemned” being (Ibid.).  

Closely connected to the denial of the human 

condition is “coloniality of knowledge,” which refers to 

the denial of the presence and construction of authentic 

and “true” knowledge among colonised populations. 

Portuguese anthropologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos 

calls this process “epistemicide,” the silencing, 

replacement, and killing of ancestral knowledge, 

wisdom, stories, and memories in the name of 

European rationality, which became the only valid and 

true parameter (as cited in Gómez Quintero 2010, 87). 

As a result, most of the cosmogonies, worldviews, 

healing practices, and education rhythms already 

present among Indigenous communities were either 

missed and neglected or demonised and prohibited. 

This perspective deeply affects today’s educational, 

cultural, and religious systems, with some small 

counter-cultural attempts to recognize, learn from, 

make visible, and revindicate ancestral identity and 

wisdom. 

Finally, and more recently, other decolonial and 

postcolonial thinkers explored ways to name forms of 

coloniality that undermine worldviews, philosophies, 

religiosities, principles, and systems of life that reflect a 

way of life different from Western constructs. 

Ecuadorian sociologist and educator Catherine Walsh 

proposes the term “cosmogonic coloniality” to refer to 

this intercultural aspect (2009, 3). Others, like 

theologian and anthropologist Nicolás Panotto, 

explores postcolonial theologies and talks about the 

need to dismantle the “coloniality of belief,” because 

the systems of belief, and religions in general have, 

historically, played a role of social, cultural, and spiritual 

control, which has been largely acknowledged and used 

by empires throughout history, including during the 

European conquest (2014, 144). In Latin American 

decolonial thinking, these reflections invite us to 

consider the ways in which the spread of the gospel was 

experienced by colonised populations—Indigenous 

Peoples—as part of the whole colonial project. It also 

challenges the assumption that expressions of 

Christianity brought by Northern missionaries are the 

only possible way of experiencing “true” faith in the 

“true” triune God (Ibid., 146). In fact, “decolonising 

belief” leads one to think critically about traditional 

methods of exegesis and hermeneutics because, as with 

every other science, they embody and respond to 

particular interests and parameters that have not always 

been those of the people left outside of the mainstream 

theological space. Finally, an effort to “decolonise 

belief” is an invitation to pluralise theological subjects 

and identities, giving legitimate space to those faces and 

voices that have been, historically, in the margins of 

theological debates. 

This discriminatory system based on power, being, 

knowledge, and belief did not end with the abolition of 

slavery and the fights for independence around the 

world, but is still reflected in discourses, attitudes, 

behaviours, and decision-making at individual, social, 

and political levels. Thinkers of subaltern and 

decolonial studies affirm that, as difficult as it can be to 

believe, after many centuries, the effects of colonialism 

persist in today's world; in people’s mindsets, 

educational and health systems, geo-political 

relationships, and systems of beliefs. Dismantling this 

type of imperialism, one that permeates most of today’s 

modern world’s structures, requires an intentional 

choice for decolonization. This choice, for Boaventura 

de Sousa Santos, needs to be made through listening to 

the “epistemologies of the South,” understood as 

multilocal ways to identify and validate knowledge born 

from the struggles against capitalism, colonialism, and 

patriarchy, produced by social groups and classes that 

have suffered most from the injustices caused by such 

systems (2020, 118). The “epistemologies of the South” 

that de Sousa Santos refers to are the wisdom and 

knowledge coming from historically excluded groups in 

Latin America, including Indigenous communities (the 

direct descendants of the communities subdued by the 

Spanish Empire), Afro-descendant peoples (whose 

ancestors were brought to the Americas as slaves), 

women (who are still oppressed by our patriarchal 

systems), and other human groups excluded by 

capitalism and colonisation.  

de Sousa Santos’ (Ibid.) concept of 

“epistemologies of the South” is neither finite nor 

geographically localised (as if “South” were a 

geographic place); it rather has three premises: 1) the 

world is much broader than the Western understanding 

of the world; 2) the world’s diversity is infinite, in terms 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   48 

  

of the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, as well as 

relating; 3) the world’s great diversity cannot be 

monopolised by one general theory, which is why it is 

necessary to find plural ways of knowledge (as cited in 

Infante 2013, 406). In that sense, there should exist as 

many epistemologies as systems of thoughts or 

philosophies, which are expressed in the diversities of 

peoples (Ibid., 404). In a similar vein, some 

philosophers, social scientists, and theologians have 

coined the concept of “epistemic justice/injustice.” 

Philosopher Miranda Fricker, for example, defines 

“epistemic injustice” as “a wrong done to some in their 

capacity as a knower,” which prevents people in the 

margins from being heard and understood by others, as 

well as contributing to broader and deeper social 

understandings (Fricker 2007, 1). To seek “epistemic 

justice” or to listen to the “epistemologies of the South” 

does not mean to replace or invalidate modern 

Western knowledge; the aim is rather to question its 

claim to be the only valid epistemology and to advocate 

for the equal validity of other epistemologies. In that 

sense, we endorse de Sousa Santos’ affirmation that 

“there is no global social justice without global cognitive 

justice” (2020, 118).  

These critical reflections make us more aware of 

our own identity and the power that we, intrinsically, 

carry as a Christian organisation that raises funds in the 

Global North to support development, advocacy, and 

humanitarian response initiatives in the Global South. 

It is through this lens of Latin American decolonial 

thought that we will introduce and assess our theological 

research process. At the outset of the research, we were 

inspired to engage the Sacred Scriptures with curiosity, 

commitment, and intentionality, in order to enrich our 

understanding of the triune God and his presence in the 

world, through discovering God in some of the faces 

and voices that we felt have traditionally been absent in 

theological debates. We thought this approach could 

contribute to a broader power shift (or power share) in 

the theological space.  

 

An “Upside-Down” Process 
In 2018, “Economic and Environmental 

Sustainability” (EES) was identified as a corporate 

priority for Tearfund and we began working towards a 

“global theological framework” on the topic. 

Historically, the typical research methodology for 

Tearfund has been for someone to conduct systematic 

research on a given topic and to produce a report out 

of that research. Such research might include a 

literature review and consultations of some form. 

Typically, the researcher is based in a Global North 

 
4 A “Missional listening” spirit has been embraced by diverse Christian ministries. It speaks about listening to people to 

discern what God is already doing and joining God in mission. Baptists Together UK defines it as having “one ear to 

God and one ear to the community” (Lucas 2022).  

context and research material is largely written in 

English, published in the Global North, and expected 

to be globally relevant. In fact, we used to call our 

frameworks “global,” not because they were built from 

listening to global voices but because they were meant 

to be used by audiences across the globe. This 

methodology creates a self-generating bias towards 

certain material and routinely overlooks, ignores, or is 

oblivious to many important ideas and theological 

conversations that exist in different forms and contexts. 

As a result, such theological frameworks are radically 

impoverished by exploring only this limited space of 

theological ideas and expressions. 

With our growing desire to contribute to shifting 

and sharing power in and through our work, we sought 

an approach that embraces a more decolonial spirit and 

allows us to engage in an honest, “missional listening” 

exercise.
4

 We looked for a “contextual theology,” that, 

as Anderson and McGeoch suggest,  

 

speaks from and to the lived-realities of people, 

it speaks to the church and the academy, it 

involves dialogue and critique, it enters into a 

global conversation, and it is “performed”—that 

is, it is lived out, not simply written about. 

Contextual theology does not start with theory or 

philosophical ideas which are then applied onto 

society. Contextual theology develops and 

evolves through continuous conversation and 

expression. It is theology in motion (Anderson 

and McGeoch 2020, 6). 

 

A Decolonial Approach 

There were four key aspects of outworking this 

contextuality in our methodology that align with Latin 

American decolonial thought. First, we needed to 

incorporate theology not just from academic 

theologians from all over the world, but also from 

practitioners. We wanted to bring perspectives from 

theory and practise together into dialogue. This 

approach to theology has been referred to in South 

Africa as “people’s theology,” where “theology is not 

the exclusive preserve of professional theologians, 

ministers, and priests. Ordinary Christians can 

participate in theological reflection and should be 

encouraged to do so.” This includes women, youth, 

Indigenous Peoples, and other communities often left 

in the margins of theological spaces (Kairos 

Theologians (Group) 1986, 34-35). The choice of the 

voices to which we wanted to listen was made in each 

region and therefore varied; however, women, young 

people, non-academic theologians, Indigenous 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   49 

  

communities, and people who embody ancestral 

wisdom were identified across many regions as being 

those that this research needed to include. 

Second, we sought to incorporate theological 

perspectives from non-English material. Not all 

important and legitimate theology is written in English 

and the English language ought not hold in our minds 

and practise any hegemonic, neo-colonial restrictions 

over the scope of our theological exploration. That is, 

we should not expect all theology to be written in or 

translated into English in order to be incorporated into 

research like this.  

Third, not only does theology exist outside English 

writing, but much theology is not necessarily even 

written at all, especially among non-Western 

communities where knowledge, tradition, and culture 

are built and passed on orally. If our theology is 

“performed” and “lived out,” then we must explore and 

incorporate other forms of theology. Jean-Marc Ela 

refers to this as “shade tree theology,”  

 

a theology that, far from libraries and the offices, 

develops among brothers and sisters…We must 

discover the oral dimension of theology, which 

is no less important than the summae and the 

great treatises. Christian theology must be 

liberated from a cultural system that sometimes 

conveys the false impression that the Word has 

been made text. Why can’t the language of faith 

also portray song, game, art, [and] dance…? (Ela 

1986, 180-181).  

 

And finally, we sought for our theology to first be 

shaped and informed by perspectives from the Global 

South and only then to bring that thinking into dialogue 

with perspectives from the Global North. This “Global 

South-first” approach was important for at least three 

key reasons. First, in order to shift power. Of course, 

one hopes that research like this contributes to change 

in the world through new policies, changes to action and 

behaviour, new narratives, and altered discourse, yet 

when the research is biased towards particular contexts, 

it is likely that the resulting change in the world will not 

best serve those who have been marginalised through 

the research. To keep our research centred on a Global 

North perspective is to keep power centralised in that 

context. It is to keep perpetuating a status quo that 

disproportionately serves the relatively powerful Global 

North contexts. It reinforces the unjust legacies of 

colonialism and perpetuates a form of neo-colonialism. 

On the other hand, to adopt a “Global South-first” 

approach is to shift power in ways that will hopefully 

lead to more equitable and fairer change in the world.  

A second reason for this “Global South-first” 

approach to contextual theology is that there is a global 

asymmetry in “economic and environmental 

sustainability,” in that very often those geographic 

regions that have done the least to contribute towards 

climate change experience a disproportionate amount 

of its destructive effect. As we sought to theologically 

explore the intersections of economics and 

environment, it was important to hear first from those 

who tend to experience more of these harmful effects 

before hearing from those in Global North contexts 

who typically experience more of the benefits of our 

current systems.  

The third reason relates to the other two, but 

emphasises and acknowledges the destructive role the 

Global North has played in the environment, especially 

since the beginning of industrialization. In fact, 

Indigenous communities from the Global South claim 

that it is not “humans” who have destroyed the rest of 

God’s creation, precisely because many of these 

ancestral human communities have coexisted with 

other living beings for thousands of years without 

creating the same level of damage that the Global North 

has created in a few centuries (Naknanuk 2022). Being 

responsible for so much environmental and social 

destruction, the Global North may have more to learn 

from Global South communities around the world than 

to teach on this topic. 

 

The Phases of the Research  

There were three phases to the research: regional 

“missional listening,” collective discernment, and 

intercultural processing. In the first phase—regional 

“missional listening” —we set out with plans to conduct 

distinct research in Latin America, Africa, the Middle 

East, Asia, and then finally in the Global North, with 

each region in dialogue with the research in subsequent 

regions, and each culminating in a regional paper that 

would reflect particular voices, values, priorities, 

emphases, and contexts in each region. Unsurprisingly, 

the research in each region looked different.  

 

Missional Listening: In Latin America, Tearfund 

worked with an external consultant from the region who 

designed a mixed and participatory methodology with 

an intentional desire to go beyond what has already 

been said about environmental and economic 

sustainability in the region. A literature review from key 

influential theologians and writers from the region 

yielded four key themes that seemed to require further 

exploration: creation and redemption, women and 

ecology, ancestral worldviews, and sustainability. 

In turning first to the ‘key influential theologians 

and writers’ from the Global South context, we were 

subverting Global North/South power dynamics, but 

arguably this initial reliance on contributors who were 

considered to be “key” and “influential” did not take 

into account the power dynamics within the Global 

South. We were still gravitating to the mainstream 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   50 

  

voices, albeit within the context of the Global South. 

However, the consultations that followed were more in 

line with Latin American decolonial thought as they 

incorporated an intentionally diverse group with many 

more contributors from the margins. 

A diverse group of academic theologians, activists, 

musicians, pastors, youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, 

and ecological programme practitioners were invited 

into an online participatory process exploring these 

four themes in greater depth. This process lasted eight 

months, with a final physical gathering that produced a 

regional paper that was the first concrete contribution 

to Tearfund’s research process and that set the tone in 

terms of research that contextualised and reflected local 

issues and concerns.  

The focus then turned to Africa, where Tearfund 

hosted three face-to-face consultations, again with a 

range of participants including grassroots practitioners 

and influential theological voices in the region. Once 

again, a contextual participatory methodology was 

adopted by the external research consultants. A major 

methodological focus in the Africa regional report was 

to present the research in an “emancipatory form.” As 

Anderson and McGeoch note,  

 

...the research is led by the voices of grassroots 

practitioners and disciples of Jesus, presented in 

a way that keeps those voices front and center 

without re-interpreting them, and understands 

that people read scripture in countless different 

ways. No single hermeneutic is placed above 

another” (2020, 6).  

 

In the African research, the broader literature 

review followed reports from the physical consultations. 

This was in line with Latin American decolonial 

thought as it prioritised the consultations, which 

included many marginalised voices, and allowed the 

relatively diverse group of contributors to influence the 

selection of input from broader literature.  

It was at this point in the research that we were hit 

with the global COVID pandemic, which significantly 

altered (along with so much else in the world) the 

degree to which the research could include in-person 

consultations. This was a major loss, as the group 

gatherings had significantly contributed to the richness 

of the research, creating rare spaces where various 

perspectives came together in one room for dialogue, 

debate, and discussion. Very often, the value of 

theology is not only the final product, but the very 

process of grappling with different ideas together. As we 

discovered, the process was transformative for us as an 

organisation, and also for many individual participants.  

But we pressed on within the new emerging 

horizons of possibility. Working with a consultant in 

Asia, we adjusted the methodology to include a desk-

based literature review of key works from the region, 

and several online, one-on-one interviews with key 

influential regional voices. Limiting this research to 

deeper dives with fewer key influential people in the 

region reduced the scope of the research, but still 

offered vibrant and valuable research.  

This methodological shift meant that we were 

more reliant on published materials and contributors 

who were already well known. While we sought to 

ensure that the research still incorporated contributions 

not only from the mainstream but also the margins, this 

shift moved us further away from the ideals of Latin 

American decolonial thinking. This new methodology 

was more reliant on key influential people who often 

were people speaking from the mainstream contexts. 

As such, this research was arguably less shaped by the 

margins in ways that align with Latin American 

decolonial thought. 

Sadly, after much effort and exploration, we were 

unable to find a suitable consultant for the planned 

research in the Middle East. Fortunately, some key 

Middle Eastern literature had already been identified 

and reviewed earlier in the process by consultants for 

the Africa research. We were able to incorporate this 

albeit truncated contribution into the global framework.  

With this regional work completed in Latin 

America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, we brought 

these regional papers—with their ideas, challenges, and 

distinct emphases—into dialogue with theological 

perspectives from the Global North. Working with 

consultants from the THEOS think tank in the UK, the 

methodology was similar to that of the Asia research in 

that it included a literature review and interviews with 

key influential voices from the Global North and 

culminated in a regional written report. Once again, the 

reliance on respected theologians meant a bias towards 

the mainstream that was arguably incongruent with 

Latin American decolonial thought.   

Retrospectively, we refer to this first phase of 

research as regional missional listening, meaning that in 

this research we were seeking to learn and listen from 

these various contexts. We were not initially trying to 

work out what we as Tearfund could or should be 

saying in those regions, but rather listening to what was 

emerging in them, and we were intentionally seeking 

not only to listen to contributors who might be seen as 

mainstream, but also to voices from the margins. We 

see “missional listening” as recognising that our 

presence is never neutral and that we hope to host, 

facilitate, and steward these conversations in such a way 

that the Spirit of God is at work and leading us all 

through kingdom transformation.  

 

Discerning Collectively: With the regional phase 

completed, we shifted gears into the internal dialogue 

phase of the research. This step meant bringing into 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   51 

  

dialogue this new regional research with Tearfund’s 

existing published literature, as well as with Tearfund 

staff who have experience or expertise in the topic. We 

wanted the opportunity to consider everything we heard 

and captured in the regional reports through the lenses 

of Tearfund’s core beliefs and identity, especially 

around some complex and controversial theological 

issues. It was a process of collective discernment. For 

instance, we created a reference group made up of 

Tearfund staff from the different contexts we work in. 

It included staff with theological, programmatic, and 

advocacy-focussed roles. We shared with them the 

regional research, as well as some preliminary 

summaries. We facilitated discussions around key 

topics, primarily centering around those for which we 

had noticed tensions, especially between various 

regional papers or between the regional research and 

Tearfund’s historical publications. This process 

allowed us to reconsider, revisit, and grapple with 

various theological ideas and their implications for our 

various areas of work. It also helped add nuance and 

complexity to our thinking.  

It was in this process of bringing various ideas into 

the reference group dialogue spaces that we 

transitioned from talking about what we had heard 

others (outside Tearfund) say, to what we felt we as 

Tearfund wanted to say. As the Tearfund staff 

overseeing this research process, we sensed a growing 

conviction that we have a valuable and meaningful 

contribution to public theological discourse on this 

topic.  

 

Intercultural Synthesis: The final phase was one of 

“intercultural synthesis,” in which we sought to bring all 

of the diversity of the research into one coherent 

framework. The goal was not to capture everything that 

we had heard, nor was it to say everything that is 

important to say about economic and environmental 

sustainability as a “final word” in the conversation. It 

was definitely not to summarise, compile, or synthesise 

the different regional reports, as each of them was 

unique and different from the others both in form and 

in content. 

Rather, as the Tearfund staff overseeing this 

research process, we sought to craft a framework that 

had “space” to incorporate much of the antecedent 

diverse thought, a framework that honoured the 

journey, the spirit of the whole process, and the content 

that had emerged so far. We sought a framework that 

reflected the heart of Tearfund’s theology and 

corporate ethos, but was also coherent enough as an 

idea to be impactful and able to take a few steps to 

 
5 Thacker, Justin. 2022. Abundant Community Theology: Working towards environmental and economic 

sustainability (EES). Full Version. https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-report/abundant-community-

theology-working-towards-environmental-and-economic-sustainability.  

forward the public theological conversation on this 

topic. Considering the years of research and the 

hundreds of pages of material we had gathered, this 

process of synthesis was no small feat! 

We worked closely with a consultant who 

produced a number of drafts leading to a final paper 

that centred around the idea that we have titled 

“abundant community.” Our final paper, “Abundant 

Community Theology: Working towards 

environmental and economic sustainability (EES)” 

(Thacker 2022),
5

 is understandably a lengthy affair. The 

benefit of this being a long report was that it allowed for 

detailed engagement with the research and ideas 

proposed, while the downside was that the length 

(seventy-six pages) was a barrier to engagement for 

many people. Moreover, the paper was written in 

English. The ethos of our approach led us to first 

transpose the ideas into a short version (twenty pages) 

and a summary version (four pages). Then, at significant 

cost (time and finances), we invested in translating these 

versions into Tearfund’s core languages: French, 

Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and African Portuguese. 

We hope this not only increases engagement with the 

ideas and proposals, but also does some measure of 

justice to our desire to shift power and carry out 

theological research differently.  

 

The Abundant Community theology 
In the final “Abundant Community” paper we 

recognise that the way one conceives of humanity--what 

one believes about what it means to be human in this 

world--has huge implications for how we relate to one 

another and the wider creation. Sadly, Christianity’s 

legacy of “dominion theology” and the belief in human 

right to exploit and dominate our planet lies at the root 

of many of our environmental and economic 

challenges.  

The report outlines two alternative anthropologies. 

First, one can hold a theology, or mindset, of scarcity. 

This mindset fosters a sense of competition among life 

on earth. It means we view “individuals and the goods 

of the world as resources for us to exploit rather than as 

neighbours and friends whom we are called to love” 

(Thacker 2022, 2). An anthropology founded on 

scarcity leads to a lifestyle that is consumeristic, 

individualistic, selfish, and exploitative.  

An alternative paradigm is proposed and 

championed as the heart of this paper: “abundant 

community.” This idea draws from ideas prevalent in 

Global South communities, for example the African 

Bantu notion of “Ubuntu,” which is the idea that “a 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-report/abundant-community-theology-working-towards-environmental-and-economic-sustainability
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-report/abundant-community-theology-working-towards-environmental-and-economic-sustainability


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   52 

  

person is a person through other people” (Giljam et al. 

2021, 20). Ubuntu emphasises our interdependence as 

humans and as life on earth. There is a sense that being 

human means to belong to and participate in a shared 

society.   

Building on this, “abundant community” is a way 

of understanding our anthropology whereby we see 

ourselves not as individuals in competition living in a 

scarce environment, but rather as fundamentally 

relational beings created by God, living as members of 

a common humanity in a world of abundance:  

 

Such communities believe that their identity is 

formed in relation to God, and this in turn 

defines their relationships with self, one another 

and the rest of creation. This represents a 

relational dynamic in which what matters is not 

just how we relate, but who we are in relating. It 

is about a different understanding of me, an 

expanded version of us, that leads me to conduct 

myself within our shared planetary home 

according to a household, rather than 

competitive market, mindset. This means we 

share and care abundantly, not just our wealth, 

but also our power, voices and lives, for we store 

our riches in the lives and wellbeing of our global 

neighbour and the world which God has 

provided (Thacker 2022, 10). 

 

This idea of “abundant communities” forms the 

foundation of several challenges and proposals for 

different people and contexts. For example, when we 

really believe we are members of one household, 

sharing one common home with everything that God 

has created, then we view our wealth and resources as 

fundamentally belonging to this abundant community. 

This reframes the traditional donor-beneficiary 

dynamic. As the report states:  

 

It also helps us to recognise that the problem is 

not poverty over there to which the wealthy 

Global North have the solution. Rather the 

problem is the mindset of greed that bedevils 

many of us across the globe and to which a 

solution can be found in the Ubuntu-like 

anthropology that is embodied in numerous 

communities in the Global South (Thacker 

2022, 8). 

 

Being Transformed by the Journey 
As we mentioned before, part of the uniqueness of 

this upside-down research process was that the 

“journey” (the different phases that include the regional 

consultations, the collective discernment and the 

intercultural processing) turned out to be as important 

as the “product” (the Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability theological paper). In fact, there were at 

least two aspects in which this whole process enriched 

us; first, the theological content itself and second, 

Tearfund as an organisation. 

In terms of the content, we realise that while some 

ideas are repeated in various regional papers, each 

paper raises distinct emphases and proposals. For 

example, the Latin America paper offers a scathing 

critique of capitalism and emphasises the relationship 

between violence against women and against creation, 

as well as the unique contribution of Indigenous 

communities. In the Africa paper, there is a resounding 

call to reclaim the notions of “abundance” and 

“prosperity,” which have been considerably misused 

and have gained a quite negative connotation in the last 

decades in many religious spaces. The Asia paper 

brought to the table interfaith dialogue and considered 

the impacts of “divination of nature,” arguing that such 

worship of nature itself has caused, in that region, harm 

and destruction to the wide creation, and suggesting that 

we should direct our worship only to the Creator of this 

sacred world. The Global North paper embodies an 

appropriately different tone, unique to all the other 

papers; it offers sober calls for lament and repentance, 

which are found to be pertinent and necessary in 

embracing the cause of caring for the wide creation.  

At the same time, the decolonial spirit underlying 

this research process brought unexpected lessons for us 

as an organisation. From the very beginning, we had 

clarity of the spirit and the intention with which we were 

entering into this task, but we did not have all the clarity 

of every aspect of the steps we needed to take and the 

challenges we were going to face. In a way, entering with 

such a spirit allowed us to grant ourselves the chance to 

build the process as we walked (as we mentioned 

earlier, not everything was completely defined from the 

very beginning, which was frustrating at times), and to 

be open to changes. These types of approaches have 

been explored by scholars such as Elise Rockwell 

(2009, 48) who argues that social anthropology is not an 

exact science, with exact methods that can be replicated 

anywhere, anytime; it is rather an attitude toward the 

research, an attitude towards the investigation, and not 

a gathering tool. The advantage of this flexible 

approach, which sometimes seems to lack rigour to the 

point that it can be considered to have a 

“methodological gap,” is that it allows the articulation 

between theory and research in a way that gives space 

for new discoveries to emerge. In that sense, ambiguity 

can become a strength. This is precisely what we 

experienced in our research; the attitude made the way. 

Retrospectively, we realise that if we had wanted to 

design the whole process from the very beginning, 

without considering the different context, stakeholders, 

and realities, we would probably have replicated the 

same process in every region and would probably have 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   53 

  

chosen to impose a standardised format for every 

regional report, which would have killed the decolonial 

spirit of the attempt. In the same way, if we had not 

allowed the preliminary findings to inform the next 

steps, we would not have been able to incorporate new 

stages that happened to be very important to build 

ownership among key stakeholders, as in the collective 

discernment process. Similarly with the language, we 

were not fully aware of the monopoly of English or even 

of the written language until we were challenged by the 

working groups. Or with the format: we did not realise 

how important it was to honour the different ways of 

expressing knowledge and ideas beyond the Western 

academic argumentative style; deep wisdom was shared 

through liturgies, songs, and stories, even if some 

people considered them an “unfinished” work. An 

intentional choice for a decolonial approach requires 

intentional flexibility and openness to the unexpected. 

For organisations like Tearfund, which operates with a 

mostly Westernised mindset, the “decolonial outcome” 

is seen as more important than the “decolonial 

journey,” even though in the long term, the latter can 

be even more important than the former.  

 

Challenges and Limitations 
While there were many benefits from the 

approach we took to this work, it was not without its 

challenges. One of the most significant challenges we 

faced throughout this project was how costly it was in 

terms of both time and money. For example, in-person 

gatherings were a major investment that included travel, 

visas, accommodation, and food for participants. 

Undoubtedly, we could have chosen a much simpler, 

cheaper, and quicker route. We could have skipped 

many of the in-person consultations. We could have 

spent less time and money exploring the various Global 

South contexts. We could have placed more emphasis 

on written texts that were easier to access. Part of this 

challenge was navigating the environmental cost of the 

flights and other travel. Not only does Tearfund seek to 

reduce our flights, but we were wary about ironically 

contributing carbon emissions as part of our research 

into environmental sustainability! While navigating 

these costs and tensions was challenging, the research 

was certainly enriched by this process and much of the 

content in the final EES paper would never have existed 

were it not for the costly process we adopted. 

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, we recognise 

that doing theology is not just about the final paper, but 

about the journey—of discussions, of grappling with 

different ideas. There was immense value in bringing 

people together to listen to one another, to grow, and 

to be transformed through these encounters.  

A second challenge we faced through this process 

was holding space for diverse ideas. As we brought 

many people together, we intentionally wanted to listen 

to different, sometimes opposing or contradicting 

perspectives. This occasionally put pressure on 

relationships at times when we incorporated into the 

regional reports some ideas or proposals that other 

participants strongly disagreed with, especially when the 

divergent ideas came from marginalised theological 

voices. This issue became even more tense when “new” 

ideas expressed in the regional reports confronted 

those holding a certain level of power (often implicit), 

which required additional levels of dialogue and, at 

times, the recognition that, sometimes, creating space 

for “new thinking” makes some people uncomfortable. 

In the future, perhaps we could help contributors by 

being more explicit about our intent to hear from and 

incorporate various perspectives in our “missional 

listening,” and to distinguish more clearly between what 

we heard from others and what we said/proposed 

ourselves.  

And this is linked to a third challenge, which was 

possibly the trickiest. After conducting all the regional 

research, we had the mammoth task of processing all 

those ideas and arguments into what would be 

“Tearfund’s theological framework on the topic.”  This 

stage meant a big shift in the process of moving from 

what we had heard to what we want to say as Tearfund. 

That is, it was a shift from collating and presenting ideas 

we had heard from many around the world to 

articulating in “Tearfund’s own voice” what we wanted 

to propose and advocate. As mentioned above, working 

with an internal reference group in an interactive, 

participatory way helped us make this shift. It helped us 

discuss new or challenging ideas and proposals, digest 

them, and eventually rearticulate them in our own voice 

while, as best we could, still honouring the original input 

from communities and theologians around the world.  

Finally, in terms of analysing this research process 

through the lens of Latin American decolonial thought, 

it is worth noting the challenge we experienced in 

identifying who and what literature should be included 

or excluded from the research. As already mentioned, 

we set out intentionally with Latin American decolonial 

intuitions, which included a desire to incorporate a 

diversity of voices within the research, particularly 

voices from the margins as well as more mainstream 

voices. But the process of identifying such voices 

revealed further complex challenges. Who gets to 

decide which people are appropriately “marginalised” 

or “respected” in a field of research? What specific 

criteria should we have in view when delineating 

between mainstream and marginalised voices? Who 

sets those criteria? How should we approach voices 

who might be marginalised from a global perspective 

but might be considered more mainstream in local 

contexts? We recognise that as much as we were 

seeking something of a power shift in this work, we still 

wielded power (and along with that, our own biases) in 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   54 

  

the process of drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion 

within the research (even if those lines sought to be 

wider and more inclusive than Tearfund’s previous 

research). In this we were faced with our own 

(conscious and subconscious) biases and the limitations 

of our knowledge, networks, and connections as we 

sought to identify appropriate voices to include in the 

research. To mitigate this somewhat, we worked closely 

with our local staff living in the regions of the regional 

consultations, and we leant heavily on the consultants 

for broader perspective and expertise. In the Asia and 

Global North papers, we asked the consultants to 

review a wide range of literature in the local context on 

the topic(s) and from that to identify some important 

voices with whom to do deeper research. This process 

meant that while the research remained undeniably 

coloured by our own biases, perspectives and 

limitations, it was at least a process that was stretching 

us to hear from a diversity of ideas and it incorporated 

voices that we would easily have excluded in a more 

traditional methodology.  

 

Conclusion 
We are deeply grateful to God and every single 

person who participated in this broad process. We 

recognise that we had a unique opportunity to put 

together a process that allowed us to grow as a team and 

an organisation, as well as to produce a solid theological 

paper that makes a humble contribution toward 

meeting two of the major challenges of our time: social 

and environmental justice. We acknowledge that the 

challenges we faced in terms of time and funding 

resources may not allow this journey to be easily 

replicable, but we do believe we can learn from the 

spirit that guided us throughout the whole process, and 

that we can apply it in different forms and contexts, as 

it has proven to be incredibly enriching. Engaging in this 

type of quest seems particularly important for 

organisations like Tearfund that want to serve God and 

join in God’s mission to restore and reconcile the world 

in ways that honour life in its different forms and create 

less harm. 

As we closed this research, we realised how 

important language is, and how much words weigh in 

the way we move forward. As we have described and 

promoted the paper, we have sought to do so in ways 

that offer it as a theological proposal rather than the 

final word on the topic(s). Our hope is that the paper 

becomes a catalyst of new conversations with other 

peoples and networks in the different regions of the 

world, toward a common goal; to worship our Creator 

with the way in which we care for, protect, and nurture 

what our Creator cares for. 

 

 

 

References 
 

Anderson, Valerie, and Graham McGeoch. 2020. 

Exploring theologies of environmental and 

economic sustainability in Africa. Teddington: 

Tearfund. 

de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2020. “Knowledges 

Born in the Struggle Constructing the 

Epistemologies of the Global South.” In Toward 

an aesthetics of the epistemologies of the South, 

Manifesto in Twenty-Two Theses, edited by 

Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maria Meneses, 

117-125. New York and London: Routledge. 

Ela, Jean-Marc. 1986. African Cry. Eugene, OR: Orbis 

Books. 

Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power 

and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Giljam, Miles et al. 2021. Abundant Africa: Our 

decade to shape the African century. 

https://abundant.africa/wp-

content/uploads/2021/06/Abundant-Africa-Our-

decade-to-shape-the-African-Century.pdf  

Gómez Quintero, and Juan David. 2010. “The 

Coloniality of Being and Knowledge: 

Mythologization of Development in Latin 

America.” El Ágora USB 10 (1): 87-105. 

https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/Agora/article

/view/366/126 

Infante, Angel. 2013. “El por qué de una 

epistemología del Sur como alternativa ante el 

conocimiento Europeo.” Fermentum, Revista 

Venezolana de Sociología y Antropología 23 (68): 

401-411. 

https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=705386710

07    

Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos. 2018. 

“Teorías decoloniales en América Latina.” 

Revista Nómadas 26. 

https://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/

23-teorias-decoloniales-en-america-latina-

nomadas-26  

Kairos Theologians (Group). 1986. The Kairos 

document: Challenge to the Church: A 

Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in 

South Africa. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 

Lucas, Ben. 2022. “Missional Posture.” Baptists 

Together. 

https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID

=308599  

Mújica García, Juan Antonio and José Ramón Fabelo 

Corzo. 2019. “La colonialidad del ser: la 

infravaloración de la vida humana en el sur-

global.” Estudios de Filosofía Práctica e Historia 

de las Ideas 21 (2): 1-9. 

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_artt

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=70538671007
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=70538671007
https://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/23-teorias-decoloniales-en-america-latina-nomadas-26
https://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/23-teorias-decoloniales-en-america-latina-nomadas-26
https://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/23-teorias-decoloniales-en-america-latina-nomadas-26
https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=308599
https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=308599
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1851-94902019000200004&lng=es&tlng=es


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  

Buys and Andrade V., Abundant Community Theology: A Case Study in Decolonial Theological Research   55 

  

ext&pid=S1851-

94902019000200004&lng=es&tlng=es. 

Naknanuk, Edson Krenak. 2022. “Indigenous Peoples 

Are Essential to the Rights of Nature.” Cultural 

Survival, October 31. 

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/es/publications/cultura

l-survival-quarterly/los-pueblos-indigenas-son-

esenciales-para-los-derechos-de  

Panotto, Nicolas. 2014. “Descolonizar lo divino. 

Aportes para una teología poscolonial del campo 

religioso latinoamericano." In Catelli, Laura and 

María Elena Lucero, eds. Materialidades (pos) 

coloniales y de la (de) colonialidad. Rosario, 

Argentina: CIETP. 143-155. 

https://www.academia.edu/9842442/_Descoloniza

r_lo_divino_Aportes_para_una_teolog%C3%AD

a_poscolonial_del_campo_religioso_latinoameric

ano_pp_143_155_ 

Quijano, Aníbal. 2014. Colonialidad del poder, 

eurocentrismo y América Latina. Buenos Aires: 

CLACSO. 

http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20140507

042402/eje3-8.pdf. 

Rockwell, Elsie. 2009. La experiencia etnográfica: 

historia y cultura en los procesos educativos. 

Buenos Aires: Paidos. 

Rodríguez Reyes, Abdiel. 2016. “El giro decolonial en 

el siglo XXI.” Revista Ensayos Pedagógicos XI 

(2): 133-158. 

Tearfund. 2020. “Mainstream and Margin.” 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/bible-

studies/mainstream-and-margin.  

Thacker, Justin. 2022. Abundant Community 

Theology: Working towards environmental and 

economic sustainability (EES). Full Version. 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-

report/abundant-community-theology-working-

towards-environmental-and-economic-

sustainability.  

Thacker, Justin. 2022. Abundant Community 

Theology: Working towards environmental and 

economic sustainability (EES). Short Version. 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-

report/abundant-community-theology-working-

towards-environmental-and-economic-

sustainability.  

Thacker, Justin. 2022. Abundant Community 

Theology: Working towards environmental and 

economic sustainability (EES). Research Report 

Summary. 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/research-

report/abundant-community-theology-working-

towards-environmental-and-economic-

sustainability.  

 

Walsh, Catherine. 2009. “Interculturalidad crítica y 

pedagogía de-colonial: apuestas (des)de el in-

surgir, re-existir y re-vivir.” Revista educação 

intercultural hoje en América Latina. La Paz, 

Bolívia. 
 

 

 

Clark Buys is a Theology Development Officer at 

Tearfund. Clark leads Tearfund's global Young 

Theologian program and has focused 

theological reflections on economic and 

environmental sustainability, prosperity gospel 

theology, justice, and integral mission. Clark has 

previously served as a church pastor/elder for several 

years, has a MA in Theology, and is a trained Spiritual 

Director. Born and bred in South Africa, Clark now 

lives on the south coast of England with his wife and 

young children. 

 

Maria A. Andrade V. is Ecuadorian. She is a 

sociologist, child specialist and theologian, with more 

than fifteen years of experience journeying with 

Christian communities on issues around faith, justice 

and development. In more recent years, she has 

focused her interest on environmental justice, 

migration, gender, spirituality and decolonial 

theologies, and has published articles in books and 

journals around those topics. Maria Alejandra serves 

in Tearfund as the Theology and Network 

Engagement Global Lead and lives in Ecuador with 

her husband and two sons, José Andrés and Mati. 

 

Author emails: clarkbuys@gmail.com; 

maria.andrade@tearfund.org  
 

 

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1851-94902019000200004&lng=es&tlng=es
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1851-94902019000200004&lng=es&tlng=es
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/es/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/los-pueblos-indigenas-son-esenciales-para-los-derechos-de
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/es/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/los-pueblos-indigenas-son-esenciales-para-los-derechos-de
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/es/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/los-pueblos-indigenas-son-esenciales-para-los-derechos-de
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/bible-studies/mainstream-and-margin
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/bible-studies/mainstream-and-margin
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
mailto:clarkbuys@gmail.com
mailto:maria.andrade@tearfund.org

