Theology of Liberation Versus
Theology of Prosperity
JULIO SEVERO The Dethroning of the Theology of Integral Mission and the Demonization of Neo-Pentecostalism in Brazil
Theologyof Liberation Versus Theologyof Prosperity ďƒŁ Julio Severo www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com juliosevero@outlook.com 2013 Reviewed by Dennis Downing and Kay Brec
1
T H E O L O G Y
O F
L I B E R A T I O N
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
J U L I O
S E V E R O
Contents Endorsements .................................................................................................... 2 Theology of Liberation Versus Theology of Prosperity....................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3 The Dethroning of the Theology of Integral Mission and the Demonization of Neo-Pentecostalism. .......................................................................................... 5 Neo-Pentecostalism Dethrones Theology of Integral Mission............................ 6 Liberation Theology Precursors ......................................................................... 7 The “Dialogue Prophet” for the Theology of Integral Mission ............................. 9 Pentecostal Minority Affected by the Theology of Integral Mission .................. 10 Frustration of the Integral Mission Leadership with Neo-Pentecostals ............ 11 Victory for the Poor and Victory for the Progressive “Dialogue” ....................... 13 Theology of Integral Mission and Anticonservative Extremism ........................ 14 Theology of Integral Mission Demonizes neo-Pentecostalism ......................... 15 Socialism Versus Neo-Pentecostalism ............................................................ 18 Opportunistic Or Ideological Followers of the Workers’ Party .......................... 19 A Brazil Without an Elijah ................................................................................. 21 Complicity and Silence Versus Complicity and Imperfect Testimony of Christians in Brazil ........................................................................................... 22 Taxes, Taxes, Taxes! ....................................................................................... 23 Does an Anti-Neopentecostal Critic Deserve the Title of “Defender of Faith”? 25 Stupid Alliances................................................................................................ 26 The Biggest Obstacle for the Total Socialist Advance in Brazil........................ 28 Humility for Everyone ....................................................................................... 29 For Further Online Reading: ............................................................................ 30
1
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Endorsements It is very important to be aware of the inroads that Marxist ideology has made into some branches of Christianity. In Latin America the nice-sounding concept of misión integral (integral mission) has turned out to be a thinly-disguised platform for leftist politics. Julio Severo understands this and he skillfully exposes these potentially harmful ideas in his book, Theology of Liberation vs. Theology of Prosperity. In it he helps bring forth the reality that even deeper and more permanent social change from poverty to prosperity can be effectively produced by proclaiming and practicing the biblical doctrine of the kingdom, opening the door for the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. This is a book that I highly recommend! — C. Peter Wagner, Ph.D. Vice-President, Global Spheres, Inc. Julio Severo points up a reality of the Christian community in Brazil that finds expression in other countries as well. Liberal churches and theologians try to wed the Christian faith to socialism, a secular political philosophy. The net result: they talk mostly to each other while their churches decline in members and influence. Meanwhile Pentecostal churches have reached out to the poor and powerless, and more recently, with the spread of the charismatic movement in many churches, to people from all walks of life. Their message is a biblical and uncomplicated message of salvation through Christ, and new life in the power of the Holy Spirit. Their churches grow, people’s lives are changed. I hope the truth in this little booklet will impact the lives and understanding of many people in Brazil. And, who knows, even beyond Brazil! — Larry Christenson, theologian and author, longtime leader in the charismatic renewal among Lutherans.
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity Introduction
T
here is a raging clash of worlds in Brazil, which is one of the most spiritualistic nations in the world. Individuals involved in Afro-Brazilian religions as Candomblé (similar to Santeria and voodoo) are experiencing power encounters with the Gospel thanks to neo-Pentecostal churches.
No other Christian churches in Brazil have been so successful in bringing multitudes of witchcraft adherents to Christ than Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches. Yet, these churches face massive opposition from more traditionalist Protestant churches, especially because of their Prosperity Theology. This opposition comes particularly from the Brazilian blogosphere, where mostly self-proclaimed Calvinist apologetic bloggers incessantly attack neo-Pentecostals. Nonetheless, they do not attack the massive infiltration of liberal and leftist ideas among Calvinist churches and leaders in Brazil. In fact, most of them espouse such ideas. They also attack capitalism, even though political economist Max Weber has pointed out a connection between capitalism and Calvinism. They prefer to be “progressive,” which in Brazil, according the renowned Aurelio Dictionary, means: “One who, not being a member of a socialist or communist party, embraces and/or advocates socialist or Marxist principles.” Their attitude toward capitalism is a far cry from that of Calvin and his immediate successors. Gayraud Wilmore, in his book “African American Religious Studies: An Interdisciplinary Anthology” (Duke University Press Books, 1989, page 12), says, “The social ethics of Puritanism were directed toward the acquisition and proper 3
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
stewardship of wealth as outward symbols of God's favor and the consequent salvation of the individual.” The Max Weber Dictionary says, “According to Calvinism (but not according to Calvin himself), the accumulation of riches was one of the signs that the believer was among the elect — ‘a sign of God’s blessing.’” The website “A Puritan’s Mind” says, “The blessing of the Lord maketh rich… And as riches are in themselves God’s blessings, so are we to desire them for the comfortable course of our natural and civil states.” In this point, one could say that Prosperity Theology had a major Calvinist precedent. But modern-day left-leaning Calvinists have different ideas about their old predecessors and their views on riches. This is why they fiercely oppose capitalism and neo-Pentecostalism. Neo-Pentecostals in Brazil are not completely equivalent to the old Puritans in America. Even though their thoughts about riches seem equal, their attitudes toward witchcraft are completely different. Puritans, who were strict Calvinists, were known, especially in their early history in America, for their practice of burning witches, sticking probably to the Old Testament. Because of the high numbers of witchcraft adherents in Brazil, they would have been massively overloaded in their efforts to burn them all. In contrast, Brazilian neo-Pentecostals, with their daring evangelistic outreaches and clashes with spiritual powers, expel demons from multitudes of witchcraft adherents and lead them to Christ, burning only their books, not their bodies, exactly as described in Acts 19. The price they pay is to suffer attacks by selfproclaimed apologetic bloggers, who even though they hate capitalism, label themselves rightful descendants of Calvin. Yet, the clash of worlds in Brazil is not limited to witchcraft, which is widespread in Brazilian society. Marxism has been equally or more prevalent, with major inroads into seminaries and churches of historical Protestant denominations. Neo-Pentecostalism and its Prosperity Theology are mostly attacked by leftleaning Calvinist bloggers as if it were to blame for the devastating apostasy and corruption in the Brazilian Church. But they fail to mention that Calvinist churches in Europe have destroyed themselves with no help from neo-Pentecostal churches. And in America large Calvinist denominations have ordained gay and lesbian ministers, supported abortion, etc.
4
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Liberalism and leftism, which have been ravaging Calvinist and other traditionalist Protestant churches in America, are predominant among self-proclaimed Calvinist apologetic bloggers in Brazil. However, they are not concerned about the fate of their liberal counterparts in America, because they are busy attacking neo-Pentecostals. This e-booklet explores briefly the nature of such attacks and their origin, and how all Christians, neo-Pentecostals and Calvinists, should unite against a bigger enemy and thief.
The Dethroning of the Theology of Integral Mission and the Demonization of NeoPentecostalism.
I
n early 2012, two prominent Workers’ Party leaders shocked Brazil by revealing that the only remaining obstacle today to the advance of the socialist agenda in Brazil are neo-Pentecostals.
Brazilian socialist militants, especially the hard-core members of the ruling Workers’ Party (PT), are greatly concerned about Brazilian neo-Pentecostals. After all, while the socialists talk about love for the poor and offer promises to the poor (housing, health, education, jobs), that powerful lie is not achieving total control over the poor. To the alarm of the Brazilian Left, neo-Pentecostal churches not only have their church buildings filled with the poor, but also TV shows with enormous audiences of the impoverish masses. In the socialist secular “theology,” the poor are taught to see big government as the supreme provider for all their needs. In socialism, the State is God. NeoPentecostalism brought about a powerful, unparalleled demystification of that socialist worldview by educating the people to see God as the supreme provider for all human needs. In neo-Pentecostalism, though doctrinal deficiencies exist, God is God. Even though there are some neo-Pentecostal ministers experiencing fabulous enrichment coming not from God, but at the expense of their flock, it is indisputable that neo-Pentecostalism restored the centrality of God in the provision of job, housing, health, education and other needs through motivating messages encouraging people to seek and expect provision and prosperity from God. Secular socialism in Brazil has been greatly worried about neo-Pentecostalism since it sees neo-Pentecostalism as a “rival” in outreaches to the poor and subsequent influence over their vote. Christian socialism (in the Catholic form of 5
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
the Theology of Liberation and in the Protestant form of the Theology of Integral Mission [Teologia da Missão Integral]) also has an obsessive concern regarding neo-Pentecostalism. Anglican bishop Robinson Cavalcanti, probably the most prominent evangelical socialist strategist in Brazil, was the founder of the Progressive Evangelical Movement (Movimento Evangélico Progressista) that helped to promote the Workers’ Party among Protestants for more than one decade. Cavalcanti, who received visits from former Brazilian socialist president Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva (the founder of the Workers’ Party) identified, together with other liberal ministers, the Theology of Prosperity as a capitalist expression, as opposed to a socialist expression. In fact, Cavalcanti preached openly that radical socialist politics were expressions from the Kingdom of God. So antisocialist stances or views favoring the Theology of Prosperity were, in his opinion, expressions of the “darkness,” as opposed to the socialist “light.”
Neo-Pentecostalism Dethrones Theology of Integral Mission Several important evangelical leaders in the past sowed the seeds of that “light,” in the form of the Theology of Integral Mission. One such sower was Caio Fábio, formerly the most prominent minister in the Presbyterian Church in Brazil, having a national influence as a sort of an evangelical pope in Brazil, until his downfall in the late 1990s due to adultery and financial scandals. In a recent interview in the Brazilian version of Christianity Today magazine, Caio Fábio declared that the great moment to unify Brazilian evangelical churches happened in early 1980s. In the interview conducted by Danilo Fernandes of the progressive tabloid Genizah, Caio Fábio said, “Theology of prosperity didn’t exist in Brazil; the predominant theology was the Theology of Integral Mission. There were a vast number of ministers [following this theology].” That predominance, according to his view, happened in a special way in the Brazilian Congress of Evangelization (Congresso Brasileiro de Evangelização), where even today the Theology of Integral Mission is kept on a pedestal. But this massive evangelical unification that almost happened at the early 1980s was destroyed: A short time later, the neo-Pentecostal movement came with its Theology of Prosperity, with total force, breaking the back of the Theology of Integral Mission, essentially ruining all of the big socialist schemes being planned. The ascension of neo-Pentecostalism destroyed the consensus which, according to Caio Fábio, was becoming increasingly greater among churches regarding the Theology of Integral Mission. The dethroning of the Theology of Integral Mission by neo-Pentecostals was treated as an “unforgivable” blow. They were subsequently demonized by the 6
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
churches supporting this line of doctrine under the pretense of lacking true spiritual dedication and religious devotion. Caio Fábio and Robinson Cavalcanti, who had prominent roles in initiatives to bring evangelicals into the fold of the socialist Workers’ Party, became “prophets” against the Theology of Prosperity and for the Theology of the Integral Mission, which uses the Gospel to serve the sole purpose of a platform for socialist ideology. As Ariovaldo Ramos, a prominent progressive Reformed Baptist minister and former president of World Vision in Brazil, has put it: “Theology of Integral Mission is a Protestant variant of the Theology of Liberation.”
Liberation Theology Precursors From a historical viewpoint, the roots of Liberation Theology are Protestant. In 1952, after a period of studies at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, in which he devoted himself to the relationships between Marxism and Christian faith, the ecumenical Presbyterian missionary Richard Shaull (1919 -2002) was sent to the Southern Presbyterian Seminar, in Campinas, Brazil, where he taught until 1959. Shaull was a doctor in theology through Princeton Theological Seminar. In addition to his classes and contacts with seminarians, Shaull was a frequent lecturer in congresses for youths and Christian students throughout Brazil, inside and out of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB). Bringing as part of his baggage the Social Gospel, a leftist theology affecting American Protestant churches since at least the late 19th century, he formed a close relationship with Brazilian Presbyterian ministers Rubem Alves and Jaime Wright. From 1942 to 1950, Rev. Shaull was a missionary in Colombia, which later would become, with Brazil, a major Latin-American focus of Liberation Theology. Officially, that theology was founded by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who published in 1971 the book “Liberation Theology.” But three years before, Rubem Alves had already written a book with the same title and spirit. Alves, who was a disciple of Shaull, called his master a prophet and patriarch, “father of a nation,” because Shaull helped in the birth of a new church, according to the image and likeness of Liberation Theology. Shaull’s influence was decisive. By an irony of fate, the transformation of the Gospel in a platform for Marxism in Latin America didn’t come from a missionary from the Soviet Union, but of a Presbyterian minister from the United States. His inclinations were clear. In his book “Christian Faith and Marxism,” he said, “My encounter with Marxism did not make me a Marxist, but a better Christian.” Shaull’s leftist inclinations faced opposition from groups within the Brazilian Presbyterian Church which Fábio never faced. Shaull lacked Fábio’s “charisma” to 7
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
do what Fábio accomplished: to advance the Theology of Integral Mission inside and out of the Brazilian Presbyterian Church without provoking resistance. Shaull retired as a professor of ecumenism at Princeton Theological Seminar, one of the most prominent Presbyterian institutions in the world. Before dying in 2002, Shaull visited Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches in the slums of Rio and there saw a spiritual vitality that he had never seen in the Liberation Theology communities. But, instead of opening himself up to their vitality, he wanted those churches filled with the poor to embrace Liberation Theology. For him, the historical (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist) churches in Brazil had a good relationship with that theology, but they didn’t have much contact with the poor. In contrast, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches had a close contact with the poor, but they didn’t have a good relationship with Liberation Theology. In his view, if those poor-filled churches continued to grow explosively, the face of the evangelical church in Latin America would be predominantly Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal in the future. His questioning was: how to convert those churches to Liberation Theology so predominant in historical churches? Answer: The dialogue between historical and neo-Pentecostal churches. In that encounter, Pentecostals would come with their experience of easy coexistence with the poor and non-Pentecostals would come with their theology-ideology. That “dialogue” came largely true in the 1990s with Caio Fábio’s efforts to get close to neo-Pentecostal churches, including being a prominent lecturer in great events at the Heal Our Land Evangelical Fellowship (Sara Nossa Terra). That approach was fundamental later for a Protestant, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal unification for the massive evangelical support of the socialist candidate Lula in the 2002 election. Fábio was just a skilled implementor of the “dialogue” bridge envisioned by Shaull. Shaull and his disciple, Rubem Alves, are considered the parents on the Protestant side of Liberation Theology (according to a Mackenzie Presbyterian University document). In general, Shaull was the precursor of Liberation Theology. Alves, another precursor, eventually abandoned ministry and became an apostate. The Catholic side also had its parents and “prophets”: Cardinal Evaristo Arns, Cardinal Hélder Câmara (founder of CNBB), Frei Betto and Leonardo Boff. CNBB (National Conference of Brazilian Bishops), a sort of union of Catholic bishops, played a significant role in the foundation of the socialist Workers’ Party (known in Portuguese by its initials PT), and is an example of how Liberation Theology has affected the Catholic Church in Brazil. 8
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Although the Social Gospel from America helped to produce the Protestant version of Liberation Theology in Brazil, it was only with the Catholic implementation that this theology became practical theology with political results (Liberation Theology + CNBB = PT). The Catholic militancy on behalf of that theology was overwhelming, giving a Catholic face to the theology of Protestant soul. So leftist Protestants needed to recycle it and to restore its Protestant face. This way the Theology of Integral Mission was born in Brazil. Among Catholics, that theology led to the very foundation of the Workers’ Party. Among evangelicals, the “Protestant” version has been leading equally to socialism generally and to enlisting more and more members in the Workers’ Party specifically.
The “Dialogue Prophet” for the Theology of Integral Mission Ariovaldo Ramos, whose mentor was Caio Fábio, supported Lula in two presidential elections (2002 and 2006). His mentor had already shown him the direction he should go in: in his evangelical TV show “Pare & Pense” (Stop and Think), Caio had personally introduced candidate Lula to his evangelical audience during the 1994 presidential election. That was the first time a Brazilian Christian TV show got directly involved in a presidential election, in a great effort to “undemonize” Lula, his party and their overtly leftist views. But in his biography “Confissões de um Pastor” (Confessions of A Pastor, p. 214), Caio Fábio says he had already, in 1993, delivered to Lula the names and contacts from the most strategic evangelical leaders in Brazil. Many years later, Fábio admitted: “I brought Lula near evangelicals, who for years called him the ‘devil.’ I created many opportunities for him to have the chance of the church noticing him.” The most important Presbyterian minister in Brazil was promoting the most important socialist candidate in Brazil in the 1990s, without major opposition inside of his own Presbyterian denomination. The Theology of Integral Mission churches, for the most part from such historical denominations as Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian, had embraced Caio Fábio’s leadership in his initiatives for “undemonize” Lula and his ideology. After Caio Fábio’s resounding moral and financial fall in the late 1990s, others continued his fight, including his disciple Ariovaldo Ramos and his friend Robinson Cavalcanti. 9
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
However, before his fall, Fábio achieved significant “victories” for his cause: 1. He almost unified most of the historical churches of Brazil under the flag of the Theology of Integral Mission in the 1980s and 1990s. The only obstacle was the explosive growth of neo-Pentecostalism. 2. He was able, to a large extent, to popularize the Workers’ Party and socialism among evangelicals, guaranteeing that “socialism doesn’t eat children”, as if the socialist obsession to legalize abortion does not cannibalize and exterminate any baby. 3. He was unable to lead most neo-Pentecostal churches into the Theology of Integral Mission, but his “dialogue” bridge was fundamental to soften their attitudes to Lula and the Workers’ Party. Before his fall, Fábio had time to launch the “dialogue” bridge and make some headway. However, if Shaull had been able to keep Fábio’s soft, persuasive and smart speech going, Brazil would have a traditional, Pentecostal and neoPentecostal church today largely mesmerized by the Theology of Integral Mission.
Pentecostal Minority Affected by the Theology of Integral Mission Pentecostal churches were not mesmerized by Caio and his theology, but some were affected. Marina Silva, who today is a member of the Assembly of God in Brasília, brags that she knew the “living Gospel” in Liberation Theology that she learned from Leonardo Boff, one of the most important propagandists of that theology in Brazil. Boff and his theology were officially condemned by the Vatican during the papacy of John Paul 2nd, but that official condemnation didn’t keep Silva from following the man and his theology. Today, besides having Boff as counselor, she also has Caio Fábio. Another Assembly of God member seriously affected by Liberation Theology was Ricardo Gondim, who came to know the Gospel in a Presbyterian church, but later had Pentecostal experiences in the Assembly of God. Afterwards, he wanted to have theological experiences and to be with theologians. When studying at the Methodist University of São Paulo, Gondim entered the Liberation Theology world and began, as had his comrade Robinson Cavalcanti, to demonize US evangelical conservatives, as if even the pro-family and pro-life movement were an imperialistic product exported by America. What Gondim, Cavalcanti and others never mentioned is that the precursor of Liberation Theology was not a Brazilian. He was a Princeton Theological Seminar professor, an enthusiast of the Social Gospel and Marxist ideals, turned his theology into an imperialistic tool in every sense of the word. Furthermore, if the focus of the opposition to Liberation Theology were the evangelical conservatism 10
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
coming from America, why didn’t they avoid the “imperialistic” nation? Cavalcanti traveled to the US every year, and he had sent his son to live in America. Leftist ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and other historical denominations preferred exile in the US during the military regime in Brazil. Rev. Walter Altmann, former-president of the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession of Brazil (IECLB), seems to have had more consistency: he had financial connections with the Soviet Union and, like Shaull, connections with the World Council of Churches. The Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession of Brazil (IECLB), a denomination filled with progressive theologians and ministers, owns the Higher School of Theology, in São Leopoldo, Brazil, which held a congress on “religion and gender” in 2005, where the main speaker was Luiz Mott, the most militant leader of the homosexual movement in Brazil. The IECLB is an example of a denomination dominated by the Theology of Integral Mission and engaged with the Workers’ Party in the fight against conservative values, which its progressive leaders ironically identify as “imperialism.” However, in truth, to fight “imperialism” is to fight the imposition of abortion, sodomy and leftist agenda coming from the US government and culture. The profamily and pro-life movement has excelled in this fight. The fact is that the Liberation Theology, camouflaged and sweetened later as Theology of Integral Mission, killed Gondim’s pentecostalism, making him like a mere leftist of any traditional church.
Frustration of the Integral Mission Leadership with Neo-Pentecostals In his dissertation “Theology of Integral Mission: Approaches and Impediments Among Evangelicals” (2009), Gondim points to Cavalcanti and Caio Fábio as the most important representatives of the Theology of Integral Mission (p. 90), reveals the commitment of World Vision in Brazil and Ultimato magazine to that theology and says that the Second Brazilian Congress of Evangelization (CBE2 2003), financed by World Vision to gather together the Theology of Integral Mission leaders, was perplexed and sad at the progress of neo-Pentecostalism and its Theology of Prosperity, which were thwarting the progressives’ schemes for the poor. The final document of CBE2 essentially denounces that “many evangelical churches are experiencing an accelerated numerical growth” (p. 90) without a waking up to the Theology of Integral Mission. Instead of that theology, those 11
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
churches were preaching and practicing the Theology of Prosperity, which upholds God, not the socialist State, as provider for human needs. The incessant complaints of Fábio, Gondim, Cavalcanti and other progressives that “the Brazilian church is sick” or “decadent” are because she is not open to their theology. Gondim also repeatedly complains that the Theology of Integral Mission had its advance stopped by conservatives in the Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization (Manila 1989). Ed Rene Kivitz, a theological companion of Gondim, had already denounced Peter Wagner as leader of the conservative opposition. Wagner’s performance, today leader of the world apostolic movement, exemplifies the neo-Pentecostal potential to stop the leftist progress in the churches. In the dissertation of Gondim (p. 53), Wagner’s mistake was to “propose spiritual war as a solution for social problems” — a typically neoPentecostal solution, in contrast with the leftist solution of political revolutions. Echoing a complaint of Rev. Luiz Longuini, of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, Gondim claims that Peter Wagner had been thwarting progressive Protestants for years. In1969, when participating in CLADE (Latin-American Congress of Evangelization), Wagner distributed his book that affirmed that the mission of the church is to prioritize personal salvation and warned of the dangers of leftist theology (p. 105). Salvation, in its original term, includes spiritual and also emotional and physical rescue. Progressive Protestants interpret that breadth of salvation as an excuse for political interventions, as if the Kingdom of God were just “food, drink” (Romans 14:17) and government welfare programs. In contrast, Wagner interpreted that the church should preach and demonstrate the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, including using Jesus’ authority to heal the sick and expel demons. It is a demonstration in tune with the miracles that follow those that believe (Mark 16:16). But the demonstration of the Gospel, for progressive Protestants, is limited to social action many times strictly in partnership with socialist politics and governments. Nothing else. Any rejection of that kind of social action as an intrinsic part of the Gospel receives the label of “fundamentalism.” In the dissertation of Gondim, even Billy Graham does not escape that label, because the most famous evangelist in the world refused to give support and money to progressive Protestant groups in Latin America. Graham’s refusal gave him a negative image among the Theology of Integral Mission followers. In contrast, Gondim abundantly praises Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel and he recognizes that the largest obstacle for the advance of the Theology of Integral Mission was “a religious phenomenon with huge popular appeal, neo-Pentecostalism” (p. 135).
12
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Victory for the Poor and Victory for the Progressive “Dialogue” Gondim doesn’t hide the bitterness at seeing Liberation Theology, which affected generally Latin America and especially Brazil in matter, being undermined by a spiritual movement very present among the poor and largely led by leaders who grew up in poverty. His bitterness is shared by Caio Fábio and Brazilian progressive theologians formed in American and European seminars and universities, many of whom are unable to accept a movement where most of the ministers were formed in the “seminar” of a life in poverty. It is the poor who, barely knowing how to speak Portuguese, preferred the Theology of Prosperity to Liberation Theology, as a means to escape from poverty. The poor prefer the Theology of Prosperity, but the rich (professional theologians and ministers) prefer Liberation Theology, making it as elitist as the Marxism that helped to create it. That doesn’t mean that no neo-Pentecostal church accepted the theology of progressive Protestants. The neo-Pentecostal churches most affected by the Theology of Integral Mission were, coincidentally, the churches closest to Caio Fábio. In the early1990s, the Presbyterian minister was a distinguished speaker in major Pentecostal conferences, including events of the Heal Our Land Evangelical Fellowship (Sara Nossa Terra), founded by Bishop Robson Rodovalho, who has Presbyterian roots. In the early1990s, Sara movement saw socialism and the Workers’ Party as diabolical. In 2002, the same Sara movement was deceived enough to embark in the Protestant, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal bandwagon of those supporting socialist Lula. The 1994 TV show “Pare & Pense” brought the misled Valnice Milhomens together with Fábio to jointly present Lula as a candidate, not because the neoPentecostal leader represented neo-Pentecostal political objectives, but because her presence was fundamental for the “dialogue” strategy to break anti-socialism barriers among neo-Pentecostals. Fábio represented historical Protestant churches, which had already been seduced by the Theology of Mission Integral and were largely ready to support Lula, the most important socialist messiah in Brazil. With his Theology of Integral Mission whose name he dare not pronounce, Fábio was a personality no leadership of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and other historical churches questioned. Milhomens represented neo-Pentecostal churches, which needed to be deceived, as she herself had been. It was the “dialogue” bridge visualized years earlier by Shaull.
13
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Both were of different generations. While Shaull taught theology at the Southern Presbyterian Seminar in Campinas (1952-959), Fábio was ordained a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil in 1977, when he was 22 years old. He had, by his confession, many friends who were ministers that had been students under Shaull. Fábio also read the books by the spiritual father of Liberation Theology. If Shaull was the “prophet” of ideas and visions of that theology, Fábio was the “prophet” of dialogue, entrusted with the mission of creating among Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals an opening for that theology that was under the control of traditional churches. The impact of the second-rate Brazilian Cardinal Richelieu lasted decades.
Theology of Integral Mission and Anticonservative Extremism Ariovaldo Ramos, one of the spiritual successors of Shaull, and Marina Silva complained about the “wave of conservatism” that almost defeated Dilma Rousseff in the 2010 presidential election. The conservative wave was the expression of strong Christian feelings against abortion and homosexuality. Instead of a staunch stance against the blatantly pro-abortion and homosexualist history and positions of Rousseff and the Workers’ Party, Ramos published his public manifesto, declaring: “we manifest our rejection to the wave of conservatism that fell on Brazil in this electoral process.” And Silva, in her “Open Letter to Presidential Candidates Rousseff and Serra”, criticizes openly what she sees as “that obstinate conservatism that colonizes the Brazilian politics and sacrifices any Utopia on behalf of a limitless pragmatism.” For the first time in the history of Brazil, the subject of abortion and homosexuality directly influenced a presidential election. Having never been a Rousseff or Serra supporter, I was celebrating. LifeSiteNews, whose articles I translated into Portuguese, was celebrating and writing international articles to show to the world the conservative advance in Brazil. Pro-life Catholic and evangelical leaders around the world, including the Vatican, were equally celebrating. However, Ramos and Silva, with the worldwide Left, were unhappy and indignant. The indignant attitude of both demonstrates how the Integral Mission movement and the pro-life movement tread very different paths. In the 25 years in which I have been with pro-life leaders in Brazil, I never saw so much antiabortion and anti-sodomy feeling in a presidential election. It was a miracle! The hard pro-life work had not been in vain. After all, although the socialist government in Brazil advocates those evils, the feelings of most of the Brazilian population, demonstrated in polls, are against homosexual aberrations and the murder of the unborn.
14
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
The Vatican tried to intervene in the positive conservative wave, by instructing Brazilian bishops to guide the Catholic people not to vote for pro-abortion candidates. It was useless, because CNBB and Frei Betto are for the Vatican what Ramos and Silva are for the pro-life and pro-family movement: a complete clash of values. Different to the Vatican, whose conservative stances are prominent — strong public condemnations against abortion, homosexuality and Liberation Theology —, CNBB is reluctant to condemn Liberation Theology and its most important child, the Workers’ Party. Similarly, Brazilian evangelical leaders affected by Shaull and Fábio are reluctant to express strong public condemnations against abortion, homosexuality and especially the Theology of Integral Mission.
Theology of Integral Mission Demonizes neoPentecostalism Robinson Cavalcanti, one of the most important propagandists of that theology, was exalted by Ramos as a “prophet” after being murdered by his own son in early 2012. The exaltation was made in an article written by Ramos and published in Genizah, which has close ties with the Theology of Integral Mission leaders, especially Caio Fábio, and is the largest anti-neopentecostal tabloid in Brazil. The example of Genizah created a wave of “apologetic” tabloids that use the demonization of neo-Pentecostalism as a smoke screen to protect and promote Liberation Theology. They condemn neo-Pentecostalism as a “heresy,” but they praise the Theology of Integral Mission and its “prophets,” including Fábio and Cavalcanti. In Púlpito Cristão, one of the tabloids that imitate Genizah, I found, among more than 400 mentions of Fábio, just a few negatives. The remaining was praise to the man that, as Ricardo Gondim, is a prominent leader of the Theology of Integral Mission. Genizah and Púlpito Cristão, which inflexibly fight the Theology of Prosperity, also persistently promote the Theology of Integral Mission. The profile common to the biggest enemies of neo-Pentecostals in Brazil is the flattery to progressivism and its leaders.
15
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Rev. Caio Fábio welcoming presidential candidate Lula in his Christian TV show in 1994: the most important Presbyterian minister in Brazil propagandizing the most important socialist in Brazil
While Caio Fábio and Cavalcanti worked to “undemonize” the Workers’ Party, they and their leftist Protestant comrades were working to demonize neoPentecostalism for its resistance to the Theology of Integral Mission. (Brazilian Pentecostal, especially neo-Pentecostal, churches usually saw socialism as demonic.) In order to inoculate their congregations against the so called contaminations from neo-Pentecostal churches, Presbyterian ministers and leaders of other historical denominations induced mass signature of the progressive magazine Ultimato by their churches, especially leaders, in the 1980s and 1990s. So they drank directly from the pages of this magazine leftist texts by Robinson Cavalcanti, Ricardo Gondim and Paul Freston, who were official members in the Workers’ Party and prominent columnists in the Presbyterian magazine. Caio Fábio, a former Ultimato columnist, had no official membership in the party of Lula, but met him often, and was “discreetly” supporting him. Among the books published by Publisher Ultimato is “O Novo Rosto da Missão” (The New Face of Mission), written by Rev. Luiz Longuini, of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, a minister married four times. The book, which has been an important reference in works of the Theology of Integral Mission, is not the only book promoting that leftist theology published by Ultimato, founded by a Presbyterian leader. With the antibodies of the Theology of Integral Mission, Ultimato inoculated leaders and congregations against neo-Pentecostalism, making their notorious leftist columnists famous for attacking neo-Pentecostal doctrines and defending leftist doctrines. Today, when attacking the Theology of Prosperity, the “masters” of the Theology of Integral Mission exempt countless ministers following that leftist theology from all criticism. After all, Brazil is having an open hunting season on neo-Pentecostal churches. By the decision of a minority of liberal ministers and by the silence of the majority, any criticism of the Theology of Integral Mission is apparently prohibited. 16
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Genizah is a tabloid founded by Danilo Fernandes, an radical liberal Calvinist and close friend of Caio FĂĄbio. The main mission of Genizah is to inoculate against neo-Pentecostalism through the use of mockery and scandals often fabricated or inflated. In a fascinating case the owner of the tabloid, who has judicial problems due to financial issues, applies business methods to make a lot of money by accusing Silas Malafaia and neo-Pentecostal leaders of making a lot of money. The demonizing, mocking character of the Brazilian evangelical Left has been oscillating between Ultimato (with its diplomatic, anti-conservative bashing), and Genizah (with its anti-conservative mockery and hateful bashing). This then popularizes the Left and, in its place, demonizes neo-Pentecostals. The mostly Calvinist leftist character has remained free of criticism by non-liberal Calvinists, who often prefer silence because of their doctrinal affinity with cessationism, which denies the Holy Spirit granting supernatural gifts for today.
Calvinist Danilo Fernandes, owner of pro-Theology of Integral Mission sensationalistic tabloid Genizah, with his friend Caio FĂĄbio
Apparently, for the sake of this doctrine, non-liberal Calvinists who heavily criticize Silas Malafaia and other neo-Pentecostal leaders never denounce the Calvinist writers of Genizah and Ultimato. 17
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Is neo-Pentecostalism a bigger “sin” than the shameless leftism of Calvinist and traditional churches?
Socialism Versus Neo-Pentecostalism Secular socialism as well as Catholic and evangelical socialism point to a supposedly secular State as a god above everything and everybody, with the exclusive right to provide for human needs (whether citizens want it or not), while levying increasingly exorbitant taxes (whether citizens want it or not) for its welfare policies. In contrast, neo-Pentecostal churches point, yes, to Jesus Christ as God above everything and everybody, with the utmost right and power to provide for all human needs — and without charging any taxes! To provide for human needs is a promise which secular and evangelical socialists claim will be fulfilled by the socialist State and that neo-Pentecostal preachers attribute only to God. And it is very easy to see the liars in that story, because only God has the exclusive power to provide for all human needs. I totally disagree with the way a lot of neo-Pentecostal churches collect money. But, even with all their exaggeration, there is a colossal difference: however much they may apply psychological pressure for you to give, you are never forced to. If you don’t give anything, the minister cannot fine, charge or arrest you. In contrast, when the government “asks” through taxes, you have no choice. If you don’t give, you end up in serious legal troubles. In Brazil, you are forced to give 40% of your wage today through taxes, and that abusive collection is justified by secular, Protestant and Catholic socialists as necessary for the government to provide for all human needs — a promise evidently impossible to fulfill by humans. Those socialists constantly complain about the “robbery” that neo-Pentecostal churches commit, but they never stop to evaluate or condemn state voracity, and they remain silent when leftists promote the gay agenda, abortion, feminism, witchcraft under the state pretext of Afro-Brazilian culture. Whose money is supporting this antichristian agenda? This is money stolen, through the force of law, from all its victim citizens, including Christians. Persecution of Christians and wickedness are being institutionalized with the support of churches and with the money from taxes collected abusively from their members. The sanctification of homosexuality and of the slaughter of the unborn is being promoted often with the “blessing” of the church through leaders who remain silent or join hands with the promoters of these evil.
18
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Opportunistic Or Ideological Followers of the Workers’ Party The Workers’ Party and other socialist parties are determined to impose abortion and homosexuality in Brazil. The only hindrance that they see is the daring testimony of neo-Pentecostal televangelists — evidently, this excludes Bishop Edir Macedo and his Kingdom of God Universal Church (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus), which joined in the support of the Workers’ Party and abortion years ago. Except for this church, whose founder and boss follows the abortion ideology, all the other neo-Pentecostal churches are opposed to abortion and homosexuality. R. R. Soares, for instance, speaks clearly against abortion and homosexuality in his TV shows. Silas Malafaia is equally energetic. But why would the Workers’ Party see those neo-Pentecostal churches involved in TV shows as the only threat to the absolute control by the Workers’ Party on the society? The Workers’ Party notices that when those churches support it, they do so based solely on convenience, not ideology. The Workers’ Party doesn’t see neo-Pentecostal churches indoctrinating their congregations in socialism. The Workers’ Party doesn’t see them using their magazines and websites teaching that socialism is the salvation of society. The leaders of those churches only show support for the Workers’ Party in election times for opportunistic reasons. They are apparently motivated by sheer opportunistic interest, and the reason is because the ruling government has the power to grant radio and television licenses, determined yearly by the State, which are extremely important issues to neo-Pentecostal churches. On the other hand, other Protestant groups, mostly outside the neo-Pentecostal camp, have much more than interests, using their magazines and other publications to promote socialism, with all its load of abortion and homosexuality. Major Protestant magazines in Brazil frequently indoctrinate the public to see in socialism the solution for societal problems. The ruling Workers’ Party, with all its frenzied race to institutionalize wickedness, is disguised and even praised by them. Those Protestants are moved by ideology. The Workers’ Party is not concerned about Protestant leaders who are moved by ideology, because atheists or evangelicals who follow the Workers’ Party by conviction are faithful and devoted servants. Their support is guaranteed — whether for the party or for the socialist ideology, which in the end is the same thing.
19
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
But a support that comes by interest is never guaranteed. This is why the Workers’ Party has so much distrust of neo-Pentecostal leaders: Because they are not moved by the socialist ideology, those leaders can openly criticize pro-abortion and prohomosexuality policies of the Workers’ Party, or even to jump the boat at any moment. That is a great sign. What is not a good sign is that we have lost the priority in our criticism. Many ministers who criticize Silas Malafaia for the Theology of Prosperity — not for his political opportunism — shut their eyes to other serious sins. They criticize him, while embracing the Theology of Integral Mission and other theologies that facilitate the acceptance of socialism as a social salvation. What is not surprising is that, for the Workers’ Party, the Genizah tabloid and similar Protestant media don’t represent any threat to the advance of the socialist institutionalization of wickedness. The threat is neo-Pentecostal churches, which are frequently the target of mockeries by Genizah. Malafaia is not perfect, but he has been doing an amazing work of mobilizing the population against anti-“homophobia” bills in Brazil. In contrast, Genizah has never supported such mobilization and even implies that Christians doing it are “extremist.” Gay activists have acclaimed the liberalism of the Calvinist tabloid. Some months ago, a minister who commented in my blog introduced himself by saying, “I am a member of the Workers’ Party by ideological motivation.” When refuted by me and other readers of my blog, the minister, who leads an Assembly of God in Brasília, the capital of Brazil, quickly defended himself, by using the excuse that his presence in the Workers’ Party was to “evangelize” and that any opposition to him as a member of the Workers’ Party would equal opposition to a holy evangelistic outreach. To evangelize sorcerers do I need to say “I am a sorcerer by ideological motivation?” To evangelize homosexuals do I need to say “I am a homosexual by ideological motivation?” Therefore, there are two kinds of Protestants (and by extension other Christians) supporting the Workers’ Party. 1. There are evangelicals following the Workers’ Party by interests. They do not want to lose their radio and television licenses. Most of them are neo-Pentecostal leaders. 2. There are Protestants following the Workers’ Party because, blatantly or not, they are socialist by ideological motivation. Most of them are not neo-Pentecostal, and the Workers’ Party is not concerned about any of them. 20
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
A Brazil Without an Elijah It is in that reality of a spiritually sickened leadership that evangelicals in Brazil have to live. In response to the efforts of the Workers’ Party to neutralize neo-Pentecostal televangelists, Silas Malafaia said, “I demonize no political party. As everybody knows, I have already voted for [Brazilian socialist politicians] Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and José Serra.” Can such a declaration reflect the spirit of a prophet? Elijah never had his name registered in a poster of political support for King Ahab. In contrast, Malafaia didn’t just vote for pro-abortion and pro-sodomy politicians. That alone would already have been a sufficiently disturbing mistake for a Christian leader. He did much more than that: he gave his name for pamphlets supporting those politicians. He led, by his wicked example, crowds to vote for the most proabortion and pro-sodomy politicians in Brazil and Rio de Janeiro. It was, for instance, what happened in 2002, when he, with many other evangelical leaders, signed a public document supporting Lula, with all of the consequences that today we know very well and that a genuine prophet would have seen from a distance. In that time, I denounced the evangelical pro-Lula alliance involving the union of traditional churches (Baptist Nilson Fanini, Presbyterian Guilhermino Cunha, Anglican Robinson Cavalcanti, etc.), Pentecostal churches (Jabes Alencar, Silas Malafaia, etc. [both Assembly of God]) and neo-Pentecostal churches (Marcelo Crivella [Kingdom of God Universal Church], Estevam Hernandes [Reborn in Christ], Robson Rodovalho [Heal Our Land], etc.). While the most powerful evangelical leaders in Brazil were supporting Lula and the future administration of the Workers’ Party, I was crying out in the wilderness. (In 2002, the president of an evangelical denomination asked me not send him anymore e-mails “attacking” Lula and his ideological record, making clear that he, as member of the Workers’ Party, was very offended by my warnings.) Even after seeing all the anti-family attacks by the Lula administration in his first term, Malafaia supported his reelection, showing an obstinate and blind side of his evangelical character. In that point, in 2006, Lula’s pro-homosexuality obsession was patent, domestically and internationally. If he were trying to be a modern King Ahab, he achieved it. Nevertheless, instead of delivering reproofs to Lula, Malafaia preferred, consciously, giving him political support. If he were trying to be a prophet, he did not achieve it. So, Malafaia was limited in his public declaration, when he said, “I have already voted for [Brazilian socialist politicians] Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and José Serra.” He forgot mentioning that he voted and promoted Sérgio Cabral, the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality governor of Rio de Janeiro. 21
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
The declaration of Malafaia should have included what he really did, “I have voted for, I have supported and I have promoted, with my signature, all of those socialist men, including Lula, the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality president in the history of Brazil.” He should also have stated, “I encouraged crowds to vote for the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians in the history of Brazil and of Rio de Janeiro.” This truth is unpleasant, as well as it would have been unpleasant for Elijah to say, “As a prophet of the Lord, I have voted for, I have supported and I have promoted, with my signature, Ahab, the most proabortion and pro-homosexuality king in the history of Israel, and I encouraged the whole people of Israel to vote for him.” Malafaia also said, “I vote for people and not for parties.” Does this justify voting for, supporting and promoting systematically people who have an ideological history in opposition to the family and against Christianity? Does this justify encouraging crowds of evangelicals to vote for people who have an ideological history against family and against Christianity? It is schizophrenic to fight abortion and homosexuality and to vote for, support and promote politicians who promote those evils. It is equally schizophrenic to fight abortion and homosexuality and encourage churches to vote for those same politicians. It is like a man who fights a great fire, but once in a while he throws gas on the fire. Elijah was a man who fought the great fires of the social wickedness without throwing gas in the fire. But Brazil doesn’t have that kind of man.
Complicity and Silence Versus Complicity and Imperfect Testimony of Christians in Brazil What Brazil has, mostly, are 1) Christians who vote for and promote the Workers’ Party or other socialist parties (PSDB, PSOL, etc.) and remain silent, and 2) Christians who vote for and promote the Workers’ Party or other socialist parties (PSDB, PSOL, etc.) and don’t remain silent. To remain silent in the presence of the institutionalization of sin is a sin! To speak out against the institutionalization of sin while promoting those who do it is better than silence, but it is also a sin. However, because Brazil has no Elijah or John the Baptist, we are left with the imperfect option of supporting Christian leaders who at least open their mouths. That is the case of Malafaia. Although he has thrown a lot of gas on the fires that he is fighting, at least he is not like many others who equally threw a lot of gas on the fires and today remain silent or minimize the dangers of the fires.
22
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Actually, Brazil needs a man to speak out without throwing gas on the fire. That is God’s ideal. A man who denounces sin and says to the “kings” of Brazil, “Thus says the Lord.” A man who, even running the risk of losing his radio and TV license, would proclaim his messages in the street corners or in the corners of the internet. In the absence of a prophet like Elijah or a John the Baptist in Brazil, let us do what Jesus taught us: “So practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” (Matthew 23:3 ESV) Those words of Jesus can also be paraphrased this way: “So practice and follow whatever they tell you in defense of family. But don’t imitate their actions of voting, supporting and promoting anti-family politicians, because they don’t practice what preach.” Some consent only by their actions; others by their words and actions. Therefore, let us know how to discern what to do in the presence of total or partial omissions. When they teach us against abortion and homosexuality, let us hear and practice. But let us not imitate their actions. When they vote for anti-family politicians, let us not imitate them. When they support and promote anti-family politicians, let us not imitate them. Let us remember their words and messages in defense of family, but let us not imitate what they practice in election times, throwing gas on the fire. Let us ignore completely their irresponsible political recommendations when they don’t practice what they preach. After all, such was Jesus’ command: to follow their good teachings and not to imitate their hypocrisy. Therefore, in obedience to Jesus’ words, let us follow everything that Malafaia and others teach on abortion and homosexuality, but let us not imitate their actions. Let us defend everything that Malafaia teaches in defense of family, but let us not imitate him when he throws gas on the fire. On the contrary, let us throw water on the fire, rejecting irresponsible political recommendations.
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes! Whether by ideology or opportunism, the irresponsible involvement of Brazilian Protestants in politics is contributing to the swelling of a State that levies increasingly higher taxes. And the abusive tax-collection provokes two effects: 23
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
1) It leaves, in the hard-working citizen’s pocket, less of his own resources to take care of his family. 2) Its final destiny is, a lot of times, the pockets of greedy politicians. People are free to attend neo-Pentecostal churches, and after you enter such a church, you only give what you want. Nobody is forced to give anything. With the government this is vastly different. No one is exempt. Everybody is a victim of the voracious State and its insatiable tax-collection. Socialists cover up, justify and excuse that omnipresent mega-robbery committed by a welfare State. Yet, they do not forgive neo-Pentecostal churches which collect tithes and offerings without the use of law and of the State. But secular, Protestant and Catholic socialists are not worried about the state wonder-working politicians that remove freedom and natural rights from citizens. They are worried about wonder-working Christians, who ask too much from citizens voluntarily attending their churches. They are troubled about wonderworking Christians, who point to God, not the State, as solution for all needs of the society. From their comfortable armchairs and well-equipped offices, socialist leaders, moved by envy, take aim at neo-Pentecostal churches. “Competition” troubles them. They want to be the only wonder-working guys in the center of the admiration of the poor and the society, not only of universities and media, where they and their ideology are idolized in an absolute way. If there is a commandment universities and media obey without questioning is this, “You shall have no other gods before me.” They actually don’t give any space for others, only leftism reigns as a god in their midst. Even with all their power, secular socialist leaders still are troubled about neoPentecostals. The same discomfort affects religious leftists, but, because of a common theological grudge, even non-leftist religious individuals accept, gladly or not, an uneasy alliance, decrying neo-Pentecostal “sins” and at the same time closing their eyes to the horrendous progressive contaminations inside the churches. A progressive Protestant sees just ideological competition, with his view of a socialist kingdom of this world as a manifestation of the Kingdom of God. Differently, a traditionalistic Protestant sees not just religious competition, but also spiritual issues. Even if all of the neo-Pentecostal churches abandoned the Theology of Prosperity, traditionalistic Protestants would reject them, because they are unable to see current experiences as gifts of vision, prophecy, tongues and other supernatural gifts as manifestations of God.
24
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
So the shared hostility to neo-Pentecostalism has created a strange alliance between progressive and traditionalistic religious individuals in Brazil. From their comfortable armchairs and well-equipped pastoral offices, socialist leaders, ministers and theologians of traditionalistic and progressive persuasions join together to criticize ministers of the Theology of Prosperity. That “informal” union is possible thanks to an undeclared non-aggression pact: while they attack the Theology of Prosperity by criticizing its ministers by name (Silas Malafaia, R.R. Soares and others who are on the blacklist), traditionalist and progressive Protestants do not attack one another. Progressive Protestants will only stop criticizing neo-Pentecostals after neoPentecostals embrace the Theology of Integral Mission. Traditionalistic Protestants will only stop criticizing neo-Pentecostals after neoPentecostals abandon the Theology of Prosperity, and after they abandon speaking in tongues, prophecies, casting out demons, etc, but the theological demands, certainly, won’t end at this point.
Does an Anti-Neopentecostal Critic Deserve the Title of “Defender of Faith”? Yes, he would deserve, if he also denounced Theology of Integral Mission and cessationsm — which ascribes to demons prophecies, revelations and other gifts of the Holy Spirit today. The main problem is that many critics of neoPentecostals are traditionalists who are adherents of Theology of Integral Mission or cessationism. Even so, they are listed as lecturers for Christian conferences, as if their ideas were honest or sensible. Conference organizers, apparently conniving, never keep them accountable, “You have spent years attacking Silas Malafaia, R.R. Soares and other neo-Pentecostal televangelists, but you have never criticized Ariovaldo Ramos and other Theology of Integral Mission promoters, including Genizah. You have never attacked cessationism too. How do you expect me to see you as an honest Gospel defender?” Prominent adherents of a selective Christian apologetics attack at the least sign any lapse on the part of neo-Pentecostal leaders, but they close their eyes to the blatant heresies by the untouchable priests of the Theology of Integral Mission. What would happen, for instance, if Malafaia or R. R. Soares had made the following declaration, 25
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
“For me, this universe is sacred… Sacredness inhabits the whole world… If I do not have a vision making the cosmos and the whole creation sacred, I need at the least to make one more reflection…” This declaration, patently pantheistic, would have overthrown Malafaia and Soares, if they had made it. Yet, its real author has never faced opposition for it. It was made on August 12, 2004 in the workshop “The Church and Federal Welfare Programs and the Church and Bioethics.” The workshop was held in the Brazilian Congress, sponsored by the Progressive Evangelical Movement and the evangelical caucus of the ruling Workers’ Party. Since 2004, when the pantheistic declarations were made, they never subjected its author, Caio Fábio, to any accusation, denunciation or inconvenience from the eternally angry “defenders of faith” in the gossip world. Gossip means the habit of transmitting scandalous, sensationalist and often inaccurate private information. By this serious issue, you see that their objective is neither to defend sound doctrine nor to fight heresies, but to aim at neo-Pentecostals. Caio Fábio and his pantheistic heresy went unpunished by the “defenders of faith” in the gossip world just because he is not neo-Pentecostal. If he was neo-Pentecostal, he would have been denounced for much less.
Stupid Alliances Traditionalistic Protestants don’t attack the Theology of Integral Mission mentioning Ariovaldo Ramos, Robinson Cavalcanti and other progressive big guys. In turn, progressive Protestants return the favor, never condemning by name traditionalistic Protestants. From their big houses and cars, many traditionalistic and progressive Protestants condemn the bigger houses and cars of neo-Pentecostal leaders. They condemn the Theology of Prosperity, but they live an ecclesiastical luxury that would leave Jesus and his apostles with an appearance of mere illiterate beggars. A Presbyterian (I am using this example because Ultimato and other progressive critics consider themselves Calvinist, including Genizah) minister of a small church of a small town in São Paulo or Minas Gerais receives an average of 10 times the minimum wage. (If I received that much, I would consider myself wealthy!) In contrast, a Presbyterian minister of a big church in a big city receives a very higher wage. Although Silas Malafaia, R. R. Soares and other prominent neo-Pentecostal ministers receive super-wages, usually neo-Pentecostal ministers of small churches in small towns receive much less than 10 times the minimum wage, and they still
26
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
lead services on an almost daily basis, while ministers of Calvinist churches receive a lot more to lead just one or two services a week. In a specific case, according to friend of mine who is a Presbyterian minister, a Presbyterian minister of a very small church received about 5 thousand dollars a month. He also received house, car, fuel, etc. His work was to lead just one service a week and a day of counseling. Thus, when we see a great Calvinist leader condemning the prosperity of a minority of neo-Pentecostal leaders, we also are free to ask how much the critic receives. They condemn the Theology of Prosperity, but they never give up their own prosperity. Do both groups have a prosperity reflecting Jesus’ humility? The motivation of the criticism, of course, involves much more than just “defense of faith.” It involves envy and other non-Christian feelings masked as theological concerns. Others, such as the sensationalist tabloid Genizah, grow rich by bashing neoPentecostals, and moreover they assume a pose of “defenders of the faith” and “apologetics.” The owner of Genizah is an entrepreneur with a bad reputation for financial scandals. Even so, he continues with his suspicious businesses, in terms of Christian ethics, while gaining a lot of money through mockery and deceit. Those “defenders of the faith,” with their hidden greed, greatly promote progressive and liberal big names like Caio Fábio, Ariovaldo Ramos and Robinson Cavalcanti, but they are not themselves labeled progressive by traditionalistic big guys. So it is confirmed that a discreet or secret non-aggression deal keeps progressive Protestants in silence regarding their differences with traditionalistic Protestants and vice-versa. For the sake of the common “enemy”, they are willing to ignore their differences. It is not without purpose that Genizah, whose owner brags about being a Calvinist, always has space in his tabloid for texts of such progressive writers as Robinson Cavalcanti and Caio Fábio, along with texts of non-progressive ministers such as Augustus Nicodemus (a traditionalistic Presbyterian who believes that prophecies, visions and other spiritual gifts came to an end two thousand years ago, making unacceptable the current spiritual experiences of Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals), but has never a single positive text about Silas Malafaia, who believes that prophecies, visions and other spiritual gifts have never ceased. This common hostility unites traditionalistic and progressive Protestants. In a different way, the progressivism of Genizah always aims, with mockery, at my blog. I do not condemn neo-Pentecostals for everything that they are doing in defense of life and family, being impossible, for me, to make a non-aggression deal with Genizah and similar tabloids just for the sake of theological and ideological 27
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
hatred and financial envy. I support Silas Malafaia, with restrictions. I support everything he does to defend life and family. I support him also in the conviction that spiritual gifts are for today. But I disapprove all of his alliances and interests with anti-family and anti-life politicians. It is not just from the progressive and traditionalistic Protestants that neoPentecostals in Brazil suffer attacks. Some Pentecostals, eager to win the favor of everything and everybody, close their eyes to progressive aberrations and the traditionalistic stance of rejecting prophecies and visions as current manifestations of God, but they join progressive and traditionalistic Protestants in condemning neo-Pentecostals. Each one following carnal ambitions camouflaged as theological concerns.
The Biggest Obstacle for the Total Socialist Advance in Brazil Why not put the interests of God above human interests? Why help, directly or indirectly, to strengthen the secular Left, which is troubled by neo-Pentecostals? First, it was Gilberto Carvalho, a sinister leader of the Workers’ Party, declaring that the only real opposition to socialism in Brazil is the conservative positions of televangelists as Silas Malafaia and R.R. Soares who, when confronted by abortion and homosexuality issues, speak openly what the Workers’ Party doesn’t want to hear, speak what is in the Bible and educate their huge audiences in the defense of family, thus upsetting the immoral hegemony of the Marxist revolution in Brazil. José Dirceu, another sinister leader in the Workers’ Party, demonstrated the same disturbance. After all, the Workers’ Party and other socialist parties are determined to impose abortion and homosexuality in Brazil. The only impediment that they see are neo-Pentecostals televangelists. While Jean Wyllys (the most prominent Brazilian gay congressman) declares that Calvinists are his allies, the Workers’ Party says that its main enemy is neoPentecostalism, and traditionalistic Calvinists, wanting to or not, end up confirming the declaration of the homosexual congressman, when they join progressive theologians of Genizah and their partners — who exalt the leftist ideology — in defaming neo-Pentecostalism, which has revealed itself today as the only Christian force in Brazil able to expel or at least confront the demons of the socialist messianism possessing the Brazilian government. Unfortunately, they very poorly use the vast “biblical” knowledge that they have. Traditionalistic and progressive leaders — mostly theologically educated — are experts in confronting God in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and show those gifts fully when attacking neo-Pentecostals, comprised mostly of simple individuals, with only a basic grasp of the Portuguese language, though they are very bold in 28
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
their public witness! Partly, that picture reminds me of the angry Jewish theologians after two apostles of Jesus had performed a healing miracle: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13 ESV) Undeniably, neo-Pentecostal churches have the biggest power today to dethrone the negative role of the Brazilian State as controller and arbiter of such moral issues as abortion and homosexuality. As Olavo de Carvalho noted very well, the 2011 March for Jesus in São Paulo, Brazil, where Silas Malafaia denounced, in the presence of more than 5 million people, anti-“homophobia” bills and the tyranny of the Supreme Court in Brazil favoring the gay agenda, was the largest demonstration in Brazil against immoral impositions and disorders of the Workers’ Party. In spite of this, progressive and traditionalistic critics in the Protestant world of Brazil joined together to condemn the March for Jesus manifestation. Neo-Pentecostal churches dethroned the Theology of Integral Mission from its position of power in the 1980s, hindering the unification — under Caio Fábio, Robinson Cavalcanti, Ultimato magazine and others — of the Protestant churches in Brazil around a leftist ideology masked as “pure Gospel.” With an appropriate support (not hostility moved by envy and theological hatred), neo-Pentecostal churches could do much more to dethrone socialism in other spheres of the Brazilian society, helping to rescue families, children and churches from malicious state intrusions. Without support, those churches run the risk of entering also, as did the Kingdom of God Universal Church, into the socialist orbit, leaving the way open for the Theology the Integral Mission to reoccupy its throne.
Humility for Everyone I would ask neo-Pentecostal churches to continue preaching God as the supreme provider for all of the needs of people and society and continue challenging the poor to seek God as the supreme provider for all human needs. But I would also ask their leaders to grow rich only by the blessing of God, not at the expense of their sheep. I would challenge them to accept the option of a humbler lifestyle. Similarly, traditionalistic and progressive theologians and ministers should also renounce their luxurious lifestyles, big cars and houses to live a humbler life. Living humbly, all of them would have more passion to preach God as the supreme provider for all of the needs of all people.
29
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N J U L I O S E V E R O
V E R S U S
T H E O L O G Y
O F
P R O S P E R I T Y
—
Through living humbly, all of them would have more passion to do the prophetic will of God, condemning openly, as John the Baptist did, immoral politicians and the robberies of the wonder-working State, which promises everything and steals everything. How long will we tolerate abusive loads of taxes in exchange for worn out wonder-working promises of housing, health, education and job? How long will we tolerate the lie that invasive socialist policies that enslave the pocket, the soul, the morality and the heart of citizens mirror the Kingdom of God? If even Tiradentes, who was not even a prophet, rebelled against an abusive collection of 20% of taxes, why cannot Christian leaders imitate John the Baptist and condemn the current bigger abusive collection of 40% of taxes, a blatant violation by the Brazilian government against the people and against the divine commandment banning everyone, including the State, from stealing? For international readers: Tiradentes, the nickname of Joaquim José da Silva Xavier (August 16, 1746—April 21, 1792), was a leading member of the Brazilian revolutionary movement whose aim was full independence from the Portuguese colonial power and to create a Brazilian republic. Tiradentes and his companions were inspired by the American independence. As some of their American counterparts, they were Masonic, but lacked the strong Christian foundations which made possible the extraordinary victory of George Washington and other Americans. The tragic irony is that Tiradentes fought against a tax of 20%, and today the Brazilian State levies a tax of 40% from the Brazilian people! Portuguese version of this e-booklet: Teologia da Libertação versus Teologia da Prosperidade Spanish version of this e-booklet: Teología de la Liberación versus Teología de la Prosperidad Source: Julio Severo in English (Last Days Watchman): www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com
For Further Online Reading: Nero and his friends are among us Theology of Integral Mission Brazilian Marxist Bishop Killed by Adopted Son Brazilian televangelist Silas Malafaia and his support to socialist politicians in Brazil
30