Latin American Evangelical Theology in the 1970's: The Golden Decade (Religion in the Americas Series)

Latin American Evangelical Theology in the 1970’s

Religion in the Americas Series General editor

Henri Gooren (Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA)

Editorial board

Helen Rose Ebaugh, University of Houston, USA Steven Engler, Mount Royal College, Calgary, Canada Alejandro Frigerio, FLACSO, Argentina

VOLUME 9

Latin American Evangelical Theology in the 1970’s The Golden Decade

by

Daniel Salinas

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Salinas, Daniel. Latin American evangelical theology in the 1970’s : the golden decade / by Daniel Salinas. p. cm. — (Religion in the Americas series, ISSN 1542–1279 ; v. 9) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17699-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Evangelicalism—Latin America—History—20th century. 2. Theology—Latin America—History—20th century. 3. Latin America—Church history—20th century. I. Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana. II. Title. III. Series. BR1642.L29S25 2009 230’.0462409809047—dc22 2009018858

ISSN 1542-1279 ISBN 978 90 04 17699 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Abbreviations ......................................................................................

vii

1. Introduction ................................................................................... Background .............................................................................. Thesis ......................................................................................... Status Quæstiones ................................................................... Biographical Information ....................................................... Methodology ............................................................................ Research Question ...................................................................

1 3 6 12 17 20 25

2. Mutual Perceptions ....................................................................... The United States’ Perception of Latin America ............... The Latin America’s Perception of the United States ....... Mutual Perceptions in the Theological Dialogue ............... Summary ...................................................................................

29 30 36 42 47

3. The Two Congresses of 1969 ...................................................... Introduction ............................................................................. Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana— CELA III ............................................................................... Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización— CLADE I ............................................................................... Summary ...................................................................................

49 49

4. The Fraternidad Teologica Latinoamericana—FTL ................ Introduction ............................................................................. The Formation of the FTL ..................................................... Summary ...................................................................................

83 83 90 114

5. Latin American Theologians in International Forums ........... The International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) .............................................................................. Speakers at ICOWE ................................................................ Latin American Participation: C. René Padilla .............. Latin American Participation: Samuel Escobar .............

121

52 70 80

122 124 127 133

vi

contents Radical Discipleship and the Response to Lausanne ..... North American’s Reception of Padilla’s and Escobar’s Participation at ICOWE .................................................... Latin American Reception of ICOWE ................................ Other International Forums .................................................. Summary ...................................................................................

142 148 155 159

6. Clade II—Huampaní, Peru, November 1979 ........................... Summary ...................................................................................

163 186

7. Conclusion .....................................................................................

189

Appendix 1. The Evangelical Declaration of Bogota ................................ 2. Evangelical Declaration of Cochabamba ............................. 3. Letter to Lausanne—Implications of Radical Discipleship .............................................................................. 4. Carta de CLADE II al Pueblo Evangelico de America Latina ........................................................................................ Bibliography ........................................................................................ Index ....................................................................................................

136

195 199 202 206 209 227

ABBREVIATIONS AEM AGEUP

Andes Evangelical Mission Asociación de Grupos Evangélicos Universitarios del Perú ASEL Acción Social Ecuménica Latinoamericana ASIT Asociación Sudamericana de Instituciones Teológicas ATE Asociación Teológica Evangélica BGC Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois BGEA Billy Graham Evangelistic Association CCLA Committee on Cooperation in Latin America CEHILA Comisión de Estudios de Historia de la Iglesia en Latinoamerica CELA Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana CELAM Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano CELAM III Tercera Conferencia Episcopal Latinoamericana CEMAA Centro Evangélico de Misiología Andino-Amazónica CETECA Centro de Estudios Teológicos Centroamericano CICOP Conference of the Catholic Interamerican Cooperation CLADE Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización CLAI Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias CNEP Concilio Nacional Evangélico del Perú CONELA Confraternidad Evangélica Latinoamericana EAF Evangelism in Depth—Evangelismo a Fondo EATWOT Ecumenical Association of Third World theologians ECLA Evangelical Committee on Latin America EFMA Evangelical Foreign Missions Association EMQ Evangelical Missions Quaterly FTL Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana HUP Homogeneous Unit Principle ICOWE International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland IFMA Independent Foreign Missions Association IMC International Missionary Council ISAL Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina LAM Latin America Mission LCWE Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization

viii LEAL LTEG MEC NACLA NLF OAS PIM SBL UNELAJE UNELAM USAID WCC WEF

abbreviations Literatura Evangélica para América Latina Lausanne Theology and Education group Movimiento Estudiantil Cristiano The North American Congress on Latin America National Liberty Foundation of Valley Forge Inc. Organization of American States Partnership in Mission Seminario Bíblico Latinoamericano Unión Latinoamericana de Juventudes Evangélicas Unidad Evangélica Latinoamericana United States Agency for International Development World Council of Churches World Evangelical Fellowship

Pedro Arana, Washington Padilla, Rene Padilla, and Samuel Escobar, Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1970

Pedro Arana, Peter Savage, Samuel Escobar, Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1970

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION This is the story of people who were able to break through the hold of the past and open new horizons for the Latin American people. It is about a group of Latin American evangelical theologians who were active in theological production in Latin America and for Latin America during the 1970s. Many people know something about liberation theologies in Latin America in the 1970s. Yet, the fact that simultaneous with the emergence of liberation theologies, evangelical Latin Americans were also producing evangelical theology from Latin America is relatively unknown. Historiography has either ignored or misrepresented these Latin American theologians. This theological development from Latin America became a turning point for the history of the church in the continent, and its influence has extended beyond its borders to affect evangelicals throughout the world. This is a story waiting to be told. During the research and writing process, several people asked with interest about this topic. Many were transparent enough to recognize that their knowledge about Latin America did not amount to even a paragraph. People know even less about an evangelical theology from Latin America. They often equate it with liberation theologies, or it is completely unfamiliar to them. The goal of this book is to fill that vacuum by telling the story of an important process of development and maturation for evangelicals in Latin America during a critical decade. The story is told from the point of view of the people who were actively involved in the process either as main characters or as critics. What did they perceive as the main factors responsible for the development of an autochthonous evangelical theology in Latin America? How did the main Latin American protagonists understand their role in such a process? Did North American observers have similar perceptions of what the Latin Americans were doing? The second chapter presents a brief historical overview of the international relation between the United States and Latin America as the backdrop for understanding the mutual theological dialogue. This chapter proposes that a Cold-War mentality set the stage for the interAmerican theological dialogue of the 1970s.

2

chapter one

Two evangelical congresses were held in Latin America in 1969: the Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana (CELA III) and the Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización (CLADE I). Each congress had different emphases and outcomes. These congresses are the theme of the third chapter. Using the methodology of Rezeptionsgeschichte (reception history), we will present the different perceptions of both congresses and contrast these perceptions. This will help us to understand the first stages of the process of maturation and independence in evangelical theology from Latin America. The main source of information for these perceptions is personal correspondence of the participants that has not been previously researched. An unplanned result of CLADE I was the creation in 1970 of the Latin American Theological Fraternity (FTL). This group became the spearhead for an indigenous evangelical theology in Latin America. The story of the process of formation of the FTL and its first theological production are told in chapter 4, as well as how North Americans reacted to the initial stages of the FTL and how Latin Americans understood this event. Chapter 5 is dedicated to the participation of Latin Americans at international theological forums, especially the International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the summer of 1974. The discussion concentrates particularly on the participation of C. René Padilla and Samuel Escobar as examples of what Latin American evangelicals were doing theologically and what their contribution was to the global church. Also presented here are both North American and Latin American reactions to both Padilla and Escobar and to the congress in general. The next chapter presents the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelism (CLADE II)—its program, controversies, and its aftermath. CLADE II elicited conflicting perceptions from North Americans and from Latin Americans. This particular congress marked the end of an intensive decade in theological production by Latin Americans. It also opened new perspectives that defined the theological agenda for the years that followed. Finally, the conclusion provides a summary of our findings and suggests further questions to continue the study of Latin American evangelical theology, including its later developments and other key personalities.

introduction

3

Background A deathly shadow hovered over Latin America in the 1970s. An earthquake hit Peru in May 1970, killing about 67,000 people and leaving some 600,000 homeless. Two days before Christmas of 1972, Managua, Nicaragua, was destroyed by an earthquake leaving 10,000 people dead and 300,000 homeless. Guatemala suffered a devastating hurricane in 1974 and a violent earthquake in February 1976 that claimed more than 25,000 lives and left 100,000 injured and one million people homeless. In the Dominican Republic the already wretched economy was further damaged by two hurricanes in 1979 that left more than 200,000 people homeless and caused more than $1 billion in damages. Politically, the 1970s was a decade of militarism and unrest. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay were ruled by repressive military-supported regimes at some time during the decade, which increased the numbers of mourning families.1 For example, in 1977 the Argentine Commission for Human Rights in Geneva blamed the military regime in Argentina for 2,300 political murders, some 10,000 political arrests, and 20,000 to 30,000 disappearances. In Chile, no one is sure how many thousands were arrested, executed, tortured, exiled, languished in prison or simply disappeared. Several thousand died during the civil wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua in the late 1970s. For example, it is estimated that in Nicaragua alone up to 50,000 died in the war to defeat Somoza.2 There was guerrilla activity in Colombia, Nicaragua,

1 See Joseph Comblin, The Church and the National Security State (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979); Joseph Comblin and Alberto Methol Ferré, Dos Ensayos Sobre Seguridad Nacional (Santiago de Chile: Arzobispado de Santiago Vicaría de la Solidaridad, 1979); Franz J. Hinkelammert, Democracia y Totalitarismo (San José, Costa Rica: DEI, 1987). 2 Data compiled from Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, Iglesia y América Latina: Cifras (Bogotá: CELAM, 1978); Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2002 ([CD-ROM]: Microsoft Corporation); World Book 2003 (Deluxe) (Chicago [CD-ROM]: World Book, Inc.); World Update; Latin America, 1973, (New York: Friendship Press, 1973). See also, COPEC/CECOPE (Organization), “Nuestro Siglo: Revista Trimestral,” (México, D.F.: Copec/Cecope, 1983); Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, Annäherung an Lateinamerika: die Theologie der Befreiung und die Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung Lateinamerikas, Erstausg. ed. (Frankfurt: Materialis Verlag, 1984); Segundo Galilea and Confederación Latinoamericana de Religiosos, Información Teológica y Pastoral Sobre América Latina. Obra Dirigida Por Segundo Galilea. Colaboración de Edgard Beltrán et al. (Bogotá; Conferación Latinoamericana de Religiosos, Secretariado General de la CLAR: 1974).

4

chapter one

Peru, El Salvador, and Uruguay. Either by natural disasters, rulers, civil wars, or the revolutions, Latin America became a continent of despair and grief. Economically, Latin America entered the 1970s with many uncertainties and the experience of failed plans. The Central American Common Market, founded in 1961 by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, was made ineffective by the internal and regional conflicts like the war between El Salvador and Honduras. Six South American countries founded in 1969 the Andean Common Market which appeared to be very effective to begin with but had a short life because of noncooperation, legal entanglements, and the defection of Chile after the coup d’état of 1973. Also, by the early 1970s it was clear that the high goals of the Alliance for Progress were far from reach. Not even the nearly $10 billion that the United States provided for projects connected with the Alliance for Progress brought any significant changes to the already wretched economies of the region. To this picture we could add the massive migrations to the cities, the wide economic chasm between the haves and the have-nots, the multibillion external debt, and the rising malnutrition and diseases among the poor. For example, in Nicaragua, during the 1970s the top 5 percent of the population received 30 percent of the nation’s income, while the poorest 50 percent received only 15 percent.3 Orlando Costas, Puerto Rican missiologist and theologian observed that in 1970, “10% of the total population of Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela earned 66% of the total personal income, 50% earned 24.6% and 20%, 5.1%.”4 This situation was true for most of the other Latin American countries. Elsewhere, Orlando Costas summarized the situation of the continent in the early 1970s as dominated by “oppression and repression, imperialism and colonialism, starvation and poverty, power and powerlessness, frustration and despair.”5 The facts presented above define the general historical, political and social background for any study of the 1970s in Latin America. The figures also open a window to understand the feelings, fears, longings, and dreams of Latin Americans in the 1970s. For a specific analysis of the Brazilian situation, see Rubem Alves, Protestantism and Repression: A Brazilian Case Study (New York: Orbis Books, 1981). 3 World Book 2003 (Deluxe). 4 Orlando Costas, Theology of the Crossroads in Contemporary Latin America, Missiology in Mainline Protestantism: 1969–1974 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1976), 58. 5 Orlando Costas, “Evangelism and the Gospel of Salvation,” International Review of Mission, 63, no. 249 (1974): 25.

introduction

5

Their yearnings were for peace, education, health care, decent jobs, and a better future for the next generations. But above all else, as we will explore in later chapters, they wanted autonomy. They had a strong desire to be the forgers of their own destiny. In the religious scene, the 1960s and 1970s were years of significant events for the Catholic Church. The Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano (CELAM) organized two important conferences in Medellín, Colombia, (1968) and in Puebla, Mexico, (1979).6 These two conferences were convened essentially to understand and apply within the Latin American context the results of Vatican II. The Catholic Church was in a process

6 For the Medellin meeting, see Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, Medellín: Conclusiones. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano. (2d, 1968: Bogotá and Medellín, Colombia), 6 ed., Documentos CELAM (Bogotá: Secretariado General del CELAM, 1971); idem, Medellín Conclusiones: la Iglesia en la Actual Transformación de América Latina a la Luz del Concilio. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latino-Americano; (2d, 1968, Bogotá and Medellin, Colombia) (Bogotá: Secretariado General del CELAM, 1990); Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, Instituto Pastoral, Medellín Teología y Pastoral para América Latina, vol. 1, 1 (marzo 1975) (Medellín, Colombia: Instituto Pastoral del CELAM, 1975); Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church and Alfonso López Trujillo, Medellín: Reflexiones en el CELAM (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1977); CELAM, Presencia de la Iglesia en América Latina: Documentos Pastorales de la 2a. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano. Medellín, Colombia, Agosto–Setiembre 1968, “Versión Original, Sujeta Por el CELAM a Revisión de Estilo” (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Búsqueda, 1968); Louis M. Colonnese and Catholic Church. Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano, The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council: Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops, Bogotá, 24 August, Medellín, 26 August-6 September, Colombia, 1968, 2 vols. (Bogota: General Secretariat of CELAM, 1970); Marcos McGrath, Los Textos de Medellín y el Proceso de Cambio en América Latina: Aprobación de Las Conclusiones de Medellín, Por la Santa Sede: Texto Integro de Las Conclusiones de la Segunda Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano CELAM: Los Signos de los Tiempos en América Latina, Colección La Iglesia en América Latina, vol. 5 (San Salvador: UCA, 1977); Aaron Michael Schwoebel, Theology and Revolution in Central America, Undergraduate Research Papers, Albion College, vol. 50 (Albion, Mich.: Albion College, 1995). For the Puebla meeting see John Eagleson and Philip J. Scharper, Puebla and Beyond: Documentation and Commentary (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979); Alfonso López Trujillo, De Medellín a Puebla, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos; 417 (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1980); Ronaldo Muñoz, Evangelio y Liberación en América Latina: la Teología Pastoral de Puebla (Santiago de Chile: Arzobispado de Santiago Vicaría de la Solidaridad, 1980); Sergio Torres, Latin America and the Puebla Conference (New York: Theology in the Americas, 1978); idem, Puebla 1979: The III Conference of the Latin American Bishops (New York: Theology in the Americas, 1979). For other meetings organized by CELAM, see Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, La Iglesia y América Latina: Aportes Pastorales Desde el CELAM, Conclusiones de los Principales Encuentros Organizados Por el CELAM en los Diez Últimos Años, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Secretariado General del CELAM, 1978).

6

chapter one

of aggiornamento and Latinamericanization. For example, concerning the theological Catholic production, Edward Cleary commented: The process of thinking their own thoughts also meant that Latin Americans had to turn away from (although usually not all the way) European theologians, some of whom had been their mentors. The Latin Americans removed heroes such as Johannes Metz (political theology) and Jürgen Moltmann (theology of hope) from the main niches of their theological pantheon. In turn, Europeans (with some exceptions, such as Edward Schillebeeckx) found it difficult to understand what the Latin Americans were saying, why former students had changed, and why they were so demanding.7

Cleary defines the Latinamericanization of the Catholic Church as a dual process. First, for Cleary, there was a “realistic analysis and delineation of the human and religious situation in Latin America.” The second step was “a theological reinterpretation, the creation of a Latin American theology in the light of Vatican II.”8 Even though these changes in the Catholic Church did not have a direct influence on the theological production of evangelicals in Latin America, they represented the general mood of indigenization in the whole continent. Evangelicals, as we will see, were aware of these trends in the predominant church and interacted with them continually. Thesis This book is about a group of Latin American evangelical theologians who were active in theological production in Latin America during the 1970s.9 The central thesis is that the evangelical theological production in Hispanic Latin America experienced a decisive maturing process in defining its identity, methodology, and main lines of action in the decade between 1969 and 1979. Our emphasis is on the theological production more than on the theology itself. This means this work concentrates more on the historical process of evangelical theological production in Hispanic Latin

7 Edward Cleary, Crisis and Change: The Catholic Church in Latin America (New York: Orbis Books, 1985), 24. 8 Ibid., 27. 9 Some of the best-known names are J. Samuel Escobar, C. René Padilla, Orlando Costas, Pedro Savage, Emilio Antonio Nuñez, Jorge León, Pedro Arana, and Robinson Calvacanti.

introduction

7

America than on the content of that theology. This does not mean that we separate history from theology or that they do not connect in any way. Historical factors, as this research will show, provide strong forces that influence any intellectual endeavor including the theological task. Furthermore, historical conditions and events tend to shape the worldview and the questions being addressed by theologians. The phenomenon of the evangelical theological production in Hispanic Latin America in the 1970s was complex, with many interrelated factors that would require several research approaches to unpack it more fully.10 Evangelical The meaning of “evangelical” in Latin America has historical, sociological, and doctrinal elements. Different historical developments between North America and Latin America have had an important influence in defining “evangelical.” In Latin America, evangelicalism has been a minority religious phenomenon. Catholicism has been the majority religious group. Sociologist Jean Pierre Bastian mentioned Catholic authors who portrayed the presence of evangelicals in Latin America as “part of a silent invasion or as allies of the North American imperialistic interventionism.”11 In similar way, for Peruvian missiologist Samuel 10 For previous works and theses about some theological aspects of the Hispanic Latin American evangelical theology see Mariano Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics: A Critical Examination of the Contextual Hermeneutics of the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1996); Antonio Carlos Barro, “Orlando Enrique Costas: Mission Theologian on the Way and at the Crossroads” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission, 1993); Terrell Frank Coy, “Incarnation and the Kingdom of God: The Political Theologies of Orlando Costas, C. René Padilla, and Samuel Escobar” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999); Daniel C. Elliot, “Theology and Mission from Latin America: The Latin American Theological Fraternity” (Masters thesis, Wheaton College Graduate School, 1992); Pius Franz Helfenstein, “Evangelikale Theologie der Befreiung. Das Reich Gottes in der Theologie der ‘Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana’ und der Gägigen Befreiungstheologie, Ein Vergleich” (Dissertation, Basel University, 1991); Diememme E. Noelliste, “The Church and Human Emancipation: A Critical Comparison of Liberation Theology and the Latin American Theological Fraternity” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1987); Anthony C. Smith, “The Essentials of Missiology from the Evangelical Perspective of the ‘Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana’” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983); Valdir Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission in Its Relation to Social Responsibility within the Lausanne Movement” (Ph.D. diss., Lutheran School of Theology, 1988); David Traverzo Galarza, “The Emergence of a Latino Radical Evangelical Social Ethic in the Work and Thought of Orlando E. Costas: An Ethico-Theological Discourse from the Underside of History” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1992). 11 Jean Pierre Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo en América Latina, 2d ed. (México:

8

chapter one

Escobar, Catholic publications created a “black legend” that attributes the presence of evangelicals in Latin America to “vast amounts of money provided by the CIA, and to a plan of imperialistic penetration lead by sectors of the North American political right.”12 Evangelicalism in Latin America has been considered a sect that “endangers the cultural integrity and religious unity of the continent.”13 Sociologically, Bastian labeled evangelicals in Latin America as “religious dissidents, adopting an exogenous religious worldview.”14 For Bastian, evangelicalism constitutes a minority and marginal “continental subculture,” a “complex and plural religious movement . . . constituted by various types and characteristics.”15 Following this idea of religious dissidence, Escobar identified a clear anabaptist ethos in Latin American evangelicalism. Escobar explained that, “evangelical churches occupied in Latin America society the role of contestant groups to the official church, critical minorities, which together with other social groups wanted to open to the future a close and medieval society, marked still by feudalism.”16 Therefore, “evangelical” in the Latin American context has developed in the midst of confrontation and dialogue with Catholicism as well as interdialogue among several strands of Protestantism represented by the missionary enterprise. To be an “evangélico” in Latin America has meant to be a small minority, suspected and many times persecuted. Evangélico has meant usually a non-Catholic Latin American. Doctrinally, Latin American evangelicals have seen themselves as heirs of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.17 The battle cry of the Reformers is also theirs—Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus. It is in this sense that Escobar defined “evangelical” as “fidelity to the Protestant doctrinal heritage.”18 Escobar

Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1990), 13. For example Regis Planchet, La Intervención Protestante en México y Sud América (El Paso, Tex.: Revista Catolica, 1928). 12 Samuel Escobar, Los Evangélicos: ¿Nueva Leyenda Negra en América Latina? (Mexico: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1991), 3. 13 Bishop Jorge Mario Avila, quoted in ibid. 14 Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo, 9. Bastian used the terms “Protestant” and “evangelical” as synonomous. 15 Ibid., 10. 16 Samuel Escobar, “¿Qué Significa Ser Evangélico Hoy?” Misión 1 (1982): 17. 17 Emilio Antonio Nuñez, “Herederos de la Reforma,” in América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80. Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (Lima: CLADE-II, 1979). 18 Escobar, “¿Qué Significa Ser Evangélico Hoy?” 16.

introduction

9

included in such Protestant heritage elements from Methodism, Pietism, Anabaptism, and Puritanism. From these influences, Escobar listed as “evangelical,” evangelistic passion, personal piety, puritan ethics, and the social dimension of the gospel.19 Because of this heritage, Latin American evangelicals emphasize personal conversion, assiduous reading of the Bible, separatist ethics, and active evangelism. As Escobar put it, “to be evangelical means doctrinal firmness, evangelistic passion, personal piety, a different lifestyle from the rest of the world, and also social conscience.”20 Salvadorean theologian Emilio Antonio Nuñez characterized “evangelical theology” in Latin America as “Theocentric, Bibliocentric, Christocentric, and Pneumatological.”21 Therefore, the meaning of “evangelical” for Latin America comes from a different historical paradigm than the one in which the term is defined in the United States. The evangelical church in Latin America has not experienced first-hand the discussions with “social gospel,” “liberal theologies,” and other theological novelties that the church in the United States has gone through. Nevertheless, “evangelical” in this study refers to the sector of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America closer to the meaning of “evangelical” in the United States.22 Therefore, evangelical North American readers need to be aware that there are important contextual differences with their Latin American brethren, not in the basic doctrines, but in the practical expression of the evangelical faith in Latin America.23 Theological Production The phrase “Evangelical Theological Production” refers to the theology done by those Hispanic Latin Americans who considered themselves “evangelicals,” living and ministering in Latin America, and

19

Ibid., 16–18. Ibid., 18. 21 Emilio Antonio Nuñez, “Towards an Evangelical Latin American Theology,” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983): 125–130. 22 See Samuel Escobar, “Evangelical Theology in Latin America: The Development of a Missiological Christology,” Missiology 19, no. 3 (1991): 329. 23 Two analyses of the situation are Pablo Deiros, Protestantismo en América Latina: Ayer, Hoy y Mañana (Nashville: Editorial Caribe, 1997); José Míguez Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, trans. Eugene L. Stockwell (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). For a historical analysis see Arturo Piedra, Evangelización Protestante en América Latina: Análisis de Las Razones Que Justificaron y Promovieron la Expansión Protestante 1830–1960, vol. 1 (Quito, Ecuador: CLAI, 2000). 20

10

chapter one

who remained outside of the ecumenical trend of the World Council of Churches and/or of the Liberation theologies. Latin American evangelical theologians became engaged in the development of a contextual theology, a theology “forged in the heat of Evangelical reality in Latin America [and] in faithfulness to the Word of God.”24 They were convinced none of the theological options available at that time—traditional western evangelical theology, the ecumenical dialogue Geneva style (WCC), and the liberation theologies—offered adequate evangelical theological answers to the situation in the Latin context. They felt that the time had come for Latin Americans to do theology within the “evangelical” tradition but without the cultural entrapments of the foreign missionaries and theologies.25 For them, the ecumenical theology imported from Geneva was in a disarray created by the uncertainties, fatigue, and decline of European Protestantism. On the other hand, liberation theologies, mostly Catholic, developed from the wrong assumption that Latin America was “a Christian continent.”26 Also, the traditional evangelical theology they had received was tainted with cultural elements characteristic of the countries and societies missionaries were from. The term “production” is understood in this study as those theological works—including books, journal articles and monographs—that were printed for wide distribution. It does not include monographs and personal notes that never went beyond local congregations. Maturity and definition “Maturity and definition” means the growing awareness and conscientization to solve the vacuum of an autochthonous theological reflection by conservative Latin American evangelicals. Emilio Antonio Nuñez explained the situation saying,

24 Samuel Escobar, “Biblical Content and Anglo-Saxon Trappings in Latin American Theology,” Occasional Bulletin of the Latin American Theological Fraternity, no. 3 (1972): 2. 25 Ibid. See also John A. Mackay, The Latin American Churches and the Ecumenical Movement (New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and CCLA, 1963). 26 The most comprehensive treatment by Latin American evangelicals of liberation theologies are Samuel Escobar, La Fe Evangélica y Las Teologías de la Liberación (El Paso: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1987); Emilio Antonio Nuñez, Liberation Theology, trans. Paul E. Sywulka (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985); idem, Teología de la Liberación (Miami: Caribe, 1986).

introduction

11

The tragedy is that many have not been aware of the lack of such a theology, and others claim that it is unnecessary, saying that theology is universal and that to give it a regional or cultural tone would disfigure or corrupt it. It is rather strange that the same people who react with horror to the possibility of formulating a Latin American theology feel comfortable speaking of German Theology, continental European theology, or North American theology. The question is raised as to whether the opposition to a possible Latin American evangelical theology is not an indication of the paternalistic attitude which some leaders have assumed toward the Latin American Evangelical Church. That is to say, the idea that the evangelicals in these countries are still children unable to think for themselves and to express the Christian faith within the context of their own culture.27

Latin American evangelical theologians felt caricatured and misrepresented in the literature of books such as those by Peter Wagner and John Sinclair.28 These two authors fueled the process of awareness and served as catalysts to create a theological production from the evangelical side. This process of conscientization involved the delineation of a plan of action to solve the “almost absolute absence of theological reflection in Latin American conservative evangelical circles.” This process was seen as “seeking pertinence” and forging a “theological reflection that would not be a servile and undiscriminating copy of what has been done in other lands.”29 Nuñez understood this process of maturation as the effort of those who “have begun to make progress in the theological field and are on the road of serious reflections, with the intense desire to hear the Word of God and pronounce that Word for the people of Latin America.”30 Samuel Escobar explained the process of maturation as an intentional decision “to start reflecting the faith as grownups and on our own.”31 Therefore, this study explains a theological production in process, not a finalized and definite one.

27

Nuñez, “Towards an Evangelical Latin American Theology,” 123. John H. Sinclair, Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected References Mainly in English, Spanish and Portuguese and Useful Bibliographical Aids to Assist the Student and Researcher in the General Field of Latin American Studies (Austin, Tex.: The Hispanic American Institute, 1967); C. Peter Wagner, Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? The Struggle for the Faith in a Young Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). 29 Padilla, quoted. Escobar, La Fe Evangélica, 61. 30 Nuñez, “Towards an Evangelical Latin American Theology,” 124. 31 Samuel Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” in Hacia Una Teología Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor a Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla (San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984), 64. 28

12

chapter one Latin America

Without falling into a blunt generalization of including a whole continent with so much diversity under one single label, the name Latin America is used here as a geographical region and not as a cultural unit. In its broadest sense it includes the entire western hemisphere south of the United States. However, this work will limit its scope to the countries that have Spanish as one of their official languages. Former colonies of Britain, the Netherlands, France, and Portugal have had different historical paradigms and developments and therefore are not included in this study. When mentioning either “Latin” or “North” Americans, even though these labels are generalizations, the context will make clear about whom we are writing. The author is aware that it is possible to find exceptions to any particular situation or that the people whose names appear in this study might not represent the predominant voice. Nevertheless, the methodology and the thesis of this work demand those people to be included as main characters of the story. Status Quæstiones If there is a “fact” that people in the United States know about theology in Latin America it is that in the 1970s liberation theologies stirred up academic circles. These liberation theologies captured academia so much that they became the Latin American theology. The books of liberation theologians were translated immediately into several languages while the authors went around the world presenting their findings.32 Most 32 For sources in English see Thomas J. Davis, ed., Liberation Theology: A Bibliography Selected from the ATLA Religion Database (Chicago: American Theologian Library Association, 1985); Ronald G. Musto, Liberation Theologies: A Research Guide (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1991); Michael Novak, Will It Liberate? Questions About Liberation Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1986). For German and French sources see the bibliography at Eduardo Ibarra, Christianisme en Amerique Latine. Bibliographie Internationale 1973–1974 Établie Par Ordineteur (Strausbourg: Cerdic Publications, 1977). Helfenstein, “Evangelikale Theologie der Befreiung. Das Reich Gottes in der Theologie der ‘Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana’ und der Gägigen Befreiungstheologie, Ein Vergleich”; Hans Schöpfer, Theologie der Gesellschaft: Interdiziplinäre Grundlagenbibliographie zur Einführung in der Befreiungs–und Polittheologische Problematik: 1960–1975 (Bern and Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1977). See also Svein Helge Birkeflet and Kjell Nordstokke, Latin American Liberation Theology: A Bibliography on Essential Writings (Oslo: University of Oslo Faculty of Theology, 1991); Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo e Integración de América Latina, Roberto

introduction

13

of these liberation theologians were Roman Catholic, since that was the predominant church in the continent, but there were also a few Protestants in this group.33 Suddenly, Latin America had something worth listening to. However, the literature of those years fails to point out that simultaneously with liberation theologies there was an evangelical Christian group of Latin American theologians that was also producing theology from Latin America. With few exceptions, the historiography of Latin America theology has either ignored or misrepresented them. As an example of omission, John H. Sinclair, in the two editions of his monumental bibliographical guide to Latin American studies, did not include any evangelical theologians or their works.34 Richard Quebedeaux misrepresented some of these Latin American evangelical theologians by saying that they affirmed “liberation theology in general and the possibility of Marxist-Christian cooperation in

Jiménez C., and Roger Vekemans, Desarrollo y Revolución, Iglesia y Liberación (Bibliografía) (Bogotá: CEDIAL, 1973); James H. Cone, Teologie Dal Terzo Mondo, Teologia Nera e Teologia Latino-Americana Della Liberazione (Brescia: Queriniana, 1974); Bruno D’Avanzo, Chiesa e Liberazione in America Latina: da un Ethos del Sistema ad un Ethos Di Liberazione, Temi Etici Nella Storia; 4 (Bologna: Dehoniane, 1988); Franz Grave and Dorothea Meilwes, Reichtum der Armen, Armut der Reichen: Lateinamerika an der Schwelle des Dritten Jahrtausends, 1. Aufl. ed. (München: Don Bosco, 2001); Peter Hünermann, Juan Carlos Scannone, and Margit Eckholt, Lateinamerika und die Katholische Soziallehre: Ein Lateinamerikanisch-Deutsches Dialogprogramm, 3 vols. (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1993); Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos., “Bibliografía Teológica Comentada del Área Iberoamericana,” (Buenos Aires, Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos de la Asociación Interconfesional de Estudios Teológicos, 1975); Michael Löwy and Michael Gibson, La Guerre des Dieux: Religion et Politique en Amérique Latine., Histoire (Paris: Editions du Félin, 1998); François Malley, Libération: Mouvements, Analyses, Recherches, Théologies: Essai Bibliographique, Série Bibliographie (Paris: Centre L.-J. Lebret, 1974); Ulla Pedersen, Befrielsesteologien i Latinamerika 1960–1990: en Annoteret Bibliografi over Litteratur i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger: Slotsholmen, Universitetsbiblioteket Amager Og Universitetsbiblioteket Fiolstræde, Fagbibliografier / Kongelige Bibliotek, 17 (København: Det kongelige Bibliotek, 1991); Karl Rahner, Christian Modehn, and Hans Zwiefelhofer, Befreiende Theologie: D. Beitr. Lateinamerikas zur Theologie D. Gegenwart (Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz Kohlhammer: 1977); Hans Schöpfer, Theologie der Gesellschaft: Interdisziplinäre Grundlagenbibliographie zur Einf. In D. Befreiungs-U. Polittheolog. Problematik 1960–1975, Studien zur Interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums; Bd. 11 (Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Las Vegas: Lang, 1977); Hans Waldenfels, Theologen der Dritten Welt: Elf Biographische Skizzen Aus Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika (München: C. H. Beck, 1982). 33 For example, José Míguez Bonino (Methodist-Argentina) and Rubem Alves (Presbyterian-Brazil). 34 John H. Sinclair, Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide, 2d ed. (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1976). The first edition was published in 1967.

14

chapter one

working for social justice and political change in particular.”35 Possible causes for these omissions and misrepresentations in the literature will be analyzed later. A notable exception, among the evangelicals, was the British scholar J. Andrew Kirk who characterized this group of Latin Americans as the “avant garde of the Evangelical churches.”36 For Kirk, [Latin American evangelical theologians] had begun to search for a genuinely Latin American expression of the Christian faith (contextualisation). This undertaking springs from a basic conviction that the churches of which they are members to a large degree understand and propagate a gospel incrusted with foreign cultural elements. The concern for contextualisation shows a growing theological maturity and independence, for all evangelistic and ecclesiastical formulae are submitted to the rigorous tests of their cultural identification and their biblical authenticity.37

A significant exception among Latin Americans was Beatriz Melano Couch, a theologian sympathetic with liberation theology, who called this group of evangelical theologians “radical evangelicals” and warned in 1978 that to “ignore their contribution or simply dismiss them would be a lack of vision.” Melano described this group as one that represented “a new theological opening that is significant. They are a kind of bridge between the conservative and the most radically engaged Protestants.”38 Then she added that those radical evangelicals “have been suspected both by conservatives, who are afraid of their ‘leftist’ tendencies, and by leftist Christians, who consider them developmentalists and reformists.” Melano evaluated this evangelical theology as an alternative “more strictly related to the classical evangelical biblical theology, aimed at forming a critique of both capitalist and Marxist 35 Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978), 112. To understand the reception of liberation theologies in North America, see Craig L. Nessan, Orthopraxis or Heresy: The North American Theological Response to Latin American Liberation Theology, American Academy of Religion Academy Series no. 63 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989). See also Richard L. Rubenstein and John K. Roth, The Politics of Latin American Liberation Theology: Understanding the Challenge to U.S. Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute Press, 1988). 36 J. Andrew Kirk, “Theology under Re-Appraisal: A Latin American View,” in Today’s Church and Today’s World with a Special Focus on the Ministry of Bishops (London: CIO Publishing, 1978), 147. 37 Ibid. 38 Beatriz Melano Couch, “New Visions of the Church in Latin America: A Protestant View,” in The Emergent Gospel: Theology from the Underside of History. Papers from the Ecumenical Dialogue of Third World Theologians, Dar Es Salaam, August 5–12, 1976, ed. Sergio Torres and Virginia Fabella (New York: Orbis Books, 1978), 213.

introduction

15

ideologies in the search for a missiology that would be relevant to Latin America’s problems.”39 However, despite Melano’s warning it was not until years later that this group of evangelical theologians started to appear in the literature. In the mid 1980s, the Swiss historian Jean-Pierrre Bastian described them as “a biblical-conservative reformist sector of intellectuals” that intends to “develop a Latin American theological thought.”40 In 1990 David Stoll referred to this group as “distinctively Latin American as well as distinctively evangelical,” theologians who “wanted to pursue social issues without abandoning evangelism, deal with oppressive structures without endorsing violence, and bring left-and right-wing Protestants back together again.”41 There are two exceptions in the more popular magazines and journals. The Latin America Pulse42 presented the news of a meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in December 1970,43 where “a nucleus of conservative, evangelical theologians [was] brought together to listen to the Word of God, reflect on His message within the context of Latin America and consider the present theological trends within the continent.”44 Christianity Today also dedicated a news release to the Cochabamba congress, where “common to all was the desire to articulate an authentic Latin American theology.”45 Regularly, short articles appeared in the same magazine the following years with news about these theologians. Besides the exceptions mentioned above, evangelical scholarship in the United States has maintained a relative silence about the theological production by evangelicals in Hispanic Latin America in the 1970s. This study, then, is intended to fill that vacuum and to demonstrate that there is much more to Latin American theology than the liberationist version. A particular contribution of this book is the close link of theological production in Latin America and the work of the International

39

Ibid., 214. Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo, 225, 231. 41 David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 131. 42 Published by ECLA from Wheaton. 43 This gathering is the theme of chapter 3. 44 “Conservative Theologians Meet in Bolivia,” Latin America Pulse 5, no. 6 (1970). 45 C. Peter Wagner, “High Theology in the Andes,” Christianity Today, 15 January 1971, 28. 40

16

chapter one

Fellowship of Evangelical Students (I.F.E.S.).46 This link helps explain the preparation and the credentials of this group of theologians. They did not appear suddenly. The majority of them were already producing theology as part of their involvement with university students across the continent and brought this background to the theological conversation.47 Therefore, this study does not assume that evangelical theological

46 See the analysis of the relationship between the student movements affiliated with IFES and the FTL in Edgar Alan Perdomo, “Una Descripción Histórica de la Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana (Segunda de Dos Partes),” Kairós 33, julio-diciembre (2003): 94–99. 47 For an account of the work of IFES in Latin America see Samuel Escobar, La Chispa y la Llama. Breve Historia de la Comunidad Internacional de Estudiantes Evangélicos en América Latina (Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1978). See also Pedro Arana Quiroz, “Evangelization in the Latin American University,” International Review of Mission 63, no. 252 (1974). For a sample of published works, see Pedro Arana Quiroz, Progreso, Técnica y Hombre (Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Certeza, 1970); idem, Providencia y Revolución (Lima, Peru: El Estandarte de la Verdad, 1970); idem, “La Revelación de Dios y la Teología en Latinoamérica,” in El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972); idem, “The Great Problem of the Evangelical Church in Latin America,” I.F.E.S. Journal 26, no. 1 (1973); idem, “The Spiritual Diagnosis of Latin America,” in Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation, ed. Peter Savage (Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975); Samuel Escobar, “¿Somos Fundamentalistas?” Pensamiento Cristiano 13 (1966); idem, Diálogo Entre Cristo y Marx (Lima, Perú: Publicaciones AGEUP, 1967); idem, “La Nueva Generación Evangélica,” Pensamiento Cristiano (1969); idem, “The Social Responsibility of the Church in Latin America,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 6, no. 3 (1970); idem, “A Look Ahead,” World Vision Magazine 15, no. 5 (1971); idem, Decadencia de la Religión (Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Certeza, 1972); idem, “The Gospel and Contemporary Ideologies,” in The Gospel Today: Working Papers for Discussion and Application (IFES General Committee, 1975); idem, “La Teología Evangélica Hoy,” Pensamiento Cristiano 24, no. 4 (1978); Samuel Escobar, C. René Padilla, and Yamauchi, ¿Quién Es Cristo Hoy? (Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1970); Samuel Escobar and John Driver, Christian Mission and Social Justice (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1978); Emilio Antonio Nuñez, “Teólogos Latinoamericanos para la América Latina,” Boletín Teológico, November 1972; C. René Padilla, “Is It Possible in Spain?” I.F.E.S. Journal 17, no. 2 (1964); idem, “Student Witness in Latin America Today,” I.F.E.S. Journal 19, no. 2 (1966); idem, “Latin American Report,” I.F.E.S. Journal 20, no. 3 (1967); idem, “Lima 1967,” I.F.E.S. Journal 20, no. 1 (1967); idem, “La Autoridad de la Biblia en la Teología Latinoamericana,” in El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972); idem, “La Teología en Latinoamérica,” Pensamiento Cristiano 19, no. 75 (1972); idem, “Revolution and Revelation,” in Is Revolution Change? ed. Brian Griffiths (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972); idem, “Christianity American-Style,” Christianity Today, 10 October 1975; idem, El Evangelio Hoy (Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1975); idem, El Reino de Dios y América Latina (El Paso: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1975); idem, “What Is the Gospel?” in The Gospel Today: Working Papers for Discussion and Application (IFES General Committee, 1975); idem, ed., Fe Cristiana y Latinoamérica Hoy (Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1974).

introduction

17

production in Hispanic Latin America began in the 1970s. A great deal of work had already been done in this area. Rather, we are proposing the thesis that during the decade between 1969 and 1979 a definite and important turning point was reached in the Latin American evangelical theological production. This was a turning point that changed for the better the history of the evangelical church, not only in Latin America but also around the world. Biographical Information A number of evangelical theologians from Latin America figure prominently in this study.48 Pedro Arana Quiróz was born in 1938 in Lima, Peru. He graduated from the University of San Marcos as an engineer. Immediately after graduation, Arana joined the team as full-time staff to start AGEUP (Asociación de Grupos Evangélicos Universitarios del Perú), the Peruvian student movement related to IFES. Later Arana became IFES’s traveling secretary for Latin America. Arana studied theology in Edinburgh, Scotland. Arana participated in the constitutional assembly of Peru in charge of rewriting the constitution of the country. He has also participated in the Peruvian council of evangelicals, World Vision, and the Bible Society. He is a Presbyterian pastor and educator. Mortimer Arias was born in Durazno, Uruguay, where he was an ordained minister for 16 years. He studied at the Facultad Evangélica de Teología in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In the early 1970s the World Methodist Council assigned Arias to Bolivia. He became the first bishop of the Bolivian Methodist Church and served in that position for six years until the political situation forced him into exile. Arias spoke at the Fifth general assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1975. After Kenya, Arias went to the Perkins Methodist University for doctoral studies. He has been guest professor at Iliff School of Theology and Claremont School of Theology. Arias also served as President of the Latin American Biblical Seminary in 48 For a more complete biographical information see appendix C in Smith, “The Essentials of Missiology,” 303–331. See also J. D. Douglas, ed., Twentieth-Century Dictionary of Christian Biography (Grand Rapids, Mich. and Carlisle, U. K.: Baker Books and PaterNoster, 1995). See the autobiographical essays at C. René Padilla, ed., Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana. Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage (San José/Miami: Caribe, 1984).

18

chapter one

Costa Rica between 1986 and 1989. After retirement, Arias returned to his home country of Uruguay. Orlando Enrique Costas (1942–1987) was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Before his teenage years his family moved to the United States.49 His spiritual pilgrimage started in a Billy Graham’s crusade at the Madison Square Garden of New York. Costas graduated in 1966 from the InterAmerican University in Puerto Rico. His educational experience took him through the Bob Jones Academy in Greenville, South Carolina; the Nyack Missionary College in New York; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois; the Winona Lake School of Theology in Indiana; and Garret Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. While doing his theological studies, Costas was the pastor of a Hispanic church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He earned his doctorate in Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1975 under Professor Johannes Verkuyl.50 He taught at the Seminario Bíblico Latinoamericano in San José, Costa Rica, and the Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Costas was professor of missiology and dean at Andover-Newton Theological School when he died prematurely. J. Samuel Escobar Aguirre was born in 1934 in Arequipa, Peru. He served as the General Director of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in Canada from 1972–1975. Escobar graduated from the San Marcos University in Lima and did his doctoral studies at the Complutense University in Madrid, Spain (1966–67) with a dissertation on Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. After finishing his university studies, Escobar worked as a teacher at elementary and high schools in Peru. Together with Pedro Arana and C. René Padilla, Escobar was a founding member of the work of IFES in Latin America in 1958; the three were also founding members of the FTL in 1970. In 1959 Escobar became the traveling secretary for IFES in Latin America and he later became the regional secretary. While studying in Spain, Escobar was invited by Carl Henry to present a paper at the Congress on Evangelism in Berlin, 1966. Escobar has acted as president emeritus of the FTL. Not only has he been editor of several magazines and other publications in Latin America, he has also written more than a hundred articles, books, and essays on missiology and theology from a Latin American perspective. 49

The most complete work on Costas is, Antonio Carlos Barro, “Orlando Enrique Costas: Mission Theologian on the Way and at the Crossroads” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission, 1993). 50 Costas, Theology of the Crossroads.

introduction

19

He has been a speaker at several Urbana missionary conventions and has taught in a number of seminaries in Latin America, North America, and Europe. In 1997 Escobar received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada.51 Emilio Antonio Nuñez was born in El Salvador in 1923. After his conversion, when he was twenty-one years old, he moved to Guatemala to start his theological education at the Centro de Estudios Teológicos Centroamericano (CETECA), where he later became a professor. Nuñez pioneered radio ministries in Central America. After his doctorate from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1969, Nuñez was elected dean of CETECA and later acted as president for many years. Between 1973 and 1974 Nuñez had a sabbatical in Barcelona, Spain, to study post-conciliar Catholicism. After his retirement he dedicated himself to writing. Carlos René Padilla was born in 1932 in Quito, Ecuador. When he was two years old, his family moved to Bogotá, Colombia, until his early adolescence when they returned to Ecuador due to religious persecution. Padilla received his B.A. (1957) and M.A. (1960) from Wheaton College and his doctorate from the University of Manchester (1965) under the tutelage of New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce. After his studies in the United Kingdom, Padilla became involved in student ministry across Latin America with IFES. He has been actively involved in publishing theological evangelical books and magazines for Latin America—Revista Certeza, Ediciones Certeza, Revista Misión, Editorial Kairós, and others. Padilla has also been involved in developing theological education for lay professional people. Peter Savage was born in 1937 to British missionary parents in Peru. Savage studied theology at the London Bible College and psychology at London University. Savage returned to Peru as a missionary in 1962. In 1967 he went to Fuller Theological Seminary in California and studied anthropology under Alan R. Tippet. After Fuller, Savage went as missionary to Cochabamba, Bolivia, where he came in contact with C. Peter Wagner. In Bolivia, Savage became the director of Emmaus Bible Institute where he developed an extension program. When the FTL was established in 1970, Savage became its international coordinator until 1983. Savage was the FTL representative at the theological

51 For more information on Escobar, see “Recuerdos de un Maestro (1) Una Entrevista con Samuel Escobar,” Iglesia y Misión 15, no. 56 (1996); “Recuerdos de un Maestro (2) Una Entrevista con Samuel Escobar,” Iglesia y Misión 15, no. 57 (1996).

20

chapter one

commission of WEF from 1975 to 1980. He was involved with Partnership in Mission (PIM), and the IFES’s ministry to graduates for the whole Latin America. Although C. Peter Wagner is not a Latin American, he played an indirect role in the Latin American theological production in the 1970s. Wagner was born in New York in 1930. After his M.A. at Fuller Theological Seminary, in 1955 he went as a missionary to Cochabamba, Bolivia, where he became AEM’s (Andes Evangelical Mission) associate general secretary. He participated in the founding meeting of the FTL in 1970. In 1971 Donald McGavran invited Wagner to join Fuller’s faculty as a specialist in Latin American studies. At Fuller, Wagner became involved in the Church Growth Movement. He earned a Ph.D. in social ethics from the University of Southern California in 1977. Methodology Since this book deals with theological production, or in other words, the theological works—books, articles, papers and monographs—that actually were published for wide distribution, the methodology chosen has to relate both fields of literature and history. Therefore, this book will use the methodology of Rezeptionsgeschichte. This was originally applied to hermeneutics and literary history but its usage has been widened to other academic fields.52 52

The most extensive bibliography on Rezeptionsgeschichte appeared in Gunter Grimm, Rezeptionsgeschichte: Grundlegung Einer Theorie Mit Analysen und Bibliographie (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1977). See also Ralph Cohen, ed., New Directions in Literary History (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974); Hans Robert Jauß, “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory,” in New Directions in Literary History, ed. Ralph Cohen (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974); idem, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, ed. Wlad Godzich and Johen Schulte-Sasse, trans. Timothy Bahti, Theory and History of Literature, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982); idem, Pour Une Herméneutique Littéraire, trans. Maurice Jacob (Paris: Gallimard, 1988); Hannelore Link, Rezeptionsforschung: Eine Einfürung in Methoden und Probleme (Stuttgart and Berlin: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1976); Ormond Rush, The Reception of Doctrine: An Appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss’ Reception Aesthetics and Literary Hermeneutics., Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia 19 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997); Martyn P. Thomson, “Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meaning,” History and Theory 32 (1993): 248–272. For an analysis of the reception of Rezeptionsgeschichte in the United States see Robert C. Holub, Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 1984); idem, Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992). For application of Rezeptionsgeschichte to archaeology, music, and art see the bibliography at Cornelius

introduction

21

The watershed occasion for the beginning of Rezeptionsgeschichte was Hans Robert Jauß’s inaugural address at the University of Konstanz in 1967, “Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwisenschaft,”53 after which “almost every critical school of thought and practically every literary discipline responded to his challenge.”54 Jauß’s Provokation was his “attempt to bridge the gap between literature and history, between historical and aesthetic approaches.”55 For Jauß, the other methods of literary history deprive literature of “the dimension of its reception and influence.”56 What Jauß proposed was that the audience, the receptors of any work, should play a bigger role in literary theory. For even the critic who judges a new work, the writer who conceives of his work in light of positive or negative norms of an earlier work, and the literary historian who classifies a work in its tradition and explains it historically are first simply readers before their reflexive relationship to literature can become productive again. In the triangle of author, work and public, the last is no passive part, no chain of mere reactions, but rather itself an energy formative of history. The historical life of a literary work is unthinkable without the active participation of the addressees. For it is only through the process of its mediation that the work enters into the changing horizon-of-experience of a continuity in which the perpetual inversion occurs from simple reception to critical understanding, from passive to active reception, from recognized aesthetic norms to a new production that surpasses them.57

Jauß defined Rezeptionsgeschichte in a threefold manner: “diachronically in the interrelationships of the reception of literary works, synchronically in the frame of reference of literature of the same moment, as well as in the sequence of such frames, and finally in the relationship of the immanent literary development to the general process of history.”58 First, the diachronic element seeks to trace a history of the text by examining the text’s reception by community of readers in different historical periods (the text throughout history). The diachronic study of a literary work, according to Jauß, seeks to “recognize its historical

Holtorf, The Reception History of Monuments [Available from http://citd.scar.utoronto .ca/CITDPress/Holtorf/2.4.html; internet] (1995, accessed 7 February 2002). 53 The English version is found in Jauß, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 3–45. 54 Holub, Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction, 4. 55 Jauß, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 18. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., 19. 58 Ibid., 32.

22

chapter one

position and significance in the context of the experience of literature.”59 Jauß gave here some weight to the horizons of expectation at the time of any work’s production and original reception. Even though it is important to include the “passive reception” of the authors, the emphasis is primarily on the original reception of their works in order to “recognize the variable distance between the actual and the virtual significance of a literary work.”60 This has to do specifically with how any particular work was originally received. Jauß warned that the “distance between the actual first perception of a work and its virtual significance can be so great that it requires a long process of reception to gather in that which was unexpected and unusable within the first horizon.”61 Second, the synchronic component includes the examination of the text in its original historical context with the dynamic of its original production and reception (the text within history). This synchronic element in Jauß’s proposal seeks “to discover an overarching system of relationships in the literature of a historical moment.”62 This is the study of a text in its original Sitz im Leben by contrasting contemporaneous works, without denying their heterogeneity, and arranging them in equivalent, opposing, and hierarchical structures. Ormond Rush explained, Despite his rejection of historicism, which understood a work of art solely in terms of its origins, Jauss’ aesthetics gives a certain weight to the horizons of expectation at the time of a work’s production and original reception. For Jauss this is a synchronic dimension of a work’s history. From a synchronic perspective, the production and original reception of a work are examined in terms of the literary and social horizons spoken above. An author takes up a particular genre in a particular way. He poses certain questions from the particular horizon of his situation and sets out to answer them through the artistic work. He addresses a particular audience within that horizon and offers his answer. Synchronically the treatment of the same question and theme by other authors at that time also comes into play and affects the receiver’s horizon of expectation. Furthermore, expectations concerning the genre employed also have a role in the reception process.63

59 60 61 62 63

Ibid. Ibid., 34. Ibid., 35. Ibid., 36. Rush, The Reception of Doctrine, 82.

introduction

23

Jauß was not proposing an either-or approach between diachronic and synchronic elements in Rezeptionsgeschichte. Rather, “the historicity of literature comes to light at the intersections of diachrony and synchrony.” What Jauß wanted to maintain is the relationship of a synchronic system with its past and its future. He also wanted to find a methodology that would help in “selecting that which is important for a new history of literature.”64 The work of the historian, thus, is to find those points of intersection, points which are arbitrary but historically formative nevertheless. The third element of Rezeptionsgeschichte is the representation of literary history as “special history in its own unique relationship to general history.”65 This element examines the relation of the text to general history through an analysis of the way the social function of a text arises out of a particular historical context, and is received from within it. In other words, this seeks to determine the impact of the text on the wider, general history (the text and history). This has to do with the effect or impact of a text or a literary system upon the world. Rush explains that “related to the history of a work’s reception is the way that work impacts on wider society at different times in its history and ultimately affects human society and its history.”66 What Jauß wanted to include here is the “formative function of literature” in which any “new literary work is received and judged against the background of the everyday experience of life.”67 This work combines the three elements of Rezeptionsgeschichte described above—diachronic, synchronic, and literary history. The “text” or “literary corpus” of this study will be the theological evangelical production in Hispanic Latin America between 1969 and 1979. Initially, this seems to be an out-of-proportion subject. To consider the entire theological production in a whole continent as a single genre may seem to rest on a gross generalization that not only defies any serious undertaking, but also could only lead to an unscientific and unachievable study. This is precisely where the methodology of reception-history is applicable. This book will present three different receptions of those Latin American theologians: first, their own reception of their work; second, the 64 65 66 67

Jauß, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 38. Ibid., 39. Rush, The Reception of Doctrine, 84. Jauß, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 41.

24

chapter one

reception by other Latin Americans; and, third, the reception in the United States. The authors and the works that will be included are those that were, in some way, received, commented upon, criticized, analyzed, and even translated by theologians, Christian journalists, and commentators in the United States. This approach helps us understand the state of the theological dialogue between North American and Latin American theologians in the 1970s. Our contention is that understanding this theological dialogue helps to explain the gradual and growing maturation process of the evangelical theology in Latin America. As a point of reference, it is important to look at the demographics of the evangelical church in Hispanic Latin America in those years. In 1968 there were at least 10 million evangelicals in the region, with an annual growth rate of 10 percent.68 However, evangelicals were only a little more than 5 percent of the general population. “It is the only area in the world where a Christian church is growing more rapidly than the population. (In spite of the fact that this is the continent with the highest rate of population growth.)”69 Therefore, when writing about the evangelicals in Hispanic Latin America in the 1970s, we are considering a relatively small population. The number decreases considerably if we concentrate on those who were involved in the theological production. This, however, raises the question of the relevance of studying such a small number of people. This study proposes that this group of Hispanic evangelicals doing theology in Latin America represents a significant historical and theological development and needs to be considered in any serious study of the Latin American evangelical church since the 1970s. This study would enlarge our vision, and would help not only the scholarly community but the church in general to appreciate the courage and the commitment of these theologians in the task they pursued.

68 William R. Read, Victor M. Monterroso, and Harmon A. Johnson, Latin American Church Growth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 51. In 1961 there were 7.7 million according to a Catholic study: Prudencio S. J. Damboriena, Etapas y Métodos del Protestantismo Latino-Americano, 2 vols., El Protestantismo en América Latina, vol. 1 (Friburg, Switzerland: FERES, 1962); idem, La Situación del Protestantismo en los Países Latino-Americanos, 2 vols., El Protestantismo en América Latina, vol. 2 (Friburg, Switzerland: FERES, 1963). 69 Emilio Castro, “The Church in Latin America,” in World Christian Handbook, 1968, ed. H. Wakelin Coxill (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967), 20.

introduction

25

Research Question The main research question is, What were the factors that the people—in Latin America and in the United States—involved in the Latin American evangelical theological production—either as authors or readers—perceived as crucial to bring about maturity and definition for the Hispanic Latin American evangelical theology in the 1970s? Beginning in the 1960s, an increasing number of evangelical pastors, missionaries, and theological educators engaged in the production of a contextual theology taking seriously the reality in Latin America, in the church and in society, and with a clear commitment to the Bible. This was a historical movement, not a single historical event. The significance of the 1970s as a turning point in the evangelical production in Hispanic Latin America comes from the analysis of the events between two evangelical congresses, CLADE I and CLADE II.70 CLADE I was held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 21–30, 1969. This congress was organized, sponsored, subsidized, and monitored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as part of the follow-up program of the World Congress on Evangelism, Berlin, 1966.71 CLADE II was held in Huampaní, Lima, Peru, from October 31 to November 8, 1979. This congress was planned, organized and carried out completely by Latin Americans with significantly less foreign financial support. There were also several other catalytic agents in the 1970s. One year after CLADE I, the Latin American Theological Fraternity (FTL) was formed in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The FTL defined itself as “a fellowship of evangelical thinkers serving Christ and his church, convinced of the values of theological reflection in relation to the life and mission of the church.” The FTL had three main objectives: first, “to foster reflection on the Gospel and its significance for the people and society in Latin America”;72 second, “to become a platform for dialogue among thinkers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and God, and who are willing to think in the light of the Bible in order to build a bridge between the gospel

70 Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización (Latin American Congress on Evangelism). CLADE I is discussed in chapter 2 and CLADE II in chapter 5. 71 See Carl F. H. Henry and W. Stanley Mooneyham, eds., One Race, One Gospel, One Task. World Congress on Evangelism, Berlin, 1966. Official Reference Volumes: Papers and Reports, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1967). 72 Estatutos de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1970), Artículo 2, a.

26

chapter one

and the Latin American culture”;73 and, third, “to contribute to the life and mission of the Church of Christ in Latin America, not pretending to speak in the name of the church nor assuming to be the theological voice of the evangelicals in Latin America.”74 The FTL organized several theological meetings and regional consultations as well as visits of prominent theologians, such as Saphir Athyal from India (1972), Carl F. H. Henry (1973), John R. W. Stott (1974), Leon Morris (1976), and Michael Green (1979).75 Another catalytic factor in the 1970s was the prominent participation of Latin American evangelicals in several international forums such as the International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1974.76 Ten members of the FTL were part of the program. Orlando Costas was invited as a panelist and two others gave plenary speeches: C. René Padilla from Ecuador and Samuel Escobar from Peru.77 According to one observer, Padilla’s presentation on “Evangelism and the World”78 was considered by Billy Graham “one of the most brilliant contributions for the analysis of the evangelistic task today.”79 The significance of the Latin American representation in Lausanne was mostly felt in the writing of the final declaration—The Lausanne Covenant—which “had to be reviewed several times to incorporate the ideas introduced by Padilla and Escobar.”80 There was also, in the 1970s, a Latin American presence in such places as Pinebrook, Pennsylvania, for a consultation on Evangelical Literature for Latin America, with Samuel Escobar as consultation director; in Pasadena, California for a consultation on “Homogeneous Units” with the School of Church-Growth in Fuller Theological Seminary; and in Willowbank,

73

Ibid., Artículo 2, b. Ibid., Artículo 2, c. See the analysis of the main objectives of the FTL in C. Rene Padilla, “Theology in the Making,” Christianity Today, 10 May 1974, 59–60. 75 For a complete list of activities organized by the FTL see “Cronología de Actividades de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana,” Boletín Teológico 27, no. 59–60 (1995): 26–29. 76 Latin American participation at Lausanne ’74 is the theme of chapter 4. 77 Samuel Escobar, “Search for Freedom, Justice, and Fulfillment,” Engage/Social Action 2 (1974); idem, “Evangelism and Man’s Search for Freedom, Justice, and Fulfillment,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide, 1975). 78 C. René Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice (Minneapolis: World Wide, 1975). 79 Armando Vargas, “La Plenitud del Discipulado Evangélico Hoy. Crónica del Congreso Internacional Sobre Evangelización Mundial,” Certeza 56 (1974): 241. 80 Ibid. 74

introduction

27

Bermuda, led by Peter Savage, for the consultation on “Gospel and Culture” organized by the Lausanne committee. This study starts with the mutual perceptions between Latin Americans and North Americans as background for dialogue including theological interchange. The concentration turns then to several theological gatherings, which provide a reception history of the dealings between Latin American and North American evangelical theologians. These congresses and theological meetings presented various factors that fostered the development of a Latin American theological production in the 1970s. The conclusion summarizes those factors that were found as crucial in this process of theological maturity in Latin America.

CHAPTER TWO

MUTUAL PERCEPTIONS The author well remembers Colombia’s independence day of 1969, when together with whole families from the neighborhood, crammed in a tiny living room, everyone watched on a black-and-white television set the first step of a man on the moon. There were several expressions of admiration and awe toward the United States, the country that had brought the moon to our homes. Little did the author know what the situation was. He was not aware of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Cuban revolution, the failure of the Alliance for Progress, and many other historical events. It was not until secondary school that he started to hear that the relationship of the United States and Latin America was difficult, to say the least. Even though the reasons for the constant anti-Yankee sentiments and slogans were not evident, it was clear that there was unfriendliness between the “Eagle” and the Latin American countries. This chapter explores the mutual perceptions of North Americans and Latin Americans and how these perceptions have shaped the relationship between them. This will accord with Rezeptionsgeschichte looking at how, in general, either side understood, perceived, and received the other. The contention is that the historical and political dealings are the backdrop for the religious exchange, including theological dialogue. The events taking place in Latin America and the policies of the United States were strong influences that, consciously or not, both parties brought to the conversation table. The question to answer here is what were the underlying assumptions that influenced the different perceptions of one side by the other. The answer has two parts: first, what some prominent North American politicians and political analysts say about how North Americans perceived Latin America, and, second, what Latin America thought of the United States. In spite of generalization and isolated cases, these perceptions are representative of the state of the relationship between both sides in the 1960s and 1970s. Pan-American dealings have been the subject of intense academic work and studies. More than two thousand titles come up when searching library data bases like WorldCat or First Search. There are even

30

chapter two

specialized departments in several universities that offer Latin American studies at undergraduate and graduate level. Consequently, the space dedicated to this subject here could not exhaust the complexity and depth of the theme. Therefore, two criteria have directed the choice of authors and works cited. First, they need to deal with our particular time framework—the 1970s. Some of the books were written in later years, yet they analyze and reflect on the decade we are studying here. The second criterion for the works cited is that they reflect a mainstream and not an extremist position. The author recognizes that this is a subjective criterion. However, his choice was based on each writer’s own assessment and on the number of quotations of those specialists by other writers. The works used in this book are those that are considered authorities in their field. The United States’ Perception of Latin America Even though the “countries of Latin America (Brazil excepted) share with the United States the experience of being the oldest continuous republics of the contemporary world,”1 the bicentennial relationship between the United States and Latin America has been characterized by “resentment, mistrust, disrespect, and hostility.”2 Others describe it as a “crisis of the inter-American system,”3 a “logjam,”4 a “failure,”5 a “polarization of the Western Hemisphere,”6 and “a chronically unpeaceful and disruptive centrifugal atmosphere in the Western Hemisphere community.”7 1 Jonathan Hartlyn and Arturo Valenzuela, “Democracy in Latin America since 1930,” in Latin America since 1930: Economy, Society and Politics. Part 2: Politics and Society, ed. Leslie Bethell, The Cambridge History of Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 159. 2 Lawrence E. Harrison, The Pan-American Dream. Do Latin America’s Cultural Values Discourage True Partnership with the United States and Canada? (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 18. 3 Edmund Gaspar, United States-Latin America: A Special Relationship? (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978), 1. 4 Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), 356. 5 Frank K. Flinn, “Liberation Theology and the Political Order in Latin America,” in Spirit Matters: The Worldwide Impact of Religion on Contemporary Politics, ed. Richard L. Rubenstein (New York: Paragon House, 1987), 331. 6 Gaspar, United States-Latin America, 4. 7 Robert N. Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere: Perspectives on United States-Latin American Relations (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967), 51.

mutual perceptions

31

There have been several explanations for the “snags in communication between Latin Americans and North Americans.”8 Many analysts start pointing to the different colonial contexts—Anglo versus Iberian, and consequently Protestant versus Catholic.9 For some authors this difference has been underscored by the claim of Anglo-Saxon superiority. The historical origins of this bias lied in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when England, arguing its cause in a long-lived and bitter international rivalry with Spain, denounced Spaniards as naturally cruel, bigoted, and retarded socially, intellectually, and morally. . . . Spanish America inherited the bad reputation from their peninsular forefathers, and the widespread political instability and lack of social and economic progress that characterized large areas of Latin America in the nineteenth century seemed to confirm the reputation.10

Lars Schoultz, professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, traces this bias to the early republican life of the United States, “long before the first U.S. diplomat set foot in Latin America, years before there was such a thing as United States policy toward Latin America.”11 Schoultz refers to John Quincy Adams and his generation who were “prejudiced,” considering “Catholics to be inferior to Protestants, Hispanics to Anglos, dark-skinned to light.”12 Thus, for Schoultz, the claim of Anglo superiority has marked the inter-American dealings from the very beginning. Howard Wiarda, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, argues that this claim of superiority has caused in the United States “disparagement of Latin America and its leadership and the belief that Latin America couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything on its own.”13 In governmental circles and in popular belief, the notion that “the United States knows best” for Latin America is still very much

8

Gaspar, United States-Latin America, 3. Harrison, The Pan-American Dream, 11; Howard J. Wiarda, Finding Our Way? Toward Maturity in U.S.-Latin American Relations (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1987), 182. 10 Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 49. See also the section “Spain and the United States” in Angel del Río, The Clash and Attraction of Two Cultures: The Hispanic and Anglo-Saxon Worlds in America, trans. James F. Shearer (El mundo hispanico y el mundo anglo-sajón: Choque y atracción de dos culturas) (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1965), 3–76. 11 Schoultz, Beneath the United States, 375. 12 Ibid. 13 Wiarda, Finding Our Way?, 182. 9

32

chapter two

alive.14 The predominant attitude is to think that the United States “could solve Latin America’s problems for them. And that in doing so, we would feel we could ignore—or not bother to learn—Latin American history.”15 This view was graphically expressed by Harry Truman, U.S. president between 1945 and 1953, for whom Latin Americans were, like Jews and Irish, “very emotional” and difficult to handle. “You have to pat them a little bit and make them think you are fond of them.”16 For more than two centuries of republican life for both the United States and the majority of the Latin American countries, the perception of the latter being inferior has dictated U.S. policy.17 A belief in Latin American inferiority “is the essential core of United States policy toward Latin America because it determines the precise steps the United States takes to protect its interests in the region.”18 For people in the United States, Latin America is “chaotic and devoid of all system . . . unstable, backward, less-developed, incompetent, and ‘unsuccessful’ historically.”19 For example, Charles W. Anderson used the epithet of “Restless Nations”20 in his analysis of Latin American politics. This is the attitude of Henry Kissinger, who left Latin America out of his scheme (as well as Africa, the Middle East, and most of Asia) when he said that “the axis of the world flows through Moscow, Berlin/Bonn, Paris, London, Washington, and Tokyo.”21 Another explanation for this situation is the lack of knowledge about Latin America and Latin American institutions in the United States. Most people of the United States do not know anything about the “individual national goals of Latin American nations, their special foreign policy objectives, their unique social conflicts and economic problems, their individual history, culture and leadership.”22 Gaddis Smith explains:

14

Ibid., 79. Ibid., 182. 16 Quoted by Gaddis Smith, The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945–1993 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 67. 17 See Robert A. Pastor, Wirlpool: U.S. Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 18 Schoultz, Beneath the United States, xv. 19 Wiarda, Finding Our Way?, 13. 20 Charles W. Anderson, Politics and Economic Change in Latin America: The Governing of Restless Nations (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1967). 21 Quoted by Wiarda, Finding Our Way?, 182. 22 Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 51. 15

mutual perceptions

33

These men—Secretaries of State, national security advisers, Presidents, directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, and their top advisers throughout the entire period from 1945 to the end of the Cold War—all lack deep knowledge or experience of Latin America. The foreign policy and national security professionals in the group were experts on Europe, Asia, and relations among the Great Powers. They knew the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Israel, the Soviet Union, and the many other countries of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East—but not the leaders of the American Republics. None of the members of high foreign policy establishment in the United States had ever lived in Latin America. None had more than rudimentary knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese—if that. And most were condescending and prejudiced toward the people and culture of Latin America.23

At the University of Oklahoma, the translators of the works of the Mexican philosopher and historian Leopoldo Zea find that North Americans and Europeans do not know about the cultural and philosophical movements in Latin America. “How many, even among university graduates, are aware that there have been as avid followers of Hegel, Kant, Compte, and Spencer in Latin America as in North America, or that positivism was a vital philosophical movement in Latin America?” Abbott and Dunham tell of the reaction of a prominent European writer, who exclaimed, “Positivism in South America? Why, I have come to Oklahoma to learn that!” A Ph.D. candidate in a U.S. university asked, “How does it happen that we never hear of those Latin American thinkers and philosophers in our classrooms?”24 For Robert N. Burr, the answer to this question is that “United States citizens have lacked both the desire and the opportunity to develop a more realistic image of Latin American nations.”25 Eugene Nida qualifies the view by North Americans of Latin Americans as “strangely contradictory: so passionate and yet so melancholic, so dedicated to the joys of life but so cynical about the chances for happiness; so much in love with life but so preoccupied with symbols of death; so colorful (in dress, fiesta, and politics) but so depressed in slums, poverty and revolution.”26 The image of Latin America that most

23

Smith, The Last Years, 67. Translators’ preface to Leopoldo Zea, The Latin-American Mind, trans. James H. Abbott and Lowell Dunham (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), viii. 25 Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 50. 26 Eugene A. Nida, Understanding Latin Americans with Special Reference to Religious Values and Movements (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1974), 4. 24

34

chapter two

of the people in the United States have is a caricature of “tequila-drinking peons dozing under cacti at noon; Argentine gauchos galloping wildly from one place to another; shiny, brown Cubans holding a bottle of rum in one hand and a monstrous large cigar in the other.”27 For James Reston the problem is that “somehow the people of the United States would do anything for Latin America except read about it.”28 John Howard Orme, a seminary professor in Central America writes: Many people think of the Latin American as a fat little man with a big mustache asleep under his sombrero. Tourist visit the countries south of the border often because of the picturesque scenery and the quaint life as pictured in many books and magazines. They arrive eager to see and to photograph that little man asleep under his sombrero. To help erase this absurd misconception, a recently-released film on missions in Mexico is entitled, “The Little Man Who Isn’t There.” The stereotype of the little man under his big sombrero should be rejected for many reasons. For one thing, the little man is no longer asleep, and in many places, he is not even there.29

Long-held stereotypes, however, are not abandoned overnight. Some advancement would come if people in the United States would read about Latin America. Some change might come if they read works by Latin American authors. A commendable proposal has been made for instituting a “vigorous translation program” to make the best works of Latin Americans available in the United States, so that, “then we can begin to learn from them instead of always trying to ‘teach’ them something.”30 Change will come, therefore, when the United States people consider Latin Americans their equals. Yet, as Burr concludes, The failure of the people of the United States to attach any genuine value to most Latin American countries as nation-states tends ipso facto to nullify the concept of community. Present United States attitudes thus serve to encourage an unpeaceful or at least highly restless noncommunity toward whose blurred and undifferentiated components the United States cannot possibly develop an effective and realistic policy.31

27

Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 50. Ibid. 29 John Howard Orme, “The Doctrine of Social Concern in Latin American Theology: A Critical Appraisal of the Evangelical Position” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 6. 30 Wiarda, Finding Our Way?, 90. 31 Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 51. Italics in the original. 28

mutual perceptions

35

Therefore, the predominant environment for the perception of Latin America and Latin Americans by the people of the United States has been ignorance and prejudice. One might assume that in the country of civil liberties and constitutional rights these attitudes have changed for the better. But this is not the case. For example, George F. Kennan, the father of “containment,” who in 1950 was a highly acclaimed senior American diplomat and foreign policy intellectual, determined to repair the gap in his knowledge by touring Latin America. “The result was a 10,000-word memorandum for the Secretary of State on ‘Latin America as a problem in the United States’” in which Kennan concluded that “Latin America was cursed beyond redemption by geography, history, and race.”32 Another explanation for the difficult relationship between North America and Latin America can be found in the political literature. This is the assumption that whatever is good for the United States has to be also good for other countries. Or said in a different way, the U.S. people shake their heads asking why could not Latin America be like them? This is the attitude, for example, displayed by Lawrence E. Harrison, who between 1965 and 1981 directed five USAID missions in Latin America. Harrison, with bitter disillusionment,33 wonders, “Why are the United States and Canada so different from, so far ahead of, Latin America? Why has it taken so long for Latin America to conclude that democratic capitalism and intimate, open relationships with the United States are in its own interests?”34 Harrison is the epitome of politicians who seek to “make the Latin Americans over in their own image—the image of the United States.”35 Since Latin America does not comply with the “American way of life,” North Americans “perceive only the ills thereof overlooking the good qualities.”36 The pursuit of shaping Latin America into a North American mold, especially by the government of the United States, has been compared by Seymour B. Liebman to the “role of a salesman who seems obsessed by the need to get rid of his wares.”37

32

Smith, The Last Years, 68. Schoultz, Beneath the United States, 382. 34 Harrison, The Pan-American Dream, 2. 35 Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 226. 36 Gaspar, United States-Latin America, 13. 37 Seymour B. Liebman, Exploring the Latin American Mind (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976), 7. 33

36

chapter two We are persistent to the point of embarrassment in our determination to sell our ideas of democracy and freedom, our materialism, the obsolescence built into our manufactured products, and other tawdry aspects of our value system. We break costumer resistance through offering “give-aways” and “specials.” We are not concerned with the costumer’s needs or his motivations in becoming a party to the deal or his ability to pay. The lack of utility of the product to the costumer and the possible impracticality or inappropriateness of the item to the time or place seem of less than primary concern. We seek to duplicate our institutions and concepts and to re-create the world in our image. We are apparently ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the fact that the mores, value systems, and aspirations of people cannot be transferred by contract or governmental fiat to others.38

In summary, the reception history of Latin America and Latin Americans in the United States is the result of three core underlying issues: first, the concept of Anglo-Saxon superiority and consequently of Latin American inferiority; second, the lack of knowledge about Latin America and its people, and, third, the policy of expansionism and colonialism that has led the United States to an ambiguous and contradictory role in the political life of the Latin American nations. These three assumptions have produced a patronizing stereotypical attitude and a combination of self-interest with a “civilizing mission” of superior people to help the Latin American “hogs,” as Quincy Adams called them, to overcome their defects. The Latin America’s Perception of the United States The other side, the perception of the U.S. in Latin America, is in a way a reaction to different images the United States has projected throughout Latin America. This reaction has had two sides well expressed by the tittle of Carlos Rangel’s book, Love-Hate,39 or Clash-Attraction by Angel del Río.40 This could also be “admiration-fear,” as the Mexican philosopher and historian Leopoldo Zea understands it. For Zea admiration was the first reaction of the new Hispanic republics to the United States. “North America has been the ideal that never realized for the

38

Ibid. Carlos Rangel, The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States, trans. Ivan Kats (Du bon sauvage au bon révolutionnaire) (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977). 40 del Río, Clash and Attraction. 39

mutual perceptions

37

Hispanic America. In this conflict that sets the Hispanic American between what he is and what he wants to be, North America symbolizes the latter while Spain the former. North America is the future to realize while Spain is the past that must be negated.”41 However, soon admiration turned into fear, like Mexico, which after losing almost half of its territory to the United States in the war of 1847, experienced the continual fear of more aggression. Gradually, the constant intromission of the United States in the internal affairs of several Latin American countries and the perception of being no more than a colony of the European and North American bourgeoisie “changed admiration into repulsion.”42 In this context, Zea proposes that the relation between both Americas has been characterized by distrust. On one side, the Hispanic America being conscious of what she considered her cultural possibilities, but not less conscious of a supposed material weakness, distrusting what she called the “Northern Colossus”; on the other side, Saxon America conscious of her high degree of material possibilities, distrusting the Latino inhabitants of Hispanic America who seems always trying to trick and exploit the naive men from the North.43

Leopoldo Zea expresses the general sentiment toward the United States in Latin America as a struggle “of the conquered against the conqueror, the struggle of the colony against the mother country. Formerly it was a struggle against Spain; now it is a struggle against our new mother country, the United States, for we are still a colony. It is always the same, a struggle for our independence.”44 For Zea the problems in the relations between Latin America and the United States are as old as their histories, “they appear almost as soon as the countries of this continent had declared independence.”45 After World War II, continues Zea, the Cold War was used by the United States as a “pretext for justifying North American intervention in Latin America in defense of, or for expanding, the interests of its investors.”46 Zea perceives the interest of U.S. investors as interfering with the efforts of the Latin American countries to improve their conditions. For Zea, the United States, under

41

Leopoldo Zea, América Como Consciencia (México: UNAM, 1972), 85. Ibid., 89. 43 Ibid., 92. 44 Zea, The Latin-American Mind, 6. 45 Leopoldo Zea, Latin America and the World, trans. Frances K. Hendricks and Beatrice Berler (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969), 55. 46 Ibid., 57. 42

38

chapter two

the banner of “continental security, democracy and freedom,” justifies its intervention and keeps the countries of Latin America suppressed economically and politically.47 This has produced a feeling of despair, expressed graphically by a Latin American commenting on the end of the Cold War: “With the cold war or without it the big fish will continue eating the little fish.”48 Even as early as the 1840s, Simon Bolivar, the freedom-fighter of the Andean countries, said that the “United States seems destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of Liberty.”49 Simultaneously, in the United States the idea of a “Manifest Destiny” was forming. John L. O’Sullivan expressed the substance of the North American claim as “the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole continent.”50 This “American messianic consciousness,” as Robert T. Handy calls it, supported the idea that the “AngloSaxon race was especially appointed to be the agent of the advance of Christianity and civilization.”51 For Latin America, this North American messianism has received strong rejection. The predominant perception in Latin American conceives the United States as imperialistic, self-centered, usurpative, and ethnocentric.52 According to Kenneth S. Latourette, at the end of the nineteenth century, Culturally Latin America and the United States were separated by a vast gulf. The one looked to Latin Europe, chiefly to France, Portugal, and Spain, for intellectual and spiritual fellowship. The other looked to Northern Europe, chiefly to Great Britain. The United States was suspected in Latin America as a potential aggressor, especially after its territorial gains at the expense of Mexico and its policies in Central America and

47

Ibid., 58. Ibid., 66. See also Celso Furtado, “La Hegemonía de los Estados Unidos y el Futuro de América Latina,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 4, no. 11 (1966). 49 August 5, 1829. Quoted by Alfonso Aguilar, Pan-Americanism from Monroe to the Present—A View from the Other Side (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968), 1. For a more complete perception of the United States by Bolivar and other of his contemporaries see José de Onís, The United States as Seen by Spanish American Writers, 1776–1890 (New York: The Hispanic Institute in the United States, 1952). 50 Quoted by Robert T. Handy, “The American Messianic Consciousness: The Concept of the Chosen People and Manifest Destiny,” Review and Expositor 73, no. 1 (1976): 52. 51 Ibid., 53. On other implications of the Manifest Destiny in politics and religion see Sidney E. Mead, “Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Last, Best Hope of Earth’: The American Dream of Destiny and Democracy,” Church History 23, no. 1 (1954). 52 See del Río, Clash and Attraction, 95–100. 48

mutual perceptions

39

the Caribbean. Among the vocal intellectuals it was often disliked and despised.53

Angel del Río, at Columbia University, in his analysis of the relation between Hispanic America and the United States, points out the fact that Hispanic America is absent from the international dialogue, “as though it counted for nothing in deciding the destiny of Western man and of man in general.”54 For him, this situation is the result of the “lack of interest of the United States in their former good neighbors to the south,” combined with the “decline that the countries of Latin, Catholic, and Mediterranean Europe have suffered in general world organizations.”55 For a complete understanding of this estrangement, del Río proposes to start with an unavoidable basic fact: “the systematic scorn for the Hispanic cultures and Hispanic man in the modern world.”56 Eugene Nida writes that to “the average Latin American most North Americans seem to be predictably materialistic, banal, and ‘flat’–as tasteless as a meal served in an automat.”57 The continuous military interventions by the U.S. in Latin American countries have produced a “deep, bitter and almost omnipresent” resentment toward the United States.58 The idea of being colonized by the United States is ubiquitous in Latin America and intensifies the feeling of resentment already mentioned. The feeling of being a colony translates in that “while the Latin American governments are bitterly antagonistic toward each other on a great number of issues, they display a surprising unity whenever a confrontation with the United States arises.”59 For William Taylor the cause was that North American diplomacy was not guided by good-will ambassadors. “While the Latin Americans continued their love-hate

53 Kenneth Scott Latourette, The Great Century in the Americas, Austral-Asia, and Africa. A.D. 1800–A.D. 1914, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, vol. 5 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1943), 112. 54 del Río, Clash and Attraction, 85. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Nida, Understanding Latin Americans, 4. 58 John A. Crow, The Epic of Latin America, 3d ed. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980), 694. See also Gaspar, United States-Latin America, 3; Liebman, Exploring the Latin American Mind, 151. 59 Gaspar, United States-Latin America, 4. See also Robert J. Ledogar, Hungry for Profits: U.S. Food and Drug Multinationals in Latin America (New York: Idoc/North America, 1975); Ernesto Parra Escobar and Raúl Vidales, La Politica Della Trilaterale: Una Nuova Aggressione All’america Latina, Quaderni Asal. Nuova Serie; Anno 2, 10 (Luglio-Agosto 1979) (Bologna: E.M.I., 1979).

40

chapter two

relationship with the American way of life, the Northern world power was building up a debt of mistrust and antipathy that would be hard to pay off in the future.”60 One of those flaws in the bilateral relationship was, definitively, the failure of the Alliance for Progress. This left a deep scar on the Latin American consciousness, and, of course, from the Latin American perspective the United States was the culprit. By 1970 the Alliance was “passing away without grief or glory, without leaving any permanent trace, without any faith (absent even in those that promote it) that will give it a lasting force.”61 Argentinian theologian José Míguez Bonino attributes the failure of the Alliance to three fundamental mistakes of the economic theory of development that was applied to the third world: The first is to think that history is unilinear and that a society can move to previous stages of other existing societies. As a matter of fact, all societies in a parallel and interrelated way. The “take-off ” point in Northern societies was dependent on the relation to the then colonized societies. That situation does not obtain today and the process therefore cannot be repeated. Secondly, the model did not take into account the political factors: there is an “effect of demonstration” which moves the masses to demand participation in wealth and welfare, and therefore the “slave labor” that was available in the early stages of the developed societies cannot be obtained today-hence social unrest and repression. Thirdly, the theory took for granted that the developed countries were the “normal” models for the underdeveloped. As the process continues, the third world becomes less and less attracted by the quality of life and the nature of the North Atlantic societies.62

In 1964 an editorial in the newspaper El Catolicismo, published in Bogota, Colombia, stated that even though the United States’ interest toward Latin America was increasing, it lacked a “clear vision of the reality” and “definite purposes of action.” The editorial concluded:

60

Emilio Antonio Nuñez and William David Taylor, Crisis in Latin America (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 83. See also William David Taylor, “The Latin American World: A Personal Perspective,” in Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation, ed. Peter Savage (Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975). 61 Mauricio Lopez, “The Secular Context of Mission: Latin America in the Decade of the Sixties,” in Report of the Consultation on the Future Role of the Missionary in Latin America. November 16–20, 1970, Oaxtepec, Mexico, ed. William L. Wipfler and Emilio Castro (New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1970), 6. 62 José Míguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 26.

mutual perceptions

41

“We would like to be wrong but it seems to us that the United States exceeds in diagnosis and criticism of our failures, while falling short in concrete action toward effective solutions.”63 After Nelson Rockefeller’s visit to Latin America in 1965, the Mexico City newspaper Excelsior pointed out that this visit was met not only with mounting tensions, but actually caused several deaths in Latin America. The newspaper called for a “complete overhaul of United States-Latin American relations.” The fundamental problem for the Excelsior, [H]as nothing to do with philanthropy or the price of raw materials. It seems paradoxical that this must be proclaimed so energetically at a time when the communications media are so prodigiously developed. But the fact is that we just don’t know each other, and in this ignorance we accumulate resentments which can explode at any moment.64

For Latin Americans the United States is most often regarded as the source of their ills and problems. This perception has led the Latin American countries to suspect U.S. advice and to look to Western Europe for advice and models to emulate. “Latin America (at least most of the region) seeks to reduce or modify its dependence on the United States, not to increase it. This is the case regarding not just economic issues, but cultural and political questions as well.”65 For example, the participants at the First Latin American Evangelical Consultation on Church and Society proposed as paradigm for the Latin American church’s responsibility in the face of the socio-cultural changes in the continent the evangelical lay academies and institutes in Europe.66 The same conference identified a “real anxiety and a genuine concern to obtain full economic liberty for the nations of Latin America,” and a “struggle to achieve full national personality,”67 as characteristics of the political agenda in those countries. This tendency toward

63 Robert S. M. Wood, Missionary Crisis and Challenge in Latin America (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1964), 5. 64 Crow, The Epic of Latin America, 876. 65 Wiarda, Finding Our Way? , 81. 66 “Christians and Social Change in Latin America. Findings of the First Latin American Consultation on Church and Society, 23d to 27th July, 1961, Huampani, Peru,” in First Latin American Evangelical Consultation on Church and Society (Huampani, Peru: Latin American Commission on Church and Society, Montevideo, Uruguay, and Department of Church and Society of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, 1961), 10. 67 Ibid., 16.

42

chapter two

influential diversification in most of Latin America was accompanied by a strong desire toward modernization and development. And under this process the intention “to rid themselves of dependence upon the United States”68 was clear. But, this “new independence” did not mean seeking to become a European colony or to be isolated from the rest of the world, rather to become active participants in the world side by side the more developed nations. “Latin America desires to be herself, give herself her own models of existence, rise up against the interventions that have distorted her image, participate without shackles or countersigns from the exterior in the elaboration of a more humane and more just world.”69 The case is made that the perceptions of one side by the other—Latin America and the United States—have marked their relationships in every area. The question now is how these perceptions have been carried out in the theological-religious dialogue, and the implications for the formation of a Latin American evangelical theology in the 1970s that sought theological, ideological, and methodological independence. Mutual Perceptions in the Theological Dialogue Ruben Lores, former president of the Latin America Biblical Seminary in San José, Costa Rica, presented the thesis that “the churches that directly or indirectly owe their origin to foreign missionary societies have received a body of attitudes, ethical stances, critical postures, economic ideas and sectional loyalties that are more substantially related to the ideology of ‘manifest destiny’ than to the Gospel of Christ.”70 For Lores, “manifest destiny” combines politics and theology in a “dynamic ideology,” which North Americans carried with them wherever they went to evangelize.71 Consequently, the message “was being compromised by the conscious or unconscious legitimation of the political ambitions and exploitations of the colonial powers.”72 What Lores suggests is that

68

Burr, Our Troubled Hemisphere, 226. Lopez, “The Secular Context of Mission,” 7. 70 Lores defines ideology as a system of conceptual formulations, more or less coherent, which is intrinsically related to and becomes a program of action in a given historical situation. Ruben Lores, “Manifest Destiny and the Missionary Enterprise,” Study Encounter 11, no. 1 (1975): 1. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid., 8. 69

mutual perceptions

43

Christians in Europe and the United States were slow in understanding the long-term harmful effects of their close association with their nations’ expansionist schemes, precisely because “they thought this was part of the calling of God to their nations.”73 Lores appeals to North Americans to be aware of the “ambiguities of their calling” since the “pervasive ideology of ‘manifest destiny’ had made them more the ambassadors of Anglo-Saxon Christianity and the American way of life than of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.” For Lores, this has meant a “betrayal of the Lordship of Christ and of his Gospel.”74 This intermixture of theology and politics was also expressed by the Argentinian theologian and Methodist pastor José Míguez Bonino: Missions and missionaries came to Latin America as—conscious or unconscious—expressions and agents of a world view in which Protestant faith was integrated with a political philosophy (democracy in its American version), an economic system (free enterprise capitalism), a geopolitical/historical project (the United States as champion and center of a “new world” of progress and freedom), and an ideology (the liberal creed of progress, education, and science).75

Orlando Costas, Puerto Rican missiologist and theologian, calls the mixture of theology and politics a “syncretistic religious culture.”76 Costas sets the theological dialogue as a challenge of the “non-affluent, poverty-stricken, exploited, and oppressed world” to the church in the “North Atlantic” to be consistent with the message she proclaims.77 The editors of Who in the World? express the inconsistency of the North American churches in the following terms: As part of the wealthy seven, we are trying to reach as many of the other 93 for Christ as we can. We tell them about Jesus, and they watch us throw away more food than they ever hope to eat. We are busy building beautiful church buildings, and they scrounge to find shelter for their families. We have money in the bank, and they do not have enough to buy food for their children. All the while, we tell them that our Master 73

Ibid. Ibid., 15. 75 José Míguez Bonino, “How Does United States Presence Help, Hinder or Compromise Christian Mission in Latin America?” Review and Expositor 74, no. 2 (1977): 176. For a Catholic approach see, Joseph Gremillion, The Church and Culture since Vatican II: The Experience of North and Latin America (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1985). 76 Orlando Costas, The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering Critique from the Third World (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974), 14. 77 Ibid., 11. 74

44

chapter two was the Servant of men, the Savior who gave His all for us and bids us give all for him.78

For Costas the imperialistic philosophy and practice of the North Atlantic nations present alongside with the gospel a “movement of domination and exploitation,” which makes its way “into the church, distorting the gospel sometimes beyond recognition, and setting up what some of my Latin American friends would call ideological and/or cultural roadblocks to the understanding of biblical faith.”79 The “seemingly Christian values” of the North Atlantic community, [H]ave not only been used to serve as a theological justification of colonialism, and more recently of neocolonialism, but have been the basis for a paternalistic relationship with national churches; a culturally alienating religiosity; an ethic of neutrality and noninvolvement; and an evangelism that is either totally divorced from the gut-issues of an oppressed society or that has a one-sided orientation to the “beyond,” or an evangelism that is reduced to social assistance (a “band-aid operation” as some would call it), paying little attention to the real causes of the problem (both spiritual and structural), and refusing to penetrate into the deeper dimensions of the gospel (life, death, guilt, reconciliation, etc.).80

Both Míguez and Costas start with the assumption that there is a close relationship between Latin American Protestantism and its counterpart in the United States. Míguez considers the close tie between both sides “basically harmful” since “Protestantism has helped to create a benevolent and idealized image of the colonial powers—mainly of the United States—which disguised the fact of their domination.”81 The harm is due to the image Latin Americans perceived of the United States and consequently of Protestantism itself. This is the image of “a strong tradition of imperialistic domination, arbitrary interventions in the life of Latin American countries, abuse of economic power, [and] support of the most reactionary and inhuman forces in Latin American countries.”82 For Míguez,

78 Clifford Christians, Earl J. Schipper, and Wesley Smedes, eds., Who in the World? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 125. See also Liebman, Exploring the Latin American Mind, 152. 79 Costas, The Church and Its Mission, 13. 80 Ibid., 15. 81 Míguez Bonino, “United States Presence,” 178. 82 Ibid.

mutual perceptions

45

The awareness of these facts, which is erupting today with increasing force among Latin American Protestants is creating a serious crisis of identity. If Protestantism is so closely bound up with the North American presence in Latin America, what is its future in a society which can only find its health and future to the extent that it is able to become really emancipated, to define its own identity, to shake off political, economic, and cultural domination, and to carve its own course?83

Costas used similar terms even though he does not restrict his analysis to the United States but applies it to the whole Anglo-Saxon world. Evangelical Protestantism [in Latin America] represents a transplanted historical phenomenon which continues to maintain its links with (and theological dependence on) the Evangelical Movement of the Anglo-Saxon world, predominantly in its North American variant, through formal and informal institutions. This reality, however, does not abrogate the fact that traditional Evangelical characteristics have become such a fundamental part of the theology of a segment of Latin American Protestants that it is hard to deny it without also denying its existence. In other words, Evangelical Protestantism in Latin America is a sociological fact that cannot be denied. And since its historical roots and contemporary links are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon world, the theology of Latin American Evangelicalism must be seen in the light of its Anglo-Saxon progenitor and counterpart.84

Elsewhere, Costas presents the case of his native Puerto Rico. Protestantism went to the island accompanying the troops of the United States during the U.S.-Spain war at the end of the nineteenth century. After the war, “the United States converted the island into a sugar-colony and worried little for the pathetic social and economical situation of its people. Had it not been for the missions and the churches that they established, the majority of islanders would have died of hunger—and in fact many died that way!”85 However, all the work of the churches, in spite of their humanitarian efforts, “caused lots of damage” to the reception of Protestantism, “because they served as ideological instruments of the colonial power.”86 The result of this was expressed by Carmelo Alvarez, also Puerto Rican, when he wrote that the “Protestant

83 84 85

Ibid. Costas, Theology of the Crossroads, 41, note. Orlando Costas, “Compromiso y Misión,” (San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1979),

115. 86 Ibid. See also Samuel Silva Gotay, “Protestantismo y Política en Puerto Rico a Partir de la Invasión de Estados Unidos,” in Protestantismo y Política en América Latina y el Caribe, ed. Tomás J. Gutiérrez S. (Lima, Peru: CEHILA, 1996).

46

chapter two

Church in Puerto Rico has been dominated by the missionary wave that originated it. We could not actually talk about a truly Puerto Rican Church.”87 The picture that emerges from these Latin American theologians and authors perhaps appears exaggerated especially to North American Christians. However, these are moderate positions. Costas and Míguez, for example, express gratitude to those who took the gospel to Latin America. However, many others are far too biased to give a balanced perception. For instance, the writers of NACLA88 (not a Christian publication) blame the United States and its policies for all the maladies in the region. They did not recognize that probably some of those problems are of the making of the Latin Americans themselves.89 On the other hand are those who remained oblivious to the socio-political situations, like the twenty-three pastors who wrote the chapters of a book about pastoral duties without mentioning even once the situation outside the church.90 For a foreign reader of that book, Latin America was blooming with peace and comfort, the churches were little pieces of heaven on earth, and the pastors were minding the Lord’s business as usual. Nothing could have been further from the truth in those days. That is precisely what Lores saw as a consequence of a theology mixed with manifest destiny, which produced “the best kind of supporters of the status quo that any ruler can expect,” and especially at the level of international relationships.91 James C. Dekker, a Christian Reformed missionary and seminary professor in Guatemala, came to a similar conclusion as Lores. For Dekker the theology from the North that went to Central America “has been partial, superficial and often politically tendentious.” This theology has translated into a “fragmented Protestantism that has not been able to unite, despite several long-term and notable attempts.”92

87 Carmelo E. Alvarez, El Protestantismo Latinoamericano: Entre la Crisis y el Desafío. (México: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1981), 93. 88 The North American Congress on Latin America. Information on NACLA is available at www.nacla.org. 89 This is the argument in Rangel, The Latin Americans, 56. 90 Alberto Scataglini, Gabriel Ortiz Ramírez, and Valentín Vale Navarro, La Brújula para el Ministerio Evangélico. Por 23 Destacados Dirigentes Evangélicos de América Latina (Deerfield, Fla.: Editorial Vida, 1979). 91 Lores, “Manifest Destiny,” 9. 92 James C. Dekker, “North American Protestant Theology: Impact on Central America,” Evangelical Review of Theology 9, no. 3 (1985): 242.

mutual perceptions

47

Summary In summary, the mutual perceptions between the Latin American nations and the United States have caused tensions in their relationship. Latin America distrusts the policies and intentions of the United States because of the history of unilateral military and economical interventions. The United States looks at its southern neighbors feeling superior because of its strong economy and war power. It deals with Latin America with suspicion and curiosity. These same perceptions are found in the theological dialogue in the 1970s when the “Cold-War” mentality was the background for international relationships.

CHAPTER THREE

THE TWO CONGRESSES OF 1969 Two key gatherings highlighted the year 1969 for Latin American Protestant Christianity. One convened the so-called historical churches with a strong influence of the World Council of Churches (WCC). The other with a wider representation convened the evangelicals through the sponsorship of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). CELA III1 and CLADE I2 brought together more than a thousand believers to discuss and evaluate the mission of the church. These two meetings represented the wedge that existed between sectors of the Latin American evangelical Christianity. They also revealed the ways foreign influences helped to shape the identity of the evangelical movement in Latin America. But above anything else, they reflected worldwide divisions among heirs of the Protestant Reformation. Costa Rican theologian Carmelo Alvarez evaluates these two congresses as the “yearning to fashion an authentic Protestantism that possessed both unity and strength.”3 This chapter explores the reception history (Rezeptionsgeschichte) of the two congresses and their role in the development of an autochthonous evangelical theological production in Hispanic Latin America in the 1970s. Introduction Evangelical Christianity was rooted and growing steadily in the 1960s in Latin America. But it was experiencing strong growth pains. It was an atomized movement; there were many dissident groups.4 A common theme in the literature of the epoch points to a strong polarization among Latin American evangelicals. Yet, commentators did not agree 1

Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana. Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización. 3 Carmelo E. Alvarez, “Latin American Protestantism (1969–1978),” in The Challenge of Christian Communities: Papers from the International Ecumenical Congress of Theology, February 20–March 2, 1980, Sao Paulo, Brazil, ed. Sergio Torres and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis Books, 1981), 104. 4 Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo, 216. 2

50

chapter three

about the causes of such fragmentation. Some used the terms “left” and “right” as if they had a unique universal meaning. Others used a more specific language of political polarization: a reformist or progressive group on one side and a conservative supporter of the status quo on the other.5 It is important to remember that the sixties and seventies were intense years of the Cold War when not only the big powers from the West and the East felt its ripples. Communism and socialism became in the evangelical world the “unpardonable sins,” the Antichrist, obnoxious diseases of apocalyptic proportions. Evangelicals developed strategic schemes to keep them out of the region and to exorcize them wherever even the faintest suspicion of their ugly presence was encountered. Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba (1959) gave a boost to this paranoia. The evangelical world became entrenched in a deadly fight for the souls of the Latin American churches. On one side were the “evangelicals,” on the other, the “liberals.” These labels appeared in the North American literature and correspondence of those years. They were generally not designations used by Latin Americans. For example, in Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? 6 C. Peter Wagner presented this idea of two camps following the scheme of the Cold War. This approach resembled the “fallacy of false dichotomous questions,” which confuses two terms that “are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive.”7 However, these simplistic categorizations did not do justice to the complex situation in Latin America. The terms helped those who used them to identify their supposed friends and foes. These blunt generalizations also confirmed the lack of knowledge North Americans had of the situations south of their border. Yet, the fragmentation was real. An analysis that tried to do more justice to the theological situation was done by Peter Savage, the international coordinator of the FTL in the 1970s. Savage was born into a British missionary family in Peru. He identified four different camps: the Isalinos, the Barthians, the conservatives, and the Costas group.8 The first group, the Isalinos 5

Ibid., 217. Wagner, Latin American Theology. 7 David Hackett Fischer, Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 9. 8 Letter from Peter Savage to Michael G. Smith, dated June 24, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Wagner, Charles Peter, 1930–,” (Collection 358: Wheaton), Box 7, Folder 7, 2. 6

the two congresses of 1969

51

were the “radical secular theologians,” represented by a “core of gifted, thinking Latin Americans who have done us a service by presenting us with some real pictures of the sociological conditions of this part of the world.”9 The Barthians, continued Savage, “are those who might be of an evangelical standing,” and who “are willing to be good bedfellows with the first group, but will reject their solution from a more biblical answer.”10 The Barthians were a group that participated in ecumenical dialogue with Isalinos and conservatives, yet they were “more at home with the first group.”11 The third group was the conservative, “gifted, thinking men who are working within the upper bracket of the Latin American church,” and who are “open-minded and perhaps naively unconscious of the real theological currents.” Those in this conservative group seek to find “a biblical answer to some of the acute sociological problems. Their emphasis would be more on the economic, sociological and perhaps anthropological.”12 The fourth group, according to Savage, is “more theologically-oriented,” and under the leadership of Orlando Costas intends to publish a book, as an answer to Wagner’s, to reflect more realistically the Latin American theological situation. The Costas group “is not organizing itself into some permanent structure. It would be more accurate to state that certain sympathies and attitudes bind them, rather than any formal structure.”13 Even though Savage considers the theology of the last group biblical and conservative, he finds a problem in its “attitude.” This group “would be more inclined to accept the liberal wings as legitimate expressions of Christian theology, listen to their points of view, group with sympathy, and dialogue with them in an attempt to find a common ground and perhaps even a common ‘Latin American’ theology.”14 It can be seen and felt in Savage’s words that, even for one who was deeply immersed in the theological dialogue in Latin America and who knew first-hand the main actors, there was no easy way to describe the situation. The complexity of the theological and ecclesiastical landscape

9 10 11 12 13 14

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., Box 7, Folder 7, 3.

52

chapter three

defied any easy classification. However, despite this difficulty, Savage’s characterization of the Latin American theological world, at least among the evangelicals, is helpful in mapping the theological terrain even though, as Savage himself acknowledged, “the borderline is elusive.” Many participants would move freely between the groups. For most North Americans, this was confusing. As we will see, for them there were only two sides, the “liberals” and the “evangelicals.” They viewed both camps as represented in 1969 in the two evangelical congresses held in that year—CELA III and CLADE I. Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana—CELA III The origins of CELA go back to the Missionary Conference of Edinburgh, June 14–23, 1910, at which Latin America was not represented.15 Rather, it was considered a Christian continent except for the “Indians” and a small number of Asian immigrants.16 This conclusion was opposed by the North American Faith Missions who were already working intensively in the area.17 Consequently, Robert Speer (Presbyterian Missions U.S.A.) together with other missionaries, founded in March 12–13, 1913, the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America (CCLA),18 the sponsor organization for the Evangelical Conferences

15 “[R]eflecting current opposition in certain quarters to Protestant missions in Roman Catholic countries.” L. S. Albright, The International Missionary Council: Its History, Functions, and Relationships (New York and London: International Missionary Council, 1946), 8. See also W. H. T. Gairdner, “Edinburgh 1910” an Account and Interpretation of the World Missionary Conference (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910). 16 See Report of Commission I: Carrying the Gospel to All the Non-Christian World, 9 vols., World Missionary Conference, 1910, vol. 1 (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 246–250. See Also Arthur P. Johnston, “A Study of the Theology of Evangelism in the International Missionary Council, 1921–1961” (Ph.D. Diss., Université de Strasbourg, 1969), 87. 17 For a list of North American Mission Agencies working in Latin America in the 1910s, see Harlan Beach, World Statistics of Christian Missions (New York: The Committee of Reference and Council of the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, 1916). 18 CCLA, Latin American Ferment: Addresses Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, at New York City, October 19–20, 1944 (New York: The Committee, 1949); Homer C. Stuntz, South American Neighbors (New York and Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern, 1916), 174. For a complete account of how the CCLA came to be and the people involved see CCLA Committee

the two congresses of 1969

53

until 1961.19 Even before Edinburgh 1910, Speer was convinced that the Latin American nations were “without God, with a Church which has given men a cross without a Christ, a dead man without a living Saviour, which has separated ethics from religion and lost its power to redeem life.”20 He wrote: Here is a continent where for more than three centuries the Church of Rome held absolutely sway. She was the one Church. The governments were under her control. The immigration was all from her own Churches in Europe. The education of the people was entirely in her hands. No Church ever in any land wielded an influence more complete or absolute. What are the conditions to-day? The men of South America have no religion. They are enrolled in the census as Catholics, but they neither attend church nor believe in Christianity. The great majority of the people are illiterate. The priesthood is either ignored or feared or despised. The churches have their occasional crowds on feast days, but for the most part are either closed or empty. A priest in the Argentine told me sadly that the conditions made his heart sore . . . The great masses of the people have no religion and the Church was neither educating the children nor evangelising their parents. I asked him whether he saw any reason why the Protestant Churches should not be dealing with the enormous problems of South America side by side with good men in the Roman Catholic Church, as they were dealing with them in North America. He said he saw none. His chief lament was the political connection of the Roman Church with the Government, which prevented it from being the national Church of the people’s life.21

CELA I was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18–30, 1949.22 This was considered the first truly Latin American conference, since the

on Cooperation in Latin America, Christian Work in Latin America, 3 vols., vol. 1 (New York: The Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada, 1917), 3–10. 19 Thomas J. Liggett and Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, The Latin American Evangelical Church in Inter-Church Relationships: The Wider Responsibilities of the Evangelical Churches in Latin America: Study Conference of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America (New York: Committee on Cooperation in Latin America of the Division of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1959); Frank K. Means, The Mission Boards and the Evangelical Churches in Latin America: From Missions to Mission in Latin America: Study Conference of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, Part 4 (New York: Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, 1958). 20 Robert E. Speer, Christianity and the Nations (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1910), 44. 21 Ibid., 361. See also Robert E. Speer, South American Problems (New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1912). 22 CELA-I, El Cristianismo Evangélico en América Latina. Informes y Resoluciones de

54

chapter three

preceding ones were more initiatives of foreign mission boards.23 “In summary, it was not a study of the mission field by the organizations that occupy it, but the consideration by the national evangelical churches of their own reality and mission.”24 CELA I sought to create unity and define the evangelical identity among the different denominations represented. This is clearly seen in the recommendation that all Protestant work in Latin America should be designated as “evangelical Christian,” including such diverse groups as Lutherans and Pentecostals under the same adjective.25 Twelve years later CELA II met in Lima, Peru.26 This was the last congress convened by CCLA. The theme of the conference was “Christ, the Hope for Latin America.” The unity that the first congress envisioned

la Primera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana, 18 al 30 de Julio de 1949, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1949). See also “Protestants Confer in Latin America,” The Christian Century, 3 August 1949. 23 Panama 1916, Uruguay 1925, and Cuba 1929. Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, Christian Work in Latin America; Samuel Guy Inman, Evangelicals at Havana: Being an Account of the Hispanic American Evangelical Congress, at Havana, Cuba, June 20–30, 1929 (New York: CCLA, 1929); Robert E. Speer, Samuel G. Inman, and Frank K. Sanders, eds., Christian Work in South America: Official Report of the Congress on Christian Work in South America, at Montevideo, Uruguay, April, 1925, ed. CCLA, 2 vols., vol. 1: Unoccupied Fields, Indians, Education, Evangelism, Social Movements, Health Industry (New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1925); Speer, Inman, and Sanders, eds., Christian Work in South America. An analysis of the Panama congress is available at Wilton Nelson and John Kessler, “The Panama Congress of 1916 and Its Impact on Protestantism in Latin America,” Evangelical Review of Theology 2, no. 1 (1978). For a Latin American appraisal of the congress in Cuba, see Gonzalo Báez-Camargo, Hacia la Renovación Religiosa en Hispano-América: Resumen e Interpretación del Congreso Evangélico Hispano-Americano de la Habana (Mexico, D.F.: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1930). See also Tomás J. Gutiérrez S., “De Panamá a Quito: los Congresos Evangélicos en América Latina. Iglesia, Misión e Identidad (1916–1992),” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995). 24 CELA-I, El Cristianismo Evangélico en América Latina, 18. 25 Ibid., 31. 26 CELA-II, Cristo la Esperanza para América Latina: Ponencias-Informes-Comentarios de la Segunda Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana, 20 de Julio a 6 de Agosto de 1961, Lima, Perú. (Buenos Aires: Confederación Evangélica del Río de la Plata, 1962). For an overview of evangelical work in Latin America at the beginning of the 1960s, see Clyde W. Taylor and Wade T. Coggins, Protestant Missions in Latin America; Maps (Washington D.C.: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1960); idem, Protestant Missions in Latin America; a Statistical Survey (Washington D.C.: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1961). For another perspective, see World Council of Churches, Bowman Foster Stockwell, and Wilfred Scopes, The Christian Ministry in Latin America and the Caribean; Report of a Survey of Theological Education in the Evangelical Churches, Undertaken February–May, 1961, on Behalf of the International Missionary Council (Now the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches) (Geneva, New York: World Council of Churches, 1962).

the two congresses of 1969

55

was far from achieved. Bishop Leslie Newbigin in the inaugural address called attention to the “lack of unity in the evangelical testimony in this continent,” which should deeply “preoccupy all of us.”27 Another speaker, Thomas J. Liggett called it the “scandal of divisions,” referring to the country reports in which the majority “highlighted as a serious problem in the evangelical witness, the many divisions that characterize our work here.”28 For example, in Bolivia alone “some 40 different denominations or groups” were working.29 José Míguez Bonino called attention to the impossibility of celebrating the Lord’s Supper at the conference as a sign of the “lack of preoccupation for our unity.”30 Not surprisingly, the final declaration extended a calling to all the evangelical groups in Latin America “to consider seriously everything that could contribute to the Christian unity.”31 Cooperation among evangelical groups “should come out of the evangelical reality existing in our continent,” and it should not be “just a reflection of conditions outside of Latin America which could hinder such cooperation.”32 The phrase “conditions outside of Latin America” was a reference to the accusations by such individuals as Carl McIntire (American Council of Christian Churches) and organizations such as the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (EFMA). The specific accusation was that the Lima Conference was sponsored by the WCC and their organizers were “procommunist.”33 This accusation prompted the Peruvian intelligence police to arrest Dr. John Mackay (Princeton), Dr. José Míguez Bonino, and Thomas Liggett for interrogations. “Lima’s newspapers reported on the accusation with a series of articles under the general title “Pleitos Entre Protestantes (Disputes Among Protestants.)”34 This was precisely the foreign influence that the conference declared undesirable. CELA II closed with the formation of a “Continuing Commission” in charge of “making possible continual fraternal relationships between the different Latin American organisms for cooperation, maintaining the spirit of unity manifested in this conference, and preparing the

27

CELA-II, Cristo la Esperanza para América Latina, 43. Ibid., 58. 29 Thomas J. Liggett, “Protestant Parley in Peru,” The Christian Century, 4 October 1961, 1167. 30 CELA-II, Cristo la Esperanza para América Latina, 80. 31 Ibid., 160. 32 Ibid. 33 Liggett, “Protestant Parley in Peru,” 1167. 34 Ibid. 28

56

chapter three

celebration of the next [conference].”35 This commission was replaced in December 1964 by the Comisión Provisional Pro-Unidad Evangélica en Latino América (UNELAM) under the coordination of Emilio Castro.36 C. Peter Wagner interpreted the formation of UNELAM as part of a plan by the WCC “to set up an organizational umbrella designed to gather all Latin American Protestants under its shadow.”37 In the period between the first two CELA conferences, Protestantism in Latin America began to bifurcate. “On one hand an ‘ecumenical Protestantism’ close in its theology and ethos to the European ecumenism . . . On the other hand a more conservative Protestantism, linked to the new missionary forces and fueled by a strong evangelistic zeal—‘evangelical Protestantism.’ The ‘ecumenical Protestantism’ dominated theologically CELA II.”38 In other words, by CELA II, the adjective “evangelical” from the first Conference had lost its applicability to the whole spectrum of Protestant expressions in Latin America. To understand the ecumenical influence in CELA II, it is necessary to describe here the intentional agenda of ISAL on this regard.39 Three weeks before CELA II met, the First Latin American Consultation on Church and Society was held in Huampaní, outside of Lima, Peru (July 23–27). Out of it emerged the group Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina (ISAL).40 In Huampaní, the newborn ISAL “considered opportune to take advantage of the convocation for the CELA II in Lima to gather a group of representatives of the different councils and churches of the continent to hold a wide consultation.”41 ISAL came about as a response to the study the WCC launched in 1957 to “find out and clarify what is the Christian responsibility before the rapid social, political, and economic changes taking place in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”42 In the 1960s ISAL, “strongly influenced

35

CELA-II, Cristo la Esperanza para América Latina, 168. Luis L. Odell, “Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina—Cooperación Evangélica en América Latina,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 3, no. 7 (1965): 66. 37 C. Peter Wagner, “Who Killed the Congress?” World Vision Magazine 12, no. 1 (1968): 21. 38 Escobar, La Fe Evangélica, 56. 39 Hiber Conteris, “El Rol de la Iglesia en el Cambio Social de América Latina,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 3, no. 7 (1965). 40 See ISAL, Encuentro y Desafío: La Acción Cristiana Evangélica Latinoamericana Ante la Cambiante Situación Social, Política y Económica (Montevideo: ISAL, 1961). 41 Conteris, “El Rol de la Iglesia.” 42 Luis L. Odell, “Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 1, no. 1 (1963): 65. In another of its publications, ISAL traces its origins to the Primer 36

the two congresses of 1969

57

by the theology of Paul Lehmann and Richard Shaull . . . consciously adopted a Marxist analysis and interpretation.”43 Pedro Arana identified three major theological influences ISAL: the theology of “the Christian Presence” as developed by the Movimiento Estudiantil Cristiano (MEC), “Incarnation Theology” as presented by F. D. Maurice, and “Theology of Revolution” as in R. Shaull.44 With financial help from the WCC, in 1963 ISAL started to publish a journal, Cristianismo y Sociedad. Julio de Santa Ana introduced it as a journal that would distribute “studies that permit to know better the social, economic and political situation of our continent,” in order to “stimulate the Christians in the study of the problems they face in the changing Latin American society.”45 The journal served as a platform where the “intellectuals of ISAL developed a Christian thought articulating it to the social sciences in order to define Christian commitment.”46 In its Third Consultation in Piriápolis, Uruguay, in December 1967, ISAL defined its future strategy and action, among other things, “to continue and increase the theological reflection on the changing Latin American reality, with special application to the task of distilling the political and social elements that nurture such reflection.”47 At the same time ISAL seemed to achieve the unity “evangelical Protestantism” could not. The consultation in Piriápolis included a Communion service where “ALL shared the bread and wine. This experience, [was] doubtless the first one of its type in the ecumenical history of Latin America.”48 A review of Cristianismo y Sociedad reveals the strong connection of ISAL with the WCC as well as the progressive radicalization of ISAL toward a Protestant theology that supported a violent revolution as the Congreso Latinoamericano de Juventud Evangélica, February 1941, Lima, Peru. ISAL, “Un Intento de ‘Encarnación,’ ” Cristianismo y Sociedad 5, no. 14 (1967): 114. 43 Nuñez, Liberation Theology, 67. On the adoption of Marxism by liberation theologies, see Bruno Kern, Theologie Im Horizont des Marxismus: zur Geschichte der Marxismusrezeption in der Lateinamerikanischen Theologie der Befreiung (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1992). 44 Arana Quiroz, Providencia y Revolución, 13. For an analysis of Shaull’s theology see Gerd-Dieter Fischer, Richard Shaull’s “Theologie der Revolution”: Ihre Theologische und Ethische Argumentation Auf Dem Hintergrund der Situation in Lateinamerika (Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang, 1984). 45 Julio de Santa Ana, “Palabras Preliminares,” Cristianismo y Sociedad, Enero–Abril, 1963, 3. 46 Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo, 228. 47 ISAL, “III Consulta Latinoamericana de ISAL,” Carta de Isal 1, no. 1 (1968): 2. 48 Ibid., 1. Emphasis in the original.

58

chapter three

solution to Latin American’s problems. For example, only three years after ISAL’s beginning, Hiber Conteris, redaction secretary of Cristianismo y Sociedad, contended that the hope for a non-violent transformation of the structures in Latin America “has practically disappeared. The change probably would take much longer, but it should come by the revolutionary way and with a huge display of violence.”49 For Luis Odell, ISAL’s general secretary, social revolution is “the revolution of the church.”50 This process of radicalization of ISAL projected throughout Latin America and beyond its borders a parochial image of the WCC. At least in Latin America the two were seen as one. ISAL also had an aggressive publishing program. Besides the journal already mentioned, from the time of its inception to the Piriápolis consultation in 1970, it had printed six books51 and a periodical letter, Carta Latinoamericana, with commentaries and news of ISAL’s different activities.52 The coup d’état in Chile in 1973 marked the end of this movement53 although its influence was paradigmatic for subsequent movements. Some liberation theologians were inspired by ISAL’s proposals and analyses.54 ISAL regrouped in 1975 under the name ASEL—Acción Social Ecuménica Latinoamericana—but with significantly diminished force, because “the movement lost most of its intellectuals . . . [and] internal conflicts and the absence of real participation of any religious structures in the movement.”55 From its beginning, ISAL provoked a serious evaluation and reevaluation of the understanding of the role of the church in the specific Latin American context.56 Its program was a challenge to those who were concerned about the difficult economic and social conditions in the continent but could not support ISAL’s hermeneutics.57 49

Conteris, “El Rol de la Iglesia,” 57. Luis L. Odell, América Hoy; Acción de Dios y Responsabilidad del Hombre (Montevideo: ISAL, 1966), 16. 51 See ISAL, “Un Intento de ‘Encarnación,’ ” 117. 52 Ibid. ISAL received from the WCC $21,000 for publications between 1969 to 1971. ECLA, “WCC Project in Latin America,” Pulse 4, no. 3 (1969): 19. 53 Nuñez, Liberation Theology, 76. For a more comprehensive account of ISAL’s dispersion and reorganization, see Costas, Theology of the Crossroads, 210–222. 54 See Escobar, La Fe Evangélica, chapter 4; Alan Neely, “Protestant Antecedents of the Latin American Theology of Liberation” (Ph.D. Diss., American University, 1977). 55 Bastian, Historia del Protestantismo, 229. 56 For example Julio de Santa Ana, Protestantismo, Cultura y Sociedad: Problemas y Perspectivas de la Fe Evangélica en América Latina (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1970). 57 See for example, Arana Quiroz, Providencia y Revolución. 50

the two congresses of 1969

59

For C. René Padilla, ISAL “represents, without any doubt, the first significant effort of theological reflection” in Latin America.58 Pedro Arana, a Presbyterian theologian and pastor and a graduate of the Free College of Scotland, also recognized that ISAL deserves the merit of “having thought and worked on an important aspect of the Christian witness,” that is, evangelical responsibilities toward society. “We should recognize that ISAL has awakened in many Christians a restlessness and responsibility for a social action and service in our continent.”59 However, both Padilla and Arana were critical of ISAL’s conclusions even though both recognized the validity of its questions. The problem, according to Padilla, was that ISAL erred when “it begins with the revolutionary situation and interprets the Scriptures on the basis of presuppositions derived from leftists ideologies. Instead of showing the relevance of Revelation to Revolution, it makes the Revolution the source of Revelation. The result is a secularized Gospel the dominant notes of which coincide with notes of Marxist tone.”60 Arana proposed that the essential problem was ISAL’s understanding of the ultimate goal of providence: the humanization of the human being. For Arana, this approach aimed at “having a common goal with the Marxists, who do not believe in God,” and therefore, “everything is reduced to the horizontal dimension, everything is dissolved in a naturalism; consequently, the biblical witness is abandoned, a witness which speaks of a carnal person and a spiritual person, of common grace and efficacious grace, of a man in Adam and a man in Christ.”61 While significant ferment troubled “ecumenical Protestantism,” nothing of the same dimensions seemed to be happening in the evangelical camp. It was not until 1965 with Evangelismo a Fondo (EAF) that evangelical Protestantism moved to the forefront.62 But the group was no match for ISAL. On the one hand, EAF was developed by foreign mission agencies; it did not represent indigenous initiative. On the

58

Padilla, “La Teología en Latinoamérica,” 210. Arana Quiroz, Providencia y Revolución, 14. 60 Nuñez, Liberation Theology, 80. 61 Arana Quiroz, Providencia y Revolución, 70. For another evaluation of ISAL and its theology, see Orme, “The Doctrine of Social Concern”, 46–62. 62 W. Dayton Roberts, Revolution in Evangelism: The Story of Evangelism in Depth in Latin America (Chicago: Moody, 1967). See also Orlando Costas’s explanation of EAF in J. D. Douglas, ed., Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland (Official Reference Volume: Papers and Responses) (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), 675–694. 59

60

chapter three

other hand, EAF did not result in any theological reflection. Furthermore, it did not have a publishing program that would counteract ISAL’s prolific writers. According to one estimate, ISAL was engaged in “outpublishing the evangelicals on the intellectual-theological level by 50 pages to 1!”63 After the conference of ISAL in Piriápolis, the evangelical sector could only hope that “Latin American evangelical theologians who have the discernment to see the subtle danger of this ‘First Latin American Theology’ will speak up with a voice that will be heard throughout the continent in tones loud and clear.”64 But EAF did not provide that voice. CELA I and CELA II did not trigger the evangelical radar in North America. In those years, Latin America was mostly known for the martyrdom of five missionaries in Ecuador.65 Beside the fact that there were still dangerous primitive indigenous groups and a few brave missionaries trying to reach them, North Americans often had little interest in what was going on south of the Rio Grande, let alone that Latin Americans were starting to produce creative theological thinking. For example, it was hardly known in the United States that there were theological journals with continental distribution providing a forum for Latin American evangelical ideas. These included Cuadernos Teológicos, founded in 1950; Pensamiento Cristiano, 1953; and Certeza, 1959. In contrast with the preceding conferences, however, the planning of CELA III did not go undetected.66 Several alarm systems went off, followed by the immediate mobilization of all possible strategic means.67 North Americans drew lines in a conflict that looked and felt foreign to Latin Americans. Two world powers were using Latin America as the

63 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Bruce Nicholls (Theological Coordinator WEF), dated 29 July 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelizacion (CLADE), 1969,” (Collection 324: Wheaton), Box 4, Folder 3. 64 ECLA, “Mortimer Arias Reports on Piriapolis Meetings in Christian Century,” Pulse 3, no. 3 (1968): 3. 65 Elisabeth Elliot, Through Gates of Splendor (New York: Harper, 1957). 66 For example, the occasional publication of ECLA, Pulse, carried news about CELA III in almost every single issue since June 1967, as well as news on the WCC, ISAL, and UNELAM. 67 For a sample of the articles related to CELA III, see Samuel Escobar, “Divided Protestantism Struggles with Latin America Problems,” World Vision Magazine, November 1969; Carl McIntire, “Mensaje de la III Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana Promueve Destrucción del Cristianismo,” Christian Beacon (Special Spanish Edition), August 21, 1969; Paul S. Rees, “Far ‘South of the Border,’” World Vision Magazine, October 1969; W. Dayton Roberts, “Latin American Protestants: Which Way Will They Go?” Christianity Today, 10 October 1969; Wagner, “Who Killed the Congress?”

the two congresses of 1969

61

theater where their followers competed. One was in North America: evangelicalism as represented by the EFMA, IFMA, and BGEA. The second was based in Europe: Geneva-style ecumenism. Paul S. Rees from World Vision saw three parties in the Latin American evangelical community: first, “a growing vocal minority which openly advocates affiliation with the WCC”; second a group that maintained a policy of “non-alignment, which has been for years the typical position of Latin American Protestantism”; and third, the “evangelical conservatives who, while standing vigorously opposed to the WCC, wish for closer ties with an international agency like the World Evangelical Fellowship.”68 Even though Rees seemed to move away from a dichotomy, in reality he still presented sharp divisions. Rees apparently used the criterion of a group’s attitude toward the WCC. Initially CELA III was to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil in December 1967. Due to internal difficulties among the Brazilian organizers, the meeting was postponed until February 1969. However, there was a second symptomatic postponement due to “problems of relationship and confidence.”69 For many the congress was dead.70 Some people saw in here a great opportunity. “There is a great void and I believe that we should be thinking creatively as to some way of stepping into the gap. The ball is now fumbled. We must pick it up and run with it if we’re going to make a score this time.”71 But it was not a game, it was more like a battle. The reason for such a triumphant reaction was that CELA III was, from the standpoint of North Americans, a “liberal” congress. For example, Clyde W. Taylor (EFMA) identified CELA III as “the third Congress on Evangelism that the liberals plan.”72 Behind Taylor’s assessment lay an attitude of belligerence. For Taylor’s right-hand-man in CLADE, Puerto Rican administrator Efraín Santiago, the reason that the church in Latin America was experiencing “one of the most tragic moments of its existence,” was an intentional 68

Rees, “Far ‘South of the Border,’” 47. Roberts, “Latin American Protestants,” 14. 70 Wagner, “Who Killed the Congress?” The idea of a “dead Congress” is also found in a letter from Melvin L. Hodges (Secretary for Latin America and West Indies of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri) to Clyde Taylor (Evangelical Foreign Missions Association), dated May 3, 1968. Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 1. 71 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Herbert Money, dated October 4, 1967. Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 2. 72 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Vergil Gerber, dated July 2, 1968. Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 69

62

chapter three

plan of the World Council of Churches “to infiltrate the churches with all kinds of social and political penetrations. In all cases, this is done by men and leaders with Communist tendencies.”73 They were in a war against the WCC wherever its presence might be suspected.74 Santiago did not mention how military regimes or natural disasters, extreme poverty or unemployment might have constituted larger tragedies. Could his silence have been a demonstration of no awareness of the social, political, economical, and other pauperizing situations in Latin America or was it due to other factors? The correspondence of North Americans about CELA III maintained the idea of a world with two foci: the world of the Cold War. Nothing else counted. For example, in a confidential letter from C. Peter Wagner to Mr. Dennis Clark (World Evangelical Fellowship, Lausanne), dated March 3, 1969, Wagner referred to the situation in Chile: At the present time a younger group of leaders is in control of the Chilean Evangelical Council although the older group which is more WCC-oriented is going to make a power play the first week of April and try to change the leadership. If they fail, however, and if the younger leaders under Francisco Anavalon [sic] stay in control, we might have here in Chile one of the best atmospheres in Latin America for possible cooperation with the WEF.75

Chile’s case became paradigmatic for the strategy to reduce the influence of the WCC in Latin America. Robert D. Anderson, a North American missionary working with the Concilio Nacional Evangélico del Perú wondered “how it would be possible to stop the WCC from engulfing the churches in Chile and Brazil . . . in order to open the eyes of the Chilean pastors as to the threat that the WCC poses to the evangelical position in the Christian Chilean church . . . in order to divert them from the ecumenical road to Geneva.”76 Here the plan was described with candor. However, Wagner expressed his fears: “Is there no way to stop 73

Letter from Efraín Santiago to Billy Graham, dated August 9, 1968. Ibid. For an analysis of the understanding of the WCC by North American evangelicals, see Harvey T. Hoekstra, The World Council of Churches and the Demise of Evangelism (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1979); Arthur P. Johnston, The Battle for World Evangelism (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978). 75 Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. “There is about as much intrigue in the Chilean evangelical scene as there is in an Alfred Hitchcock thriller.” Letter from Robert D. Anderson to C. Peter Wagner, dated Lima, April 22, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 8. 76 Letter from Robert D. Anderson to C. Peter Wagner, dated Lima, April 18, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 8. 74

the two congresses of 1969

63

the WCC from pulling in these churches in Chile and Brazil? It looks as if right now they’re on their way to some major successes.”77 This correspondence looks like spy warfare. For instance, when the name of José Bongarrá came up as a possible participant in CLADE I, it caused a heightened concern in the organizers. “Our men are alert to this and will be watching if [he] does show up.”78 Another example is the case of a prominent Brazilian pastor, Manuel de Mello in Sao Paulo. When some information reached Clyde W. Taylor’s desk, that de Mello would be considering joining the WCC,79 a response was set in motion immediately. Taylor wrote several letters inviting other men to go and persuade de Mello to do otherwise. We wonder if there is any way you can get to pastor Mello to alert him to the possible outcome of his becoming involved in the broad program of church and society, or ISAL. It appears that due to his trip to the meeting of the World Council in Sweden he has become persuaded that there is something in their program that is really going to help him. We deeply regret that we have no contacts with this gentleman apart from some through our Pentecostal brethren and we were wondering if you did and could get to him. We certainly would like to help him if we can.80

To Dr. Benjamin Moraes in Rio de Janeiro, Taylor wrote to see if there was “anyway you can get to this brother and alert him to what he is doing. We know that this group has been very much separated from the main current of Protestantism in Brazil . . . we would hate to see them, if they are really performing a real work for Christ, get detoured into this type of Social Gospel that will ultimately kill them.”81 These words express perfectly how Taylor and those North Americans related to the BGEA and EFMA saw the situation: it was a life-or-death conflict. In this case, de Mello was finally reached and persuaded. “I then explained to him more fully what the implications are of this ‘social gospel’ deal, how it differs from our personal approach to the sinner, etc. I warned

77 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Robert D. Anderson, dated April 23, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 78 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Harold E. Stacey, dated July 18, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 79 This information appeared in ECLA, “Manuel de Mello to Take His Church into the World Council,” Pulse 4, no. 2 (1969): 8. 80 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Benjamin Moraes (Rio de Janeiro), dated March 28, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 81 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Richard Sturz (Sao Paulo), dated March 28, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3.

64

chapter three

him very carefully of staying clear of this crowd and we all felt the message really got through.”82 There could be presented many other cases and names to support the behind-the-scene ingerence of North Americans—Taylor, Wagner, Money, Anderson and others—in both CELA III and CLADE I. Even though they did not have any way of controlling CELA III, their eyes were fixed on it and their interest was keen. They knew the program, the speakers, and the attendees of CELA III. They watched carefully every move of the organizers. Do not be naive. Whoever speaks at the Third Evangelical Conference will have little to do with its outcome. That is like me believing in Santa Claus at the age of forty-two. Emilio Castro is not about to hand out any goodies to nice little boys and girls. Remember Casey Stengel’s adage about nice guys do not win ball games. We cannot afford to lose this one. This does not mean that we should be unethical, just watchful and aware of what the realities of the situation really are.83

Another example of this attitude of confrontation was given by Peter Wagner, both in his Confidential Report for ECLA, and in his personal correspondence on the subject. For him CELA III was a threat of war. After CELA III, Wagner became more convinced that “we need to take several steps as Evangelicals in Latin America to allow our voice to be heard and understood on the theological level.” Assuming a prophetic role, Wagner predicts that, [T]he great battle in Latin America during the 1970’s will be the battle for the Theological mind of an entire continent. Given the headstart that the radical and secular Theologians have gained in Latin America it could be that within ten years Latin American Protestantism will have taken a definite and irreversible turn toward liberalism. The serious threat behind all this is the inevitable quenching of the Spirit with the resulting fall off in evangelism and church growth. The 10% per year rate of church growth, as published by the CGRILA team in their new book just off the press, Latin American Church Growth, could be greatly increased during the 1970’s, but at the same time given Theological conditions it could drop radically.84

82 Letter from N. Lawrence Olson to Clyde Taylor, dated June 23, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 5, Folder 2. 83 Letter from John P. Nichols (Ayuda Cristiana Evangélica—Department of Project Preparation, Chile) to Peter Wagner, dated May 9, 1967, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 2. 84 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Bruce Nicholls (Theological Coordinator WEF), dated 29 July 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 4, Folder 3.

the two congresses of 1969

65

After CELA III the language of combat became stronger. There was an urgent need for a “future strategy” and “caution” by evangelicals.85 The enemies were the “ecumenical forces,” and “unless we can straighten our signals out a little . . . we are liable to be caught in a very unfortunate bind in the near future.”86 The “careful strategy for the future” included a summit meeting with representatives from ECLA, mission organizations, and “at least an equal number of carefully chosen representatives of the ECLA-affiliated Latin American churches.” The plan also included “small workshops on themes as social ethics for selected groups of leaders throughout Latin America.” And finally, the plan “must do something to improve our publication program in Latin America.”87 What is absent from this plan is any effort to find out what Latin Americans themselves saw as their needs. This is purely a foreign plan, an imposed agenda. It is noteworthy for the strong control by North American agencies, the selectivity of participants, and the one-sided dialogue. Up to this time, such was the way things were done. It is a clear reflection of the foreign policy of the U.S. toward Latin America. And that was the way CLADE I was done. Latin Americans evaluated CELA III differently.88 They were aware of its possibilities and tensions. For example, Samuel Escobar saw the conference as reflecting “the new Latin American situation . . . challenging Protestantism and forcing a healthy reevaluation.”89 Part of this selfevaluation is this recognition: If the evangelical sectors had battled since long before toward unity and cooperation, if we had been more serious in regard to theology and the pastoral and less dependents of simplistic formulas, if we had learnt to dialogue instead of fleeing, the panorama of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America would have been different. But, by 1969 it was too late: the gulf between an ecumenical sector linked to the WCC and a more conservative sector that was being formed around literature, communications, and evangelism was an unsolvable one.90

85 C. Peter Wagner, Confidential Report—Third Latin American Protestant Congress (III CELA) (1969), 13. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid., 13–14. 88 The most complete analysis of CELA III from a Latin American point of view is found at Costas, Theology of the Crossroads, chapters 4 and 5. 89 Escobar, “Divided Protestantism,” 32. 90 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 63.

66

chapter three

Even though CELA institutionally did not represent all the Protestants in Latin America, “the majority of those at the conference were the people who are still a majority in Latin America and who may be described as conservatives.”91 Escobar found in there “a wide evangelical sector which did not accept easily the simplifications of the most radical sectors related to ISAL, ULAJE, and other para-ecclesiastical groups.”92 Absent from Escobar’s evaluation is any warfare language. This does not mean Escobar denied the existence of any problems. Contrariwise, he defined clearly “different theological tendencies,” and the theological “radicalization toward the right and the left.”93 However, Escobar did not see the differences as the consequence of a confrontation with communism, as North Americans did. For Escobar, political situations in the continent and especially in some countries like Brazil were the reason for the polarization among Protestants. Evangelicals of all denominations agreed on the “need for social transformations in our countries as they face the growing pressures of underdevelopment, hunger, an excess of population and the unfair mechanism of international commerce.”94 This agreement is not even mentioned in any of the North American reports on CELA III. One of the main problems with CELA III, Escobar underscored, was its inability to reach the youth. Those involved in the commission for the youth could not reach a consensus. Two declarations on the subject appeared in the final report.95 At the same time that Escobar argued that CELA III fulfilled its goals as an “expression of the present situation of a great sector of Latin American Protestantism,” he expressed doubts about CLADE I being “representative or capable of dealing with some of the crucial problems” present in Latin America.96 The contrast between a Latin American view and a North American one was explicitly expressed by Emilio Castro, a Methodist pastor from Uruguay. In a letter to a missionary in Chile, he wrote,

91

Escobar, “Divided Protestantism,” 33. Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 63. 93 Escobar, “Divided Protestantism,” 33. 94 Ibid., 34. 95 See UNELAM, Deudores al Mundo: III Conferencia Evangélica (CELA): Informes— Comentarios de la III Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana (Montevideo: UNELAM, 1969), 37–45. 96 Escobar, “Divided Protestantism,” 35. See also Samuel Escobar, “Crónica de la Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana,” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 63 (1969). 92

the two congresses of 1969

67

While I struggle to find a dialogue, a humane Latin American cooperation that makes us responsible before our continent, your first concern is to assemble a facade for an organization that would impress the external sources of wealth. While my interest is to maintain the anxious tension of incomprehension with my conservative brethren, your interest is a pragmatic approach of immediate effectivity. While my interest is the integration of message and church life, for you these are practical issues reduced to problems of linguistic communication. In summary, while I am trying to define myself in an almost fanatical relationship of loyalty with Latin America which determines my actions, in you the action is a consequence of tactical thought in which possible financial supporters are preponderant. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not questioning the legitimacy of the last goal which we both pursue nor am I putting your personal honesty on the spot; but I question a tactic which reaches its goals at the expense of the division of Latin American Protestantism. I fear that the damage caused to our testimony in the years to come could not be compensated by the millions of dollars that could be raised for Latin America.97

Chilean pastor Luis P. Bucafusco, who acted as president of CELA III, also recognized the “ideological polarization” among Latin American evangelicals.98 Bucafusco presented two opposite perceptions of CELA III even before it was held. For some it was the “cutting edge of modernism and of theological liberalism,” being inspired in “some extreme leftist ideology.”99 For others, it was the opposite: “a reactionary expression, a vehicle of the conservative and retrograde forces.”100 As a result of CELA III, Bucafusco underscored the growing awareness for “an indigenization of the evangelical churches of Latin America. The situation in the continent demands the presence of an autochthonous and more mature Church.”101 The churches in the continent had suffered and still suffer from too much paternalism. Our structures, our methodology and our theology are contaminated by the vices and problems our older brothers had imported for us. Many of the discrepancies and ideological conflicts we have in our Latin American soil are products that come to us from abroad. The divisions and tensions that we have lived through reveal to us sadly that

97 Letter from Emilio Castro to J. Nichols, dated September 5, 1966, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 2. 98 P. Luis Bucafusco, “Impresiones Personales Sobre la III CELA,” in Deudores al Mundo, III Conferencia Evangélica (CELA) (Montevideo: UNELAM, 1969), 13. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid., 14. 101 Ibid.

68

chapter three the sources of ideological power, which perturb the Latin American evangelical movement, originate outside of the continent. Things get more complicated when ideology comes wrapped up with financial interests, that is, when finances serve the adoption of certain tenets of thought and action uncovering the immaturity of those ideological and financial centers, which cannot get out of colonial schemes. It is natural that question marks come up when some people from outside note the strong Latin American accent in our positions. They attribute it to some sort of narrow regionalism. However, this should be seen from another perspective. It is the natural reaction of those who want to liberate themselves of all obsessive paternalism and wish to achieve their own identity . . . it is the desire to be, to have our own life structured according to the Latin American state of affairs and to be able to formulate a theology that is relevant to the condition and situation of the Latin American people, a theology fruit of the thought and reflection of Latin Americans who live and work in the continent, and who are immersed in the reality of the Latin American people.102

For Bucafusco, CELA III was a step ahead for Latin Americans in their process of becoming independent, an indigenous church producing a theology that would address the predicament of the majority of the Latin American people. There is a sense of confrontation in his words but of a different sort than the one North Americans describe. It is a conflict with the past, with the received tradition. It is the conflict of a church that is growing up and wants more independence. Yet, as he explains, “this does not mean that we want to break the connections with the different expressions of the World-wide Church, nor that we do not recognize our debt of gratitude we have with them.” Bucafusco does not reject participation from outside. For him, any foreign presence should “help the Latin American church to be truly Latin American in its expression and in its formulation without any interference.”103 It is not clear whether Bucafusco has in mind Anglo-Saxon Protestantism or European ecumenism, or both. Whatever the case might be, he is confronting those influences that want to impose a foreign agenda in Latin American. But judging from CELA III’s prehistory, and knowing the strong ingerence of the WCC in its preparation and program, Bucafusco’s words seemed naive. It is not clear if he was aware of the interests Geneva had. Those interests come out clearly in

102 103

Ibid., 15. Emphasis in the original. Ibid.

the two congresses of 1969

69

Victor E. W. Hayward’s report: to get more churches affiliated and to promote ecumenism as understood by the WCC.104 To reach that goal, Hayward also had a plan which he recommended to the WCC. First, he wanted to “fill Latin America with leaflets in Spanish or Portuguese explaining, on our own terms . . . the Scriptural bases of the nature, aims and activities of the Ecumenical Movement.”105 Second, in order for the ecumenical movement as a whole to be better understood, he believed the WCC should make Spanish its “fourth official language.”106 Third, Hayward recommended the continuation of support to ISAL, MEC, and ULAJE as well as a strong partnership with UNELAM. In some sense, the fears expressed by North Americans about an ecumenical invasion were justified by real evidence. However, they were not proposing a culturally sensitive alternative, not even in CLADE I. In summary, CELA III was perceived differently by North Americans and Latin Americans. The former saw it as a threat, as a statement of hostility from the WCC. The latter found themselves represented in many ways by the emphases and themes it touched upon. For North Americans, CELA III produced concern and a readiness for battle. Latin Americans were prone to welcome some of its conclusions and proposed goals. North Americans labeled CELA III as a “liberal” conference. Latin Americans found its orientation close to their evangelical identity. At least on the surface, for Latin Americans, CELA III represented a local attempt to answer the relevant questions they had in their minds, questions that did not correspond to the North Americans’ concerns. As Samuel Escobar said, “With René Padilla we had to agree that the versions of some North American conservatives about the ecumenical world were simplistic, and some times intended for evil.”107 Even when there was disagreement with the conclusions of CELA III, Latin Americans saw their own problems, situations, and interests addressed and discussed at the conference. They saw their own people in charge. For Latin Americans, political differences did not matter too much. What mattered for them was that Latin Americans were in charge.

104 Hayward was the Research Secretary of the International Missionary Council. Victor E. W. Hayward, Third Latin American Evangelical Conference (Buenos Aires: Secretariat for Relationships with Christian Councils, 1969), 6–7, Report 17. Available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 3. 105 Hayward, Third Latin American Evangelical Conference, 7. 106 Ibid., 8. 107 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 63.

70

chapter three

North Americans, either because their Cold War mode of thinking or because of fear of the Social Gospel, found very little redeemable in CELA III. Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización— CLADE I In an indirect way CELA III influenced CLADE I. CLADE’s committee became even more cautious about whom to invite, either as speakers or participants, and whom not to invite. “We are not going to invite a few selected ones that we know are cooperating with the Communist forces, are extremely liberal in theology, or would in any other way be a complete detriment to the cause of evangelism were they to attend the Congress.”108 The list of “undesirables,” that is “either unsociable, trouble makers or associated or beneficiaries of World Council of Churches,”109 was large, and consequently the correspondence on this matter, abundant. Everything was done to be sure none of these persons were present at CLADE I. The instructions on this regard were clear and specific. For example, C. Peter Wagner wrote: “I hope that under no circumstances Samuel Nalegach gets to Bogota. He will really cause us some problems if he goes there, and knowing his relationship with the WCC, I think we had ought to be wiser than permitting him to go to Bogota.”110 The instructions were followed to the letter. “In accordance with your wish, I have finally been successful to by-pass Mr. Luis Bucafusco as a candidate or Delegate to Bogota. . . . No invitation was extended to the Federation of Churches of which Mr. Bucafusco is chairman, as was suggested by you.”111

108 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Billy Graham, dated July 1, 1968. Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 109 Letter from Harold E. Stacey (chairman for the Argentine Committee of CLADE I) to Clyde Taylor, dated July 7, 1969 (Confidential), Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 110 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Robert D. Anderson, dated April 23, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 111 Letter from Harold E. Stacey (chairman for the Argentine Committee) to Clyde Taylor, dated July 7, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3.

the two congresses of 1969

71

Another case that shows clearly how the machinery worked relates to the Methodist bishop Mortimer Arias. His name was originally part of the Bolivian delegation to Bogotá. However, it captured the immediate attention of the organizers: “I think four of the suggested names will not help much to the general spirit of the gathering if we want to maintain it in the evangelical line. They are the ‘señores’ Alfredo Aviléz, Rafael Flores, Victor Tococari, y Mortimer Arias.”112 The Arias case was presented also to Clyde W. Taylor by C. Peter Wagner, who thought that “if he is not invited, it might cause an unhealthy reaction among some of the others who are invited, but I also would suggest, Clyde, that he not be given the leadership of any of the panels or discussion groups.”113 What were Arias’s disqualifying points? He was “ecumenical.”114 For Taylor “this man is not our friend. In fact he is quite the opposite . . . he is not even an Evangelical.”115 In the end, Arias was unable to attend CLADE I, very much to Wagner’s relief. For him this was “good news,” a “very obvious answer to prayer since we really had no other resources except to ask God to put some obstacle in the way.”116 Obviously for Wagner, God was on the side of CLADE’s committee. Regarding the speakers chosen, two examples suffice: the speech on Catholicism and the one on Evangelism and the Holy Spirit. For the first, the most obvious choice would have been Míguez Bonino. All the reports on CELA III, either friendly ones or reserved ones, agreed that Míguez’s presentation on the topic was “superb.”117 It was a speech “which alone would have made the whole Conference worthwhile.”118 Yet, the Executive Committee decided upon another person, Dr. Emilio Antonio Nuñez.119 The choice was impelled by information

112 Letter from Peter Wagner to Efraín Santiago, dated February 5, 1969 (Confidential), Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 113 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Clyde W. Taylor, dated April 15, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 114 Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 4, Folder 1. 115 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Efraín Santiago, dated May 20, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 116 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Clyde Taylor, dated June 10, 1969, Ibid. 117 This speech is found in José Míguez Bonino, “Nuestra Deuda Para con la Comunidad Católica Romana,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 8, no. 22 (1970). 118 Hayward, Third Latin American Evangelical Conference, 4. Available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 3. 119 Emilio Antonio Nuñez, “Posición de la Iglesia Frente al ‘Aggiornamento’,” in Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis (San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1969).

72

chapter three

that Míguez was under “the influence of European theologians such as Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann.”120 This is not to say that Nuñez was not fit for the task. For the speech on Evangelism and the Holy Spirit, CLADE’s Committee selected a non-Pentecostal, Miguel A. Morales.121 It was not that they did not know any Pentecostals who would qualify. Several times the name of Rev. Juan Carlos Ortiz, from Argentina, was presented as the best possible speaker. “His fresh approach to his ministry is very unique and God is using it. It is this type of preaching that we in the Evangelism Congress should be exposed to. I would like to hear an exposition of ‘The Holy Spirit and Evangelism’ given by a Pentecostal man like this rather than by a ‘safe’ fundamentalist.”122 More than one reaction was heard on the committee’s choices of “safe speakers.” For example, W. Dayton Roberts of LAM wrote, When at least two-thirds of the evangelicals in Latin America are of Pentecostal persuasion, how do you justify having a non-Pentecostal give the paper on Evangelization and the Holy Spirit? Obviously we are here opting for the “safe” approach. Again, the Right-wing syndrome shows in the selection of a speaker on the Church and Aggiornamento. I personally feel that all of us need a jolt in this area, and Dr. Míguez Bonino’s paper at CELA III was eminently evangelical and objective—a veritable treasury of insights. . . . But despite Dr. MB’s stature as possibly the No. 1 evangelical theologian in Latin America, he has been invited to Bogota only as an observer. I understand—presumably because of his ecumenical connections. To me this is muted dialogue—playing it safe—not trusting the Holy Spirit—being afraid of our brethren in Christ—insisting that we be of one mind before we get together rather than in the getting together. I want to be stimulated, alerted, shocked—if necessary—and challenged to throw myself into the Task. And to me this is much less likely to happen if we continue saying things to ourselves in the same old way and with the same old voices.123

120 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Efraín Santiago, dated April 3, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2 Folder 4. 121 Miguel A. Morales, “El Espíritu Santo en la Evangelización,” in Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis (San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1969). 122 Memo from Jonás Gonzáles to Peter Wagner, dated July 31, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 4, Folder 3. 123 Letter from W. Dayton Roberts to Vergil Gerber, dated October 28, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3.

the two congresses of 1969

73

CLADE I was a “Made in America”124 congress on Latin American soil that happened to be attended mostly by Latin Americans. Everything in the preparation, program, invitations, logistics, and finances was directed and managed from the United States.125 There was a template from previous congresses the BGEA had sponsored in Canada (1967), Singapore (1968), and Nigeria (1968). Three men126 met at the Benjamin Franklyn Hotel in Philadelphia, on April 26, 1968, to discuss the plans for a congress on evangelism in Latin America. Taylor presented the proposal for the congress to Billy Graham. 1. That we hold a congress in November 1969, probably in Bogota, Colombia. 2. That since the Evangelical Council of Peru (all evangelicals) is willing to sponsor and issue the call for a congress, we work with them if they are willing to call for the congress to be held in Colombia. We do not feel this one should be in Peru. 3. That an Executive Committee of not more than 15 members, with Efraín as chairman, be established to run the congress, including the two executives from the Peruvian council. We selected the 15 men to serve on this committee and then also approved a list of some 25 to be listed as Latin American sponsors. 4. The Executive Committee will serve also as the Program Committee. 5. We both (Taylor and Efraín) agree that Fernando Vanglioni should be one of the speakers rather than to be on the Executive Committee. 6. As soon as Efraín has clearance from those suggested for the Executive Committee we’ll be ready to roll. We’ll meet somewhere in Latin America for the first meeting. I have told him that I must remain in the background.127 Taylor’s intention not to be in charge was soon derailed. “It appears as things now stand, as far as Billy Graham, Efraín [Santiago], Fernando [Vanglioni], and the others, that I will act as chairman of this committee as a neutral party. They are having tensions between various 124

“Evangelism in Latin America,” Christianity Today, 19 December 1969, 22. To see the correspondence before and after CLADE I see, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324.” 126 Clyde W. Taylor, Efraín Santiago, and C. Peter Wagner. Minutes of the meeting are available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 127 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Billy Graham dated May 1, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 125

74

chapter three

segments of Latin America. Efraín Santiago will be the coordinator and the man that will be largely in the public eye.”128 The correspondence shows that Taylor assumed his responsibility with full strength. He was very much in the foreground. Perhaps this is the reason a journalist of a major newspaper in Bogota identified Taylor as “the Pope of the evangelicals.”129 Efraín Santiago, a respected public figure in Puerto Rico, proved to be a strong administrator. He was able to keep his involvement with the committee even after becoming the Secretary of Social Services of the island.130 His leadership and vision shaped CLADE I. In Clyde W. Taylor’s words, Santiago “has a sweet spirit, acts and talks like an executive, is one hundred per cent evangelical and knows evangelicals from liberals. He has excellent perception but with a very gracious evangelical ecumenical attitude. He’s easy to work with.”131 As the regional coordinator of the BGEA, Santiago was acquainted with many evangelicals across the continent. In preparation for the Philadelphia meeting he had compiled a list of 41 possible names “from which the sponsoring committee can be chosen.”132 Among the list there were eight names related in some way to the BGEA and four related to the Bible Society. The other people were leaders of different ministries, for example radio, education, journalism; several pastors of different denominations, for example, Presbyterian, Baptist, nondenominational; and other names related to interdenominational ministries, for example, Campus Crusade, Evangelism in Depth. The list even included an ex-secretary of state of Puerto Rico, Carlos Lastra, who later became co-president of CLADE I. At the same time, Santiago had calculated the approximate cost: $125,000. To conclude his letter, Santiago expressed his criteria for the participants: “I do not think we should invite any persons who have to do or have any position with the World Council of Churches or any person that is related with the Ecumenical Movement, especially

128 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Vergil Gerber dated July 2, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 129 Juan Gossain, “El Congreso Evangelista: Trajes Típicos Bajo la Lluvia Dominical,” El Espectador, 24 de noviembre 1969. 130 Letter from Efraín Santiago to Clyde W. Taylor, dated January 9, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 4. 131 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Billy Graham dated May 1, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 132 Letter from Efraín Santiago to Clyde W. Taylor, dated March 6, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3.

the two congresses of 1969

75

those that have been playing the game with the Catholic Church.”133 In this regard, Santiago and Taylor were in full agreement. Immediately after Philadelphia, Taylor and Santiago rolled up their sleeves and started to work. They scheduled a tour to twenty countries to inform the churches about the congress and to appoint local committees. Before starting the tour, they met in Washington to select twelve evangelical leaders to serve on an executive committee. “This was an arbitrary action but seemed the only possible course. It also assured the right men. The choices seemed to please the national committees when they were informed.”134 The men were Rev. Harold Stacey (Argentina), Rev. Antonio Elías (Brasil), Rev. George Biddulph (Colombia), Rev. Paul Finkenbinder (El Salvador), Dr. Clyde Taylor (United States), Rev. Virgilio Zapata (Guatemala), Rev. Sergio García (Mexico), Rev. Roberto Anderson (Peru), Rev. Felix Calle (Peru), Dr. Carlos Lastra (Puerto Rico), Rev. Efraín Santiago (Puerto Rico), and Rev. Asdrúbal Ríos (Venezuela).135 Even though the executive committee had a Latin American majority, business was done the “American way.” This is not to say there was something inherently wrong with such an approach. But that was the image CLADE I projected. The Congress was an American Congress. It was “a meeting designed in the United States.”136 The committee knew it, although some of them had a hard time acknowledging it.137 When C. Peter Wagner proposed a “Think” meeting during CLADE I, everyone agreed it was an excellent idea, only that it was better to hold it at a different time, mainly because this group ran the risk of “being identified solely with the Congress and therefore ultimately to a more North American stance rather than something which hopefully will develop under Latin American leadership.”138 ECLA’s Executive Secretary Vergil Gerber presented a unanimous agreement in his organization to “some kind of a Consultation of Latin American Evangelical leaders to give 133

Ibid., Box 2, Folder 4. Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Billy Graham, dated August 19, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 135 Letter from Efraín Santiago to Paul Finkenbinder, dated June 8, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 136 C. René Padilla, “Interview by Author,” (Wheaton: 7–8 March, 2003). 137 See for example, Carlos Lastra, “Letter to the Editor,” Christianity Today, 16 January 1970. 138 Letter from Edwin L. Frizen Jr. (Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association of North America) to C. Peter Wagner, dated July 12 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 134

76

chapter three

free exchange of ideas regarding Evangelical advance in Latin America.” Gerber’s only reservation was that this “should be initiated and carried out by Latin American national leaders. We are interested as Missions in getting behind such an endeavor but not of controlling or directing it.”139 Clyde W. Taylor was more explicit: “Regarding a ‘Think’ Conference, or any type of permanent structure for Latin America . . . no matter where you hold it, it is going to be identified with the Congress, even if the thing was set up at the Congress and held elsewhere. . . . I think that it would have to be spontaneous and will have to be by the Latin Americans.”140 This was the general consensus. They were well aware of the indelible North American ethos of the Congress. C. René Padilla was invited to CLADE I but without any speaking responsibilities. For Padilla the foreign stamp of the Congress was clear. What surprised me the most was how the intention was to bring a premade package to Latin America so that Latin America would have an evangelistic strategy but without any real and effective participation of Latin American people . . . typical of the way in which work was done sometimes in the conservative sector.141

Padilla was not only talking about the Congress itself but also about the proposed thirty-year master plan that Carlos Lastra, co-president of CLADE I, presented the last night of the Congress. Lastra explained that his plan intended to “mobilize the totality of human, spiritual, and financial resources of the churches.”142 The plan was to “evangelize, to proclaim the word of the gospel, to convert the Latin American people to the gospel, to make disciples of the huge multitudes.”143 Lastra defined seven goals of the plan: 1. To use mass media. 2 To concentrate efforts on children, adolescents, and youth. 3. To vitalize the local church.

139 Letter from Vergil Gerber to C. Peter Wagner, dated June 29, 1968, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 140 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Peter Wagner, dated May 20, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 141 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 142 Carlos Lastra, “Plan Para América Latina,” in Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis (San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1969), 72. 143 Ibid.

the two congresses of 1969

77

4. To help in the preparation of lay leaders. 5. To help reach the classes that are marginal to the church: high classes, intellectuals, government officials, university professors, workers and union leaders, cooperative leaders, members of professional and civic associations, and so on. 6. To define clearly the social and economical responsibility of the church. 7. To pursue the unity of the church by a coordinated effort. In his plan, Lastra also included the realization of sub-regional congresses, and he proposed that CLADE II should be held in six years.144 Lastra’s plan, however positive and inspiring, was soon forgotten. None of the subsequent congresses took place, except the one in the United Sates145 (October 27–November 1, 1970, in San Antonio, Texas), and nobody assumed the responsibility for the second continental convocation. The problem with this plan was that it “came from above. It did not come from the bases. It was an imposed plan without any consultation with the evangelical people of Latin America.”146 It was a “one-man, thirty-year plan.”147 The short life of Lastra’s plan could be as well attributed to the fact that many of the countries had just finished or were in the midst of the intense program of EAF and found themselves, therefore, exhausted and penniless. Whatever the reasons, the fact is that Lastra’s plan did not take roots in Latin America as the organizers of CLADE I envisioned. The final declaration of CLADE I148 did not include anything particularly Latin American. It could have been adopted by almost any

144 Congresses for the Hispanic-American community in the United States in 1970; Mexico and Central America in 1971; the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) in 1972; Brazil in 1973; the Caribbean in 1974; the Bolivar republics (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) in 1975; and CLADE II, possibly in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1976. C. Peter Wagner, “The Latin American Congress on Evangelism (Special Report to Theological News, WEF),” Pulse 5, no. 1 (1970): 6. 145 See ECLA, “Ismael Amaya Evaluates CLADE/USA,” Pulse 5, no. 6 (1970). Also, “Beware Revolution, CLADE Speaker Warns,” Christianity Today, 18 December 1970. For the program, some correspondence and literature distributed at CLADE-USA, see Billy Graham Center Archives, “Evangelical Missions Information Service, 1964–,” (Collection 218: Wheaton), Box 2, Folder 5. 146 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 147 Letter from W. Dayton Roberts to Vergil Gerber, dated October 28, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 6. 148 CLADE-I, Acción en Cristo para un Continente en Crisis: Recopilación de Las Ponencias, Conferencias y Estudios Bíblicos del Congreso Latinoamericano de

78

chapter three

country, anywhere. The exception was probably the comments on the “aggiornamento” in the Catholic Church and its effects on evangelism as understood by CLADE I. This lack of specificity did not, however, undermine the importance of the declaration. It encouraged a needed self-evaluation of the theology as well as the methodology of evangelism. “Our theology of evangelism determines our evangelistic action or the lack of it. We should evaluate the current methods of evangelization in light of the amazing growth of some denominations.”149 The declaration had a timid paragraph dedicated to the social responsibilities of the church in a continent with “underdevelopment, injustice, hunger, violence and despair.”150 This reference to a socio-political reality, though short and general, was mostly due to the impressive reception to Samuel Escobar’s speech on “The Social Responsibility of the Church,”151 and to Escobar’s subsequent participation in the redaction committee. Escobar’s presentation “produced what was probably the strongest impact on the 900 delegates.”152 It was like a “bomb to those who have not given a thought to the task of reflecting upon the social implications of the Gospel and who preach only a gospel of individual salvation.”153 Even Escobar was “surprised at the massive reception” to his work.154 To a North American delegate it was “one of the finest papers on the subject I have listened to or read anywhere.”155 C. Peter Wagner even recommended a worldwide circulation of Escobar’s paper.156 Actually, this did not happen until Lausanne ’74 where Escobar gave a speech on “Evangelism and Man’s Search for Freedom, Evangelización, Bogotá, Colombia, Noviembre de 1969 (San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1969), 134–135. An English version is found in ECLA, “The Evangelical Declaration of Bogota (Official Translation),” Pulse 5, no. 1 (1970). See Appendix 1. 149 CLADE-I, Acción en Cristo para un Continente en Crisis, 134. 150 Ibid., 135. 151 Ibid., 32–39. For a condensed English version, see Samuel Escobar, “The Social Responsibility of the Church,” Latin America Evangelist, March–April 1970. The text was edited and published in English by the title “The Social Impact of the Gospel,” as a chapter of Brian Griffiths, ed., Is Revolution Change? (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972). 152 PULSE, “CLADE Surpasses Expectation,” Pulse 4, no. 6 (1969): 2. 153 Emilio Antonio Nuñez, “Testigo de un Nuevo Amanecer,” in Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla (San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984), 107. 154 Avila, “Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 27. 155 Letter from Vergil Gerber to Samuel Escobar, dated December 4, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 156 Wagner, “The Latin American Congress on Evangelism (Special Report to Theological News, WEF),” 3.

the two congresses of 1969

79

Justice, and Fulfillment,”157 which made him known around the world. It is disturbing to see that after CELA III and CLADE I most of the North American constituency of missionaries and missions personnel were still oblivious to the need for a clear emphasis on the social, political, and economical condition in the region. They were so suspicious of CELA III and its effects that not even an obvious evangelical presentation on the topic with its overwhelming response from Latin Americans caused any nascent awareness of such need. If nothing else, the standing ovation to Escobar’s presentation should have sparked a little interest to know how those conditions would affect any evangelistic effort. It was clear that the issues of politics and social involvement were the questions Latin American evangelicals were asking. But CLADE I and its organizers had another agenda, an agenda that was not open for changes. However, some missionaries knew the relevance of the issue of evangelical social involvement in Latin America. For example, for W. Dayton Roberts, associate general director of LAM, “the evangelist who speaks from a posture of irrelevance or lack of social concern does not get the ear of today’s youth (over 50% of the population), universities and intelligentsia, nor even the middle class man on the street. They just won’t listen.”158 CLADE I committee and leaders were not listening either. The subject was explicitly brought to them during the time of preparation for CLADE I. Should it be possible to recommend some issues to the different speakers in the program to touch upon, even if the references are quite incidental? But at least I feel that they should be touched upon—subjects like “The Structures of the Church and the Structures of Society,” “Revolution and/or Violence,” “Social Action,” “Demographic Control,” “Economic Development,” “Sociological and Political Evolution.” We all agree that these subjects may have nothing to do with the evangelization of our area; however, I am convinced that evangelism must be carried out in the contemporary context. And I wonder if the congress is not in danger of just saying over and over again the things that we have always said and which we know are safe to say and because it is unwilling to run the risk of saying something slightly different, and may very well get trapped into the position of gaining no new insight into its own mission and purpose.159

157

Escobar, “Evangelism and Man’s Search.” Letter from W. Dayton Roberts to Vergil Gerber, dated October 28, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 6. 159 Memo from Jonás Gonzáles to Peter Wagner, dated July 31, 1969, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 2, Folder 3. 158

80

chapter three

The supposed general agreement is debatable, and the comment that those things were not related to evangelism is questionable, yet the boldness to suggest the topic is commendable. But, as noted before, it felt on deaf ears. As we have seen, this was not the only request that did not get a hearing. Whatever permanent results CLADE I might have achieved, the only one that lasted beyond the closing night did not figure in Lastra’s plan, nor was it envisioned in the tight agenda of the Congress. It was more like a by-product: the formation of the FTL, the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana. Our next chapter will focus on the FTL and its importance. Here it is sufficient to mention that the FTL became the first fellowship of evangelical theologians in Latin America that would exercise a continental impact and would become a forum for indigenous theological production in the region. “CLADE I had helped a new generation of Latin American evangelicals to find each other, affirm their identity and agenda and commit themselves to their continent.”160 Summary To summarize, there were two almost opposite views or perceptions of CLADE I. North Americans saw in it “the” answer for the evangelism of Latin America. They understood it as a counterattack to the efforts of the WCC in the region. For the majority of Latin Americans it was not their congress. It was “Yankee.” Perhaps with the exception of Escobar’s speech, Latin Americans saw in the Congress just the repetition of what missionaries had been saying for a long time. For North Americans CLADE I was the normal followup of a predetermined plan for the evangelization of the world. They were following the decision of the World Congress on Evangelism, Berlin ’66. They were right on schedule. For Latin Americans it was just one more thing to do in the middle of the busy plans that EAF and CLADE—both foreign initiatives—had for them. They were not consulted, asked, or invited to dialogue about the relevance, timing, and program of such a gathering, nor the need for it. North Americans decided the biggest need in Latin America was to have more converted evangelicals. The North Americans were, from the standpoint of Latin Americans, way off the mark. Latin Americans were

160

Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission”, 128.

the two congresses of 1969

81

critical of this North American agenda because it did not at all touch on the social, political, and economical oppressive conditions in their countries. Themes like rural migration to the cities; unfair international trade; military and governmental repressions; political and intellectual persecution; lack of access to education, health, and decent shelter, among others were intentionally absent from the program. Sidney H. Rooy, a Christian Reformed missionary in Argentina, lists the questions people were asking those days. He says, What are the causes of poverty? Is it true that the poor are the ones who do not work like many say? When we see the peons of the fields, the factory workers, sugarcane harvesters or coffee pickers, we get the impression the poor are those who work, and the wealthy, those who lead. Why is a nation richer or poorer than another? Is this because of God’s providence, one people is more intelligent than the other, or the rules of the trade make that those who are below always remain below? Is it sheer chance that the most fortunate ones are those in the Northen hemisphere and the most unfortunate those in the Southern one? What does the Bible say about our inequalities? Do the prophets and Jesus say that the rich are more virtuous and the poor are more slothful and therefore deserve mistreatment for their laziness? Are not the desire for personal and national security, selfishness and power struggle the greatest sins of our times? Are they not incarnated in our societies and macro-organizations in such a way that they leave the individual powerless before them, both in the rich and the poor countries?161

The locals went to CLADE I looking for clear directives on how to be faithful to the gospel and at the same time how to apply that gospel to the hard situations they were facing day after day. Many, undoubtedly, left unsatisfied with the answers given there. As Dayton Roberts puts it, “They remained disillusioned by its social myopia and its theological shallowness.”162

161

Sidney H. Rooy, “Hijo de la Reforma,” in Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana, ed. C. René Padilla (San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1984), 136. 162 W. Dayton Roberts, “El Movimiento de Cooperación Evangélica: De San José 1948 a Bogotá 1969,” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978): 47.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FRATERNIDAD TEOLOGICA LATINOAMERICANA—FTL A year after CLADE I, another meeting took place, this time in Carachipampa, a rural community outside of Cochabamba, in the arable middle valleys of Bolivia. This meeting had wider repercussions and influence for the theological production in Latin America than the Congress on Evangelism in Bogota. This chapter presents the accounts of the founding of the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (FTL). Using the methodology of Rezeptionsgeschichte this chapter discusses the reception history of this group together with its importance in the process of maturation and definition of a Latin American evangelical theology. Introduction CLADE I stirred the theological ferment that was brewing in Latin America. Quite unintentionally, C. Peter Wagner’s book on Latin American theology,1 distributed at no cost to all the delegates in Bogota, stoked the agitation. Wagner described three distinct groups of Christians in Latin America: “the conservative evangelical Protestants, the conservative Catholics of the Establishment, and the radical left-wing group made of both Protestants and Catholics.”2 The main argument of the book was that the last group, characterized by “secular theology and revolutionary politics,”3 was outnumbering the evangelicals in theological production and scholarship. Wagner included brief presentations of several Latin American writers from what he called the “radical left.” However, when the time came to introduce the evangelical position, Wagner did not find “an evangelical leader who has entered into the

1 C. Peter Wagner, Teología Latinoamericana ¿Izquierdista o Evangélica? (Miami: Editorial Vida, 1969). The English version is C. Peter Wagner, Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? The Struggle for the Faith in a Young Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). 2 Wagner, Latin American Theology, 9. 3 Ibid.

84

chapter four

dialogue of the day and said something significant about the relationship of the church to the contemporary world.”4 Consequently his presentation of the evangelical voice was short and sketchy. Wagner presented an apology for “Church Growth”5 as the solution for Latin America. The source of information for Wagner was John H. Sinclair’s bibliographical guide to Latin America.6 Since Sinclair did not include any theological work written by a Latin American evangelical, Wagner concluded that those writings “are virtually nonexistent.”7 Wagner should have done his homework more thoroughly. What he did was to multiply Sinclair’s mistake. Sinclair’s criteria in selecting the works he listed were “too Anglo-Saxon.”8 On his list only four out of twenty collaborators were Latin American, and it had important lacunae like the omission of one of the biggest groups in Argentina, the Plymouth Brethren, and of important journals like Certeza.9 It was fair to say that there were few published theological books, but there were innumerable journal and magazine articles Wagner could have used.10 Those articles constituted the platform from which Latin Americans presented their ideas to the public. To attribute lack of theology to the scarcity of books revealed a mediocre knowledge of Latin America. Several reactions greeted Wagner’s book.11 “While some people were exultant about the book and gathered around Wagner, others were uneasy and convinced that a response had to be given.”12 Escobar’s 4

Ibid., 83. For a definition and presentation of Church Growth see Melvin L. Hodges, “Mission and Church Growth,” in The Church’s Worldwide Mission: An Analysis of the Current State of Evangelical Missions, and a Strategy for Future Activity, ed. Harold Lindsell (Waco, Tex.: World Books, 1966); Donald Anderson McGavran, ed., Church Growth and Christian Mission (New York and London: Harper and Row, 1965). 6 Sinclair, Protestantism in Latin America. 7 Wagner, Latin American Theology, 83. 8 Samuel Escobar, “Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide– Review,” Pensamiento Cristiano 15, no. 60 (1968). 9 Ibid., 314. 10 Widely known journals would have given Wagner a more comprehensive idea of what evangelicals had written: Cuadernos Teológicos, founded in 1950; Pensamiento Cristiano, 1953; and Certeza, 1959, among others. John Howard Orme also includes sermons as sources: Orme, “The Doctrine of Social Concern,” 2. 11 For book reviews in North America see John W. Beardslee III, “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review,” Reformed Review 24 (1971): 98–99; Paul Clasper, “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review,” Foundations 15, no. 2 (1972): 94–95; T. D. Proffitt III, “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (1973): 187–188. 12 Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission”, 127. 5

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

85

description was stronger when he said the book caused “indignation in one sector and enthusiasm in another.”13 Orlando Costas expressed his reaction as “feeling offended by the purpose, the content, and the methodology of the book.”14 Reminiscing on the episode, the first reaction of C. René Padilla was that Wagner’s book was unjust, Especially since some of the authors he mentioned—Justo Gonzalez, José Míguez Bonino, Emilio Castro—were the people trying to find some answer to our problems from a Latin American perspective. There were no others. That was unjust for us. Several quotations [were] out of context. . . . His proposal was that, well, the theology is already written, Calvin and Luther wrote it. Since we already have the theology, we just need to find a strategy for evangelism in Latin America, and the school of Church Growth offers that alternative.15

In an article Padilla published soon after CLADE I,16 the initial reactions the book produced can still be felt. Padilla commended Wagner for helping the evangelical community in Latin America to be on guard in front of “what could be considered the most significant ‘ideologization’ of the Christian faith ever produced in its midst.”17 However, “it is difficult to accept the explanation for the superficiality manifested throughout the whole study.”18 The book was not only superficial but misleading. Wagner was selective in what he used, and he left important information out. For example, Padilla noted, “the grouping of José Míguez Bonino and Justo Gonzalez with the ‘radical left’ without considering the former’s appeal for a theology of the ‘Church and the World’ that is faithful to the totality of the biblical witness, and the latter’s warning against the dangers of ‘ebionism.’”19 Padilla invited Wagner to see in the theology of the “radical left” a “call to an amendment, to a correction (however minimal!) of the

13 Samuel Escobar, “Del CLADE I al CLADE II: Evangélicos en Busca de Una Evangelización Contextual,” Pastoralia 2, no. 3 (1979): 25. 14 Orlando Costas, “Teólogo en la Encrucijada,” in Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla (San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984), 26. 15 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 16 C. René Padilla, “Teología Latinoamericana: ¿Izquierdista o Evangélica?” Pensamiento Cristiano 17, no. 66 (1970). A reviewed English version appeared in C. René Padilla, “A Steep Climb Ahead for Theology in Latin America,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 7, no. 2 (1971). 17 Padilla, “Teología Latinoamericana,” 134. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.

86

chapter four

concepts related to the mission of the church.”20 Padilla was referring specifically to the theory of church growth Wagner was advocating. Padilla argued that Church Growth confused the commandment to make disciples with “increasing the number of professing Christians.” This confusion led to a “numerolatry” and to replace “making disciples by cheap evangelism.”21 While Wagner saw in Church Growth the answer to the supposed Latin American poor theological production, for Padilla it was the culprit. It was precisely the insistence on the mission of the church as “numerical growth” that gave the impression that training theologians was not important. Padilla observed, “Such a concept of the mission does not come out of the biblical teaching. Rather it reflected a ‘success’ philosophy and a mind-set conditioned by a marketing culture.”22 A disclaimer Padilla made was that for him Church Growth was different from the growth of the church, “the spontaneous expansion of the Christian community by God’s power.”23 For Padilla, the theory that Wagner presented for Latin Americans to adopt was “a new version of the ancient Constantinism, aimed in the same way to the ‘Christianization’ of the multitudes at the expense of the integrity of the gospel. Should it be implemented, the church would become no more than a ‘mass of baptized unbelievers.’”24 Padilla agreed with Wagner that the theology of the ‘radical left’ was syncretistic. Yet, the same could be said of Wagner’s theology: There is, then, a basis to suspect that the ideology of “church growth” has its roots in an assumption characteristic of the technological society. If the leftist theology is the outgrowth of Marxist socio-economic and political presuppositions, “church growth” responds to capitalistic presuppositions. In the first case, the gospel is replaced; in the second, it is reduced. In both cases the determining factor is not biblical teaching but the influence of secularism.25

Padilla identified three results of Wagner’s book. First, it brought out “the theological poverty and its incidence in the concept of mission we have as the church of Christ in Latin America.” Second, Wagner had shown “the long way” to reach “integration between the gospel and a life

20 21 22 23 24 25

Ibid., 135. Ibid., 135. Italics in the original. Ibid., 136. Ibid. Ibid. Padilla, “A Steep Climb Ahead,” 104.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

87

involved in Christian discipleship.” Third, the book had caused a return to the Bible and freedom from “the subtle idolatry-ecclesiasticism,” that is, when the church takes the place that belongs only to Christ.26 Padilla was not a lonely voice in his critique. Another review was penned by Mortimer Arias, a Methodist from Bolivia. As noted earlier, Arias did not attend CLADE I, therefore his reaction to the book was emotionally detached from the atmosphere of the congress in Bogota. His point of view on the subject possessed a certain objectivity that Padilla’s could not have.27 Arias recognized Wagner’s achievement in producing “the first volume of its kind.” After presenting the main arguments and theses of the book, Arias concluded that Wagner’s criticism of the radical left shows the author’s “own dualistic concept of the world.”28 This dualism was, first, between the people who belong to God and the rest of the world, and second, between preaching the gospel (kerygma) and social action (diaconia), a dualism Arias did not support. To the four reasons Wagner presented to explain the pitiful state of evangelical scholarly alternatives,29 Arias added that “theological creativity needs theological freedom.” Can the fundamentalist mentality of some conservative evangelical circles provide that kind of freedom? When faith has already been defined once and for all, what alternative had the evangelical thinker other than the ‘anti-Catholic’ (antiecumenical, antisecular, antiradical, or any other anti-) polemics or restatements of the traditional evangelical corpus of “systematic theology” of which Wagner complains? Indeed what after all is Wagner’s attempt but polemics and restatement? How, then, can anyone speak of a “Latin American theology”? I wonder if such a thing is desired or even dreamed of at the missionary headquarters against which this book is at least partially aimed.30

According to Arias, since Wagner recognized that it would have been better if the book had been written by a Latin American, “let the Latin

26

Padilla, “Teología Latinoamericana,” 139. Mortimer Arias, “Polemics and Restatement,” Christian Century, 2 June 1971, 698–700. 28 Ibid., 698. 29 The Bible-school orientation of many of the pioneers among the evangelical missionaries; the spirit of separatism in many of the early evangelical workers; a clear antiintellectualism on the part of some; and an overriding sense of evangelistic imperative. Wagner, Latin American Theology, 81–83. 30 Arias, “Polemics and Restatement,” 699. 27

88

chapter four

Americans speak. They may be ‘radicals’—yes, even the ‘evangelicals’ among them. For Wagner this statement is nonsense. But who shall say that a Latin American theology cannot be ‘both-and’—‘Radical and Evangelical’?”31 For Arias, Latin Americans may be conservative in theology but they are not social conservatives. The ‘radical left’ theologians were “trying to develop a theology relevant for political action, even for ‘revolution.’ They want to act in the world—as Christians—out of the faith. This is the most Latin American element in their thinking—and it is their merit and their danger.”32 The danger was not, as Wagner said, syncretism, but theological reductionism. For Arias there was no theology without contradictions and gaps. Therefore, he asked, “Is Wagner conscious of the contradictions in his own theology?”33 The main contribution of Wagner’s book, for Arias, was not to [help] pastors as the book states, but to “help the ‘radical left’ to see itself from outside. Its people will not agree with Wagner, but they can learn from the confrontation with him.”34 Padilla and Arias agreed completely in their approach to Wagner’s book. Each one, though, had different emphases, and rightly so. However, Padilla’s reaction had the merit of being closer in time to the event and therefore showed more clearly and with candor the reception of it by the Latin Americans at CLADE I. There, they felt misrepresented and unjustly treated. They also disagreed with the proposed “solution.” Another reviewer followed the same line. Samuel Escobar, a speaker in Bogota, explained his reaction to the book. For Escobar, Wagner “simplified the ecclesiastical Latin American situation, intending to provoke a sharper polarization between ‘ecumenicals’ and ‘conservatives,’ outlining a theological ‘evangelical position’ that was embarrassingly poor and inadequate by comparison.”35 Wagner, Escobar continued, twisted the facts by “using a criterion of ecclesiastical North American politics,” and consequently “doing a selective and simplistic reading of the authors he studied.”36 Escobar proposed that Wagner “polarized the evangelicals against the ecumenical organizations in Geneva.” Wagner’s

31

Ibid. Ibid. 33 Ibid., 700. 34 Ibid. 35 Samuel Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana: Breve Ensayo Histórico,” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995): 15. 36 Ibid. 32

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

89

analysis followed mainly a criterion “of institutional rivalry instead of serious theological basis.”37 It is possible to sense in Padilla’s, Arias’s, and Escobar’s reactions to Wagner’s book a common feeling of frustration with the imposition of a foreign model for the evangelization of Latin America. However, the three authors did not disqualify Wagner’s proposal just for being a foreign one. They avoided such reductionism in their analysis. Their criticisms had to do more with the ideological and theological underpinnings of such reading of the Latin American state of affairs. They did not disagree with Wagner’s conclusion that the Latin American evangelical theology needed a clear voice in the dialogue with Iglesia y Sociedad (ISAL). What they found unjust was Wagner’s superficial reading of the efforts already made by some people, and they rejected his proposed solution. “They took further issue with his [Wagner’s] hierarchical approach to the church’s function in society, arguing that the interrelatedness of evangelism and social responsibility makes any attempt to relativize the importance of the latter nonsense.”38 For example, Padilla argued, The proclamation of the gospel (kerygma) and the demonstration of the gospel in service (diakonía) form an indivisible unit. One without the other makes an incomplete, mutilated gospel, and consequently, it is contrary to God’s intent. From this perspective it is hogwash to ask about the relative importance of evangelism and social responsibility.39

Therefore, at CLADE I a growing conviction emerged that an immediate action was necessary on the part of the Latin Americans to address the challenges Wagner posed. Such action started to take form right there, in the corridors and table talks of the Congress in Bogota. Two strategies developed during CLADE I.40 The first was to publish a book in response to Wagner that would do justice to the Latin American theological situation and to present “a more scholarly answer to ISAL.”41

37

Ibid., 16. Noelliste, “The Church and Human Emancipation”, 82. 39 Padilla, “Teología Latinoamericana,” 139. 40 These two strategies are found in a confidential memorandum by Peter Savage to Clyde Taylor, Vergil Gerber, C. P. Wagner, R. Sturtz, and E. L. Frizen, dated March 28, 1970, available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 41 Letter from Peter Savage to Michael G. Smith (The National Liberty Foundation), dated June 24, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 38

90

chapter four

The second was to hold a meeting of theologians that “on one hand would face up the problems presented by ISAL without adopting their theological premises, and on the other hand would attempt not to fall into the ‘closed’ mentality of the ultrafundamentalists (their words).”42 This was the first embryonic stage for the FTL. It took one year for it to be born. The Formation of the FTL The history of the FTL starts before its inception, even before CLADE I.43 Its antecedents go back to informal gatherings of Latin American evangelicals with theological interests and social inquietude. Many had been inspired by the scholarship and life of evangelical voices in the secular academy and prestigious journalism like Gonzalo Báez-Camargo44 and Alberto Rembao, distinguished leaders whose names are engraved in the history of Protestantism in Latin America, as early as the Havana Congress in 1929. There was also the work of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES), where many of the themes that became important later for the evangelical theological production were already discussed in the academic circles of the universities in the 1960s. One of the first efforts in the direction of a Latin American theological production was the Asociación Teológica Evangélica (ATE), formed in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 4, 1969.45 Those involved in this Asociación wanted to fill a “vacuum that exists in our midst: the study and diffusion of themes related to the Revelation and to the pertinence of this Revelation for the problematic of today’s person.”46 ATE’s main goals were To stimulate biblical-theological study from an evangelical point of view; to stimulate and coordinate publication of articles by its members; to foment expository preaching; to provide a platform for a theological

42 Peter Savage confidential memorandum, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 43 For historical theological antecedents see Edgar Alan Perdomo, “Una Descripción Histórica de la Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana (Primera de Dos Partes),” Kairós 32, enero-junio (2003). 44 See, for example, Various, Gonzalo Báez-Camargo: Una Vida al Descubierto (Mexico D.F.: Centro de Comunicación Cultural CUPSA A.C., 1985). 45 “Asociación Teológica se Fundó en Buenos Aires,” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 62 (1969). 46 Ibid.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

91

dialogue that would foster a better comprehension of the revealed Truth in Jesus Christ; and to promote the study and publication of current themes.47

C. René Padilla remembered that the idea for the ATE was his initiative after two years of his arrival in Buenos Aires. He said, It was an initiative of people preoccupied for the theological reflection. I was bold enough to take a step no one had taken before. There was not an association like that yet. I started to meet people in the country, especially [Daniel] Tinao, Jack Shannon, who was at the time the director of the Instituto Bíblico de Buenos Aires; also Andrew Kirk from England, who arrived with many questions. Then we formed an association. We had a few interesting meetings. In those days there was also a distinguished person in Latin America theology, José Míguez Bonino. He joined ATE. . . . I would say that we were successful in the convocation, even though it was exclusive for Buenos Aires. This association [ATE] preceded the formation of the FTL. The next year we decided that instead of maintaining the ATE, we would become part of the FTL. Therefore, the ATE in Argentina preceded the FTL. Both had practically the same interests.48

With such precedents, when the indignation and desire for action that Wagner’s book raised in CLADE I spread among several of the delegates, they had a point of reference for the steps toward a way out of such a predicament. They knew they needed to pursue a common goal in order to present answers and alternatives that would encourage a Latin American evangelical theological production. Like Escobar said, they were “tired of the evangelical centers of power in North America telling us how to think, who to read, and what it meant to be evangelical,” and therefore, “we decided it was time to start reflecting the faith as grownups and on our own.”49 Escobar’s words reflected graphically the process of maturation Latin Americans were experiencing. The gestation period for the FTL was not struggle-free. Several problems threatened its healthy formation, problems like exclusion of certain people, leadership tensions, and financial control. But underlying those problems was the basic difference between what North Americans and Latin Americans understood as priorities. Escobar expressed that difference saying that, 47

Ibid. Padilla, “Interview by Author.” For an account of the ATE’s activities and conferences, see “Actividades Asociación Teológica,” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 63 (1969). 49 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 64. 48

92

chapter four There was a desire for unity and mutual help to hear with clarity the voice of the Holy Spirit for his people in Latin America. We did not feel represented by the theology made in North America and imposed through the seminaries and Bible institutes of the conservative evangelicals, whose programs and literature were a servile and repetitive translation forged in a situation completely alien to ours. We did not feel represented either by the elitist theology of the ecumenical Protestants, generally cast in European molds and distant of the evangelistic spirit and the fundamental convictions of the majority of evangelical churches of our American continent.50

The two groups that met during CLADE I51 felt the need for creating a common forum for theological reflection but they had different agendas. This difference almost killed the initial momentum. Only after “intense negotiations” by Peter Savage an agreement was reached. Both Escobar and Padilla give Savage the credit for making the FTL possible.52 The obstacles seemed unabated in number, unsurmountable. Finally, after many trips across length and breadth of the continent, earnest conversations, and continuous correspondence, thirty men were invited to the meeting in Cochabamba, December 12–18, 1970. Escobar recalled, The innumerable hurdles that were necessary to surpass in that stage to get to the creation of the FTL were a faithful reflection of the ecclesiastical politics in Latin America. On one side, concessions had to be done and on the other side intransigence had to be pushed back. Any effort to associate a wide gamut of evangelicals demands an incredible capacity for negotiation.53

Let us look at some of those situations to get a small window into what Escobar calls hurdles in the process of formation of the FTL. These are interpersonal, financial, and inter-institutional. Already in CLADE I, some people wanted to leave C. René Padilla out of the FTL. According to Peter Savage, Escobar knew of this exclusion and consequently felt that it meant the whole process was “starting off

50

Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 17. According to Escobar the first group included Plutarco Bonilla, Rubén Lores, Osvaldo Motessi, Orlando Costas, René Padilla, and José Camacho. The second group included Emilio Antonio Nuñéz, Héctor Espinoza, Ismael Amaya, Pedro Savage, Ricardo Sturz, and Peter Wagner. Ibid., 16. See also Savage, confidential memorandum at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 52 Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 17; Padilla, “Interview by Author.” Also Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 65. 53 Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 17. 51

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

93

on the wrong footing without him [Padilla].”54 When asked about this, Padilla believed the main reason was the critique of the “missionary establishment” in his writings.55 He recalled specially two early writings. The first was his paper given at the conference of Christian communicators in Lima in 1962,56 where he took a position confronting the missionary establishment. The second was his article on student ministry in Latin America,57 where he mentioned the “problem of some missionary emphases, the lack of a serious discipleship program, cheap evangelization and things like that,” and where he started to write about the social responsibility of the church. These were, among others, the antecedents by which “my name was marked.”58 However, since the organizers wanted Samuel Escobar at the meeting, and Escobar conditioned his participation by having Padilla there also, “they were forced to invite me. And they not only invited me, but they gave me the opportunity to present one of the main papers. And not only that, but they named me to the board of directors.”59 It is not clear who was attempting to keep Padilla out of the FTL. Yet, this episode was symptomatic. It was going to be much harder than it looked to break old molds brought by missionaries. Unity was only a longed ideal. A similar situation was the case of the “Costas group” from the Seminario Bíblico Latinoamericano (SBL) of San Jose, Costa Rica.60 During the process of preparations for Cochabamba, one of the institutions that was contacted for funds was the National Liberty Foundation of Valley Forge Inc. (NLF). Its president, Michael G. Smith, suggested the inclusion in the yet-to-be FTL of several professors from the SBL since the “seminary may have some contributions to make to the development of Latin American Theology.”61 Savage answered in a four-page letter,

54 Savage, Confidential memorandum, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 55 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 56 Organized by LEAL, September 17–26. Padilla’s speech is available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 1, Folder 2. 57 Padilla, “Student Witness in Latin America Today.” 58 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 59 Ibid. 60 To understand the situation of the SBL, see Robbins Bruce Warren, “Contextualization in Costa Rican Theological Education Today: A History of the Seminario Bíblico Latinoamericano. San José, Costa Rica, 1922–1990” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Methodist University, 1991). 61 Letter from Michael G. Smith to Peter Savage, dated June 4, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7.

94

chapter four

trying to explain carefully why the participation of those professors from the SBL was not for the best interest of the development of a Latin American evangelical theology. What Savage wanted to avoid was a “polarization between these two groups of conservatives.” For Savage, “to include some of the staff of the LAM seminary would be to strain relationships beyond the breaking point.”62 A group of those already invited and participating in the FTL would have withdrawn in protest if the “Costas group” was in Cochabamba. It was, for Savage and those helping him, “too great of a price to pay for the possible benefits that may accrue.” A better solution Savage envisioned was the formation of different groups of evangelicals, To discuss theology and produce carefully-written theological documents. These, then, should be circulated, read, and digested by all other evangelicals. They will serve to stimulate thinking, and perhaps also point out how little difference there is between the several points of view. This would all be to the good in the theological ferment of a younger church.63

Therefore, instead of seeing a problem by the exclusion of the “Costas group,” Savage understood it as a possibility for a more productive dialogue. But even before the letter from the NLF arrived, there was an ongoing discussion about what to do and how to proceed with the “Costas group.” Peter Wagner wrote to Savage: Just a word of warning: it looks like we might be getting into a real struggle with the Costas gang. Be sure that anything you write concerning them is couched with plenty of if’s and but’s and possibly’s so that a direct quote taken from one of your letters won’t be devastating. The problem is that the Costas bunch is practically synonomous with the LAM, and we must tread lightly when the LAM is involved. Best approach to Costas and Co.: they’re fine brothers in Christ, and sincere in following a certain mediating line; but they are out to present only one point of view—we have another which we consider more biblical and appropriate for Latin America today. Inevitably, some like Perez and Padilla and possibly Escobar will feel comfortable in both groups. I would say that we shouldn’t fight this, tocayo, but rather make room in our thinking for it.64

62 Letter from Peter Savage to Michael G. Smith, dated June 24, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 63 Ibid. 64 Memo from C. Peter Wagner to Peter Savage, dated April 14, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

95

In the end, none of the professors from the SBL were invited to Cochabamba. For Costas this amounted to a “lamentable absence,” since it was “an evangelical sector that at the time was a focus of evangelical reflection and which perhaps would have contributed with especial tones to the expression of the reached consensus.”65 Negotiations did not yield any reconciliation. Costas attributed his exclusion and of “all who worked with the LAM,” to forces “outside of Latin America” that were imposed in order to “impede the presence of those of us who, according to them, represented a contestant voice in the midst of the evangelical movement.”66 This was the same impression of Juan Stam, who in that year was a professor at the SBL. For Stam the exclusion of the SBL from the FTL was due to “conditions imposed by those giving the money.”67 In such turmoil Savage could only hope that “five years from now the situation will have changed.”68 Money was a big hurdle. Savage had to find supporters for such novelty of Latin Americans doing theology. His main job was to convince people and institutions of the “validity of an effort of this nature, and that they should not pretend to use their donations as means of intervention and imposition of any theological or extra-theological criteria.”69 The pressure of imposed conditions was real. For example, Clyde Taylor wrote, As you know, there is a considerable inclination toward Barthianism or neo-orthodoxy among some of our evangelicals in Latin America. I really don’t know where René Padilla and [Plutarco] Bonilla stand on this. Do you know where Samuel Escobar stands? Míguez Bonino is neo-orthodox. I think this is why we feel quite safe in having you and Pete Wagner involved in this movement to be sure that we did not allow those who would compromise the authority of Scripture in their whole theological concept. Frankly, I am not interested in helping to raise funds to get a group of theologians together who are going to condone neo-orthodoxy. I feel that that has two strikes against it: one, it’s passe; and the other, it is not biblical. The latter of course is far more important.70

65

Escobar, “Del CLADE I al CLADE II,” 28. Costas, “Teólogo en la Encrucijada,” 25. 67 Juan Stam, “Interview by Author,” (San José, Costa Rica: 9 August, 2002). 68 Letter from Peter Savage to Michael G. Smith, dated June 24, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 69 Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 17. 70 Letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Peter Savage, dated February 18, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 66

96

chapter four

Old customs of controlling are carried through. As we noticed in the preceding chapter, this was the way the preparations for CLADE I operated. Even before the FTL started, the pressure for compliance to a North American theological agenda was attached to the funds. On one side there was the intention to let things be done the Latin American way. Dayton Roberts explains that in Latin America, “evangelicals, even though their emphasis has always been on their evangelical nature of their position, have refused to be exclusivist.”71 This attitude of inclusiveness was a killer for North American supporters. As noted before, they had scruples when choosing their religious partnerships. Another possible supporter for the FTL wrote that “we want to exercise extreme caution lest we be accused of running things from North America. . . . It seems to me that whatever is done should be done under Latin American initiative.”72 In spite of this laudable intention, supporters were suspicious of leaving the control and the operation completely in Latin American hands. There was not enough trust yet. After these and other hurdles were cleared, when the time came, twenty-five arrived in Cochabamba for the meeting.73 A dream started to come true. Twelve nationalities and nine denominations were represented by seminary professors, pastors, lay leaders, educators, evangelists, journal and magazine editors, writers, and others. Escobar remembered that at the meeting, There was a Wesleyan background in the Mexican Hector Espinoza (Methodist) and the Argentinian Ismael Amaya (Nazarene). The latter has experience in ecumenical theological reflection in his country, as well as Andrew Kirk who represented an evangelical position in his Anglican tradition. The Presbyterian heritage was represented by Pedro Arana and Pablo Perez. Arana had published already a work of theological reflection as an intent to contextualize his Calvinist perspective. From the student movement [IFES] came René Padilla, Samuel Escobar, and Robinson Cavalcanti who during their missionary labors in universities had started to contextualize their evangelical heritage. Virgilio F. Vangioni and Emilio Antonio Nuñez were from a dispensationalist background related to the Dallas Seminary in the United States; while Oscar Pereira and Ricardo

71

Roberts, “El Movimiento de Cooperación Evangélica,” 49. Letter from Vergil Gerber to Peter Wagner, dated January 19, 1970, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 73 For a complete list of names and biographical information of all the participants see, Peter Savage, Fraternidad de Teólogos Latinoamericanos (Cochabamba: FTL, 1971). 72

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

97

Sturz were professors at Baptist centers of theological education. The presence of Gerardo Avila was not enough as articulation of the Pentecostal perspective. Independent and interdenominational missions were also represented through Peter Wagner, Asdrubal Rios, and David Jones.74

The point of consensus, the hub around which men from such diverse traditions built their theological fraternity, was the Bible. This center of discussion came out clearly in the book that contains the main papers presented.75 Savage introduced the book as the testimony to “the first steps” of a Latin American evangelical theology.76 The desire of those involved in such theological production was “to listen to God’s voice within the framework of the Ibero-American reality.”77 Savage had his own personal goals for the meeting: I want this fraternidad to move into a full Latin orbit as soon as possible. I shall be moving to my three-pronged goals: 1. Cross-fertilization of minds. 2. Formulation of thought-provoking theological thought—I will not attempt nor will I accept any kinds of pressure to come up with statements. 3. Production—I am interested in speaking to Latin America, and so I want to see this come out as soon as possible.78

At the inaugural address, Savage interpreted the occasion not as a break with the past and with the Anglo-Saxon theology and literature, but rather as the time for a “contribution born out of the profound reflection in the midst of our Latin lands.”79 Since for the majority that sort of meeting was new, Savage defined four attitudes to guide the discussions: respect for the other and his opinions, honesty, an open mind, and tolerance. “We are not here to fight so that our opinions and positions prevail.”80 To guide the meeting, Savage also defined three principles: “the ultimate authority of the Word of God as it is found in the Scriptures,” the “right and duty of every Christian to interpret 74

Escobar, “Del CLADE I al CLADE II,” 28. Peter Savage, ed., El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972). See also “Publicación del Simposium-‘La Biblia,’” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, Agosto 1971. 76 Savage, El Debate Contemporáneo, 9. 77 Ibid. 78 Letter from Peter Savage to C. P. Wagner, no date, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 7, Folder 7. 79 Savage, El Debate Contemporáneo, 9. 80 Ibid., 12. 75

98

chapter four

the Bible,” and “an adequate hermeneutics of the Scriptures.”81 For the latter, Savage established four rules a priori, 1. Language is a trustworthy mean to communicate ideas. 2. Each proposition an author expresses communicates one thought and only one thought. 3. The exact meaning of a particular word depends on its association with other words in its immediate context and the intention of the author. 4. Truth cannot be contradictory.82 Savage’s precise definitions and delineations were designed to establish the atmosphere. However, his high optimistic intentions were soon deflated. Padilla said, A main problem came when Peter Wagner had a document already prepared with a declaration made in Frankfurt about missionary work and what the third world had to do. He presented it translated and printed in paper with the name of the FTL, even before there was any FTL, as if it were the product of the FTL. He wanted to impose that document for us to sign. He wanted the FTL to adopt that declaration as its own. I said it was a bad start. I was opposed to that. I said absolutely no. What does a declaration made in Germany have to do with this meeting? Here we are going to write our own declaration.83

Escobar mentioned also “heated debates” on several occasions,84 especially over Padilla’s paper on the authority of the Bible.85 Padilla, among other things, had the boldness to challenge one of the most cherished doctrines of North American theology in regard to the Bible—inerrancy. Padilla said that the “evangelical theory in Latin America needs to initiate the search for a doctrine of inspiration which is at the level of the demands of the revelation but which does not pretend that the whole structure of bibliology could be based on a given concept of biblical inerrancy.”86 Padilla was not denying the possibility of original

81

Ibid., 13. Ibid., 14. 83 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” For the Frankfurt Declaration see Alfred C. Krass, Evangelizing Neopagan North America. The Word That Frees (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1982), 179–186. 84 Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 19. 85 Padilla, “La Autoridad de la Biblia.” 86 Ibid., 128. 82

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

99

manuscripts without error, however impossible that is to prove. He said that the Bible we have today is a Bible “of which the minimum we could say is that it has transmission errors,” as well as translation errors. Therefore, Padilla concluded, “either we receive it from God as it is and accept it as authoritative in spite of those minor errors with faith that none of them affect the substance of the Gospel, or we insist in the indispensability of an absolutely inerrant Bible and we are left without an authoritative Bible. There is no other alternative!”87 The discussion about inerrancy was only a small section in Padilla’s presentation.88 However, several of the other participants made such a major issue out of it so that the “richness of the discussion was opaqued by the evident intent of polarization of the people present, and it impeded a consensus.”89 Several argued that the word “inerrancy” was absolutely necessary in the final declaration.90 Others, more supportive of Padilla, recognized that “even though inerrancy was a theme which some sectors in the United States considered crucial, it was not so in Latin America.”91 However, the fact that the final declaration did not include the term “inerrancy” did not mean that the nascent FTL was abandoning the supreme authority of the Bible: We believe special revelation is the first and unavoidable condition to know God and to understand the meaning of life and human history. Even though God has made himself partially known by nature and by the law written in human hearts, He has revealed himself clearly and in a definite way through Jesus Christ, of whom the Bible testifies. It is on this fact that we base our theological reflection and we force ourselves to understand our mission as God’s people in Latin America. The Bible is inseparable of the history of salvation, in which it originated by the action of the Holy Spirit. The only absolute authority is that which resides in God. It is possible only to define the sense and dimension of the authority of the Bible when the Bible is set in the background of the total revelation of God in history and of his salvation purpose. The Bible is, in the same way, inseparable of Jesus Christ and of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. God exercises his authority through the written Word and through the Spirit. And this authority is the norm for everything that relates to Christian faith and practice.92

87 88 89 90 91 92

Ibid., 130. One and a half pages out of 29. Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 20. For the final declaration of this meeting see Appendix 2. Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 20. Savage, El Debate Contemporáneo, 225–226.

100

chapter four

What this episode with the word inerrancy showed is that from the beginning the FTL had to face the question of what Latin American evangelical theology would look like. What were the questions the FTL should ask? Where to find the agenda for a Latin American theology? What to do with external pressures? How to engage in a relevant theological dialogue when the pressure was toward polarization? Even after all the screening and compromising before Cochabamba, it was obvious that among the original participants there were serious differences. Samuel Escobar proposed that for a Latin American theological production to be viable, Latin Americans needed to evaluate critically the rich Anglo-Saxon heritage in order to keep whatever was permanent and to get rid of whatever was accessory. He challenged his colleagues to “leave the ghetto and understand the current Latin American atmosphere with the questions it poses to our faith, its currents of thought, its challenges to the believer today.”93 For this, Escobar defined seven immediate tasks for a theological renovation: revaluation of those redeemable Hispanic elements of the culture, a rediscovery of the Reformation, an atmosphere of maturity and freedom, fight against any blocks that respond to denominational or missionary interests, give a pastoral dimension to the theological production, understand the revolution, and recovery of hope.94 Years later, evaluating this meeting, Escobar said, The papers of Amaya, Padilla, and Kirk are the expression of those convictions I consider foundational upon which to build an evangelical theology worthy of that name. The subsequent work within the Fraternidad has taken us to determine precisely and to widen some concepts, especially in the field of hermeneutics. However, I have not moved at all from the firm convictions that were expressed in there regarding the revelation, the inspiration, and the authority of the Word of God.95

After the differences of opinion and disputes, the participants decided nonetheless to go ahead and form a Fraternidad de Teólogos Latinoamericanos. For Escobar, “it was evident that there was a fundamental basis of common convictions, a deep desire for communion, stimulation, and fellowship, as well as a need for organized cooperation in

93 Samuel Escobar, “El Contenido Bíblico y el Ropaje Anglosajón en la Teología Latinoamericana,” in El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972), 31. 94 Ibid., 32–35. 95 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 66.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

101

order to promote theological reflection and its pastoral application.”96 All of that camaraderie was much needed as a safeguard against the storm that came immediately after Cochabamba. And here again, C. Peter Wagner was in the very eye of the storm. Wagner wrote an article for Christianity Today97 on the meeting in Cochabamba. After a general description of the participants with their denominational affiliation and a historical review to set the meeting in context of other conclaves, Wagner, from the twelve papers presented, chose to comment on Padilla’s. Why? Escobar found the reason in Wagner’s “impossibility to impose the use of the notion of inerrancy.”98 Wagner’s chronicle of the event almost blew the newborn FTL out of existence. For Escobar, Wagner had the clear intention to “polarize the evangelicals in the bosom of the nascent Fraternidad.”99 Among other things, Wagner said, In his position paper on authority, Padilla argued that insistence on an inerrant Bible means asking for something unavailable—since no present edition or version is free from difficulties of transmission and/or translation. The result, said Padilla, is the danger of ending up with no Bible and no authority. Exaggerated insistence on inerrancy, he added, in effect saws off the limb that supports evangelical theology. Significantly, the word “inerrant” doesn’t appear in the final declaration.100

Wagner did not quote Padilla verbatim. He was interpreting for his readers what Padilla said. Wagner also singled out from the participants what he called the “InterVarsity block,”101 which, according to Wagner, “pushed hard for a Reformed theology and a more open view of biblical inspiration.”102 The impression of the article is that the position of this “block”—“Padilla and his backers”—crashed head-on with Andrew Kirk’s “high view of inspiration.”103 Escobar interpreted such characterization of a supposed “block” as a “witch hunt.” Escobar said that, “Wagner overlooked the fact that another participant related to the same fellowship, Robinson Cavalcanty, had defended a different

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 20. Wagner, “High Theology in the Andes.” Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 21. Ibid. Wagner, “High Theology in the Andes,” 29. Those related to IFES. Wagner, “High Theology in the Andes,” 29. Ibid.

102

chapter four

thesis.”104 At the end of the article, Wagner, perhaps trying to calm the squall, commented that “no one doubted the theological orthodoxy of his colleagues.”105 Absent in Wagner’s article are the decisions for the immediate future of the FTL,106 other aspects of the final declaration, and comments on the critical attitude of the participants against Church Growth. Wagner could have also used Ismael Amaya’s paper where the same idea was presented, even in stronger terms.107 Apparently, Wagner tried to stop the article from being printed as it was. He must have perceived a problem. On this, Clyde W. Taylor commented, I am sorry that we did not get that minor change into the article in Christianity Today. Russ Chandler talked with me about it, but it was too late to do anything. I am afraid that InterVarsity at least is going to get some real kickback on this because I do not believe that people are enough theologically oriented to comprehend what the fellows are saying. To you or me, this makes sense, but to a lot of evangelicals, it surely won’t. However, the die is cast.108

The lot was against Wagner. After the article was printed, he had some explaining to do. The impression he left for his readers was that the only thing debated at Cochabamba was inerrancy, an impression far off the mark. And also, how was he going to explain the fact that his signature was on the final declaration? What was his actual position? Wagner should have been more careful with his choice of words. He should have been aware that “inerrancy” was a loaded word in the United States. It had a history of heated debates and theological warfare.109 Like Harold Lindsell explained, I will contend that embracing a doctrine of an errant Scripture will lead to disaster down the road. It will result in the loss of missionary outreach;

104

Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 25, note 55. Wagner, “High Theology in the Andes,” 29. 106 See “Special Issue: Report on Latin American Theologians,” Latin American Pulse, January 1971. 107 Ismael E. Amaya, “La Inspiración de la Biblia en la Teología Latinoamericana,” in El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972). 108 Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 109 See, for example Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1980); Ronald Youngblood, ed., Evangelicals and Inerrancy: Selections from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (1954–1979) (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). 105

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

103

it will quench missionary passion; it will lull congregations to sleep and undermine their belief in the full-orbed truth of the Bible; it will produce spiritual sloth and decay; and it will finally lead to apostasy.110

In fact, the mention of inerrancy retrieved in the memory of North Americans decades of conflict between different Christian factions. Inerrancy carried in itself a meaning for the North American readers of Christianity Today, a meaning through which they interpreted whatever happened in Cochabamba. By choosing that word, Wagner led them to a wrong conclusion. At Cochabamba there were no North American theologians with North American categories discussing the topic; they were Latin Americans with another linguistic and theological history. While in North America the issue of inerrancy was a matter of life and death, in Latin America it was unheard of, it had been never an issue, it was not even a question. In Latin America the debates on the doctrine of Scripture had been mostly with Catholic exegetes and not an intramural scuffle. It is also important to remember that “modernism never really arrived in Latin America,” which means that the theological battles in Latin America do not have their “roots in the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of past decades in the United States. North Americans often do not understand this significant historical fact.”111 Wagner also had to explain why he involved InterVarsity in the discussion. A few days after Cochabamba, Wagner was a speaker at the missions conference at the Urbana Missions Conference. Through conversations during that time, he realized his identification of some of the members of the FTL as an “InterVarsity block” was unfortunate. He tried to correct his wrong judgment in a letter to the editors of Christianity Today: Some of my friends from InterVarsity Fellowship have requested that I clarify for Christianity Today readers just was meant by the “InterVarsity bloc” in my report on the recent theological consultation held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, under the title “High Theology in the Andes” (CT, January 15, 1971). I must apologize for the fact that the expression may leave the reader with the impression that in Latin America I.F.E.S. may have taken an official position as an institution one way or the other on biblical inerrancy. This of course is not true. The I.F.E.S. workers who reinforced

110

Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 25. Orme, “The Doctrine of Social Concern,” 12. See also Escobar, “El Contenido Bíblico,” 8. 111

104

chapter four each other in the defense of a particular position at Cochabamba did so as individuals and not as representatives of their organization. Since then I have been told that, whereas the I.F.E.S. statement of faith does not include the word “inerrant,” the fact of the matter is that most of the leaders do hold to the position of inerrancy. At the same time, those who do not hold this point of view have the liberty to express a different position.112 I would hope that the Spirit of God in these days will produce a more charitable attitude in the hearts of his children toward their evangelical brethren who might differ with them on this particular detail of doctrine. [Attached note]: Russ: It would be a personal favor to me if you could get this published as a letter to the editor, since we missed getting it off the press in time.113

Writing to another person and trying to clear up the confusion he created, Wagner explained that for him those like Padilla who hold a different position “have chosen an option which does not necessarily remove them from the category of being called evangelicals.”114 I heartily defend René’s position as being a valid evangelical option while at the same time disagreeing with his unwillingness to apply the phrase “inerrant” to the Scriptures. This same tension was reflected when I sat my theological examination for admission to the faculty of Fuller Seminary. Some faculty members would agree with Padilla whereas others would agree with Kirk. All, however, are mutually esteemed as evangelicals here.115

However, the damage was done. After the article was printed, there was no way to stop the strong winds caused by immediate reactions from all corners of the theological spectrum, winds that the FTL had to withstand courageously. For example, the president of a well-known Christian college in the United States wrote, The only thing high about “High Theology in the Andes” (January 15) is the location of the meeting. I believe you report some of the saddest news of 1970. When the reputed cream of evangelical theologians from

112 For the official statement of faith of IFES see www.ifesworld.org. See also Carl F. Wisløff, “The Doctrinal Position of the I.F.E.S.,” I.F.E.S. Journal 16, no. 3 (1963). 113 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to E. Russell Chandler (Christianity Today), dated February 6, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 114 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Clyde W. Taylor dated January 22, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 115 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to C. Stacey Woods, dated April 21, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

105

a continent we have been led to believe is almost the private domain of conservative theology meets for the first time and capitulates to the “InterVarsity bloc” with its errant scripture, it is indeed sad news. Announcing that these theologians will “make theology . . . for the Latin American church,” and speaking of a “relevant theology-in-formation for our continent,” one can almost hear the cries of “gringo theological imperialism” if anyone this side of the Rio Grande questions the theology put forth at Cochabamba. Nevertheless, this decision to get rid of the offending word “inerrant” clearly puts the signers on the far side of the continental divide in theology, where the only direction is down, increasing numbers of errors admitted and theology gradually deteriorating.116

Padilla’s reaction came loud and clear. He wrote an extensive letter to the editors of the magazine where he explains why Wagner’s article was misleading. 1) There was no such thing as an “Inter-Varsity block” at the Cochabamba theological conference, December 1970. Several of those who supported my position have nothing to do with the student movement I represent and at least one who is on the staff of this movement in Latin America lined up with those who opposed my view. Furthermore, those of us who attended the conference did so on a personal basis, not as representatives of any particular organization or church. 2) The question of an inerrant Bible occupies but a fraction of my paper on the authority of Scripture (one and a half out of twenty-nine pages, to be exact). I find it difficult to understand why Wagner regards that point as representative of the whole paper and why he fails to make clear that my real objection was not to inerrancy as such, but to separating the Bible from the history of salvation, the revelation of Jesus Christ, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, in order to make inerrancy the basic issue on which the whole structure of bibliology should rest. 3) While supporting different opinions on the practical importance of insisting on the inerrancy of the Bible’s original documents, Professor Andrew Kirk and I were in full agreement with regard to most of the issues raised during the conference, notably the question of the propositional or verbal aspect of revelation. Significantly, the article

116 Letter from J. Robertson McQuilkin (President, Columbia Bible College, Columbia, South Carolina) to The Editors, Christianity Today, dated January 15, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. Most of this letter appeared in J. Robertson McQuilkin, “High Theology Low,” Christianity Today, 12 March 1971.

106

chapter four makes no mention of the united voice that Professor Kirk and I, with most of those attending the conference, raised against the exegetical acrobatics Peter Wagner engaged in for the purpose of providing a basis for his church growth theories. With reference to Dr. J. Robertson McQuilkin’s comments in his letter of January 15, may I say that my position coincides unreservedly with the statement on Holy Scripture formulated by the Westminster Divines in “The Confession of Faith” of 1647.117

Interestingly enough, the editors decided to publish the letter but left out the last paragraph.118 Padilla also wrote to Wagner, “I have read and reread your article and my conclusion is that, consciously or unconsciously, you have twisted my position in regard to the Bible, not because of personal reasons but certainly in service of sensationalism. I regret immensely that the ‘informative service’ of the Fraternidad has had such bad start, at least in English.”119 A week later, Wagner apologized.120 Padilla also sent a letter to all the members of the FTL121 presenting his protest against the tergiversation of his position. However, the conversation did not end there. The next month, Wagner sent Padilla a letter with some advice. As you can well imagine, I wish I could do the whole thing over again. If I could, I certainly would play down the question of inerrancy. At the same time, you must realize, René, that if your paper is not changed before it is published in book form, that a similar reaction will come from many reviewers. This is simply the price that anyone courageous enough to express points of view differing from those of his colleagues, especially in evangelical circles, must pay. The cost must be counted before building the tower.122

117 Letter from C. René Padilla to Harold Lindsell, dated February 9, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 118 C. René Padilla, “Highly Misleading,” Christianity Today, 7 May 1971. 119 Letter from C. René Padilla to C. Peter Wagner, dated April 12, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 120 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to C. René Padilla, dated April 20, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 121 Letter from C. René Padilla to the members of the FTL, dated April 19, 1971. Noticiero de la Fraternidad, 3, May 1971. 122 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to C. René Padilla, dated May 13, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

107

Padilla refused to budge. The printed version of his paper had the contested section without any changes.123 Wagner decided to write an “open letter” to Padilla through the news service of the FTL, in which he explained his reasoning behind the controversial article in Christianity Today.124 Wagner reassured Padilla of his unintentional mistake of involving InterVarsity in the discussion, his failed attempts to stop the printing of the article, and his subsequent letters to Christianity Today to clarify the issue, letters that for some reason were not printed in the magazine. Then Wagner explained that as a journalist he had to choose what he considered the “most significant parts” of the whole: “In my judgement what you said about inerrancy was something worthy of notice and creative, while the rest of your paper was the same thing many other theologians I have read and heard have been saying.” Wagner reminds Padilla that inerrancy was the point that provoked the most passionate and extensive debate of the whole consultation. Wagner chose that issue from Padilla’s paper thinking of his Anglo-Saxon readers. Wagner asked, “Do not all journalists have the same right?” Wagner considered the position that supports inerrancy a higher position than the one that “spread doubts about inerrancy.” However, he wanted to say in the article (although he failed to do so) that there is room within evangelicalism for both views: “Brother René, we should be open to the possibility that others misinterpret us and possible distort our points of view.” Wagner even evaluates Padilla’s critique of the Church Growth movement125 as a “misdemeanor” against him and McGavran. For Wagner the wideness of views the FTL showed in Cochabamba was absent in most of the seminaries in the United States and in Latin America. He ended his letter thusly: If we had kept silent about what happened in Cochabamba, we would have not received that criticism, which is directed to all the members of the FTL since all of us signed the document. But, should we be ostriches?

123

Padilla, “La Autoridad de la Biblia.” Carta Abierta a René Padilla para “Noticiero de la Fraternidad,” dated June 15, 1971, available at, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. This letter appeared in “Noticiero de la Fraternidad,” 4, August 1971, Cochabamba, Bolivia, with a note encouraging anyone who might want to continue the debate on the issue of inerrancy to write a paper analyzing the theme of biblical inspiration. 125 Padilla, “A Steep Climb Ahead.” 124

108

chapter four Are we not willing to take risks and to be open to being misunderstood and denounced if we consider we are pursuing a noble end? We believe we are, whatever comes our way. This mentality should characterize our relationships to those outside and our colleagues within the Fraternidad.126

Meanwhile, other people joined the dialogue. One of them was Peter Savage, who proposed that Wagner and Padilla should write papers on the topic to be sent to the members of the FTL who would react to, criticize, and evaluate them. For Savage such interchange would bring positive results. “This will help the members themselves to better understand the biblical concepts of growth.” Savage recommended this way of dealing with the differences instead of doing it in front of “an excited and sensationalist media.”127 Another person who participated in the controversy was Donald McGavran from Fuller Theological Seminary.128 McGavran was also responding to Padilla’s article in Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ). In this article, Padilla called the Church Growth movement “syncretism by accommodation,”129 among other things. The purpose of MacGavran’s letter was, as seen in a handwritten note on the top of the letter, to “bring CRP [C. René Padilla] to a same view of C. G. [Church Growth] Let us see.” Presumably this note was not on the original sent to Padilla, since it was addressed to Wagner personally. McGavran wrote in a conciliatory, irenic tone. He called Padilla, “my dear friend” and invited him to dialogue. “Our theological convictions are substantially the same. We are fighting on the same side in the battle of opinion now raging around the world. We have so many common enemies, that we should not, my dear friend, be fighting each other.” McGavran thought that Padilla misunderstood both him and the Church Growth movement. However, as MacGavran said, “It is human lot to be misunderstood.” McGavran expressed the hope that such misunderstandings could be erased “within ourselves.”130 “Let us

126 “Carta Abierta a René Padilla.” Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 127 Letter from Peter Savage to C. René Padilla, dated April 21, 1971. Noticiero de la Fraternidad, 3, May 1971. 128 Letter from Donald McGavran to C. René Padilla, dated May 24, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 129 Padilla, “A Steep Climb Ahead,” 104. 130 Letter from Donald McGavran to C. René Padilla, dated May 24, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. Emphasis in the original.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

109

talk over our disagreements between ourselves. We have the highest regard for Inter-Varsity. And you for us. And really we are very close together.” Then MacGavran explained that, Church Growth is a concept that is being of great aid to Christ’s Churches and is rejuvenating mission in many lands. If aspects of it seem dubious to you, do please write and let us know what they are. I am confident we can explain them to your satisfaction. But perhaps in the thousands of “church growth pages” written, there may be something which you think is less than correct. It would not be surprising. Some things I have written, I myself think can be improved! Do, my friend, set these out before me so I can speak directly to them. Of course, you will need to avoid what other people say McGavran has said. They have frequently misquoted me. And do see what I have written in context. The context, the main drive of the argument, so often corrects the impression of some one sentence or page.131

McGavran ended his letter telling Padilla to “feel free to discuss whatever it is in my writings that has led you to feel that ‘church growth’ is theologically unsound. Do let us talk together about it. We ought to change anything that is unbiblical.”132 McGavran’s letter shows bewilderment that anyone could possibly disagree with him. Also, he was mistaken about Padilla’s position. Even though McGavran seemed to consider Padilla an ally, they were worlds apart in their understanding of Christian mission. What can be said of this discussion between Wagner and McGavran with Padilla is that the first two were surprised by the latter’s clear articulation of his criticism and his boldness to hold his ground. Their letters were not responding to Padilla’s arguments. In the letters to Padilla from Wagner and McGavran there is no mention of Padilla’s argumentation from the New Testament, nor of his hermeneutics, nor of his sociological identification of Church Growth with capitalistic ideology. One wonders if they were really listening to what Padilla had to say. Another noticeable characteristic of this discussion is the difference in mutual perceptions. Probably subconsciously, McGavran and Wagner had the assumption that since they were from the North they were right. They still believed that a Latin American like Padilla, who received his

131

Letter from Donald McGavran to C. René Padilla, ibid. The opportunity to dialogue came later, May 31 to June 2, 1977, at the Consultation on the Homogeneous Units Principle in Pasadena, California, a gathering sponsored by the Lausanne Continuation Committee and John Stott. 132

110

chapter four

education also in the North, should agree with them theologically and ideologically. Behind their words, there was the attitude of superiority and paternalism, like the one we described in the first chapter. Even though later, in another book, Wagner seemed to recognize the influence that the criticisms of Padilla, Escobar, and Arias had on his change of mind, his critical attitude continued.133 As Escobar said, after Wagner returned to the United States, he “adopted an attitude of permanent hostility toward the FTL.”134 Surprisingly, the FTL was able to continue after such a rocky start. For Escobar there were three elements that helped the FTL to survive its first major crisis: a firm definition of the common evangelical foundation, intentional search for pertinence, and resistance of any polarization by extra-theological factors.135 There was in the FTL a common rejection of any foreign paternalism. Besides these factors, Escobar136 and Padilla give Savage the credit for continuing the efforts to keep the FTL on its tracks. In Padilla’s words, Truly, had it not been for Peter Savage, I think, the FTL would not have taken off. He was an activist of the first rank. At that time he used all his activism to lift the FTL up. He not only raised funds for the meetings, but he was also there, instigating those of us who had the task of producing something. He organized consultations, traveled, made other people interested in the FTL, found more members, even though there were no finances of any sort. He was the main promoter of the FTL. That is our great debt to him.137

Padilla put the finger on a sore spot for the FTL in its beginnings. The dust and debris from Wagner’s article had definitely left a negative impression on financial supporters. Savage had to deal with pressures from North America regarding some members of the FTL. He wrote to Clyde Taylor, Following our discussion about Cecilio Arrastia and Alfonso Lloreda, I would be grateful if you can give me articles or statements from several close colleagues that I could use to block his [sic: their?] invitation into

133 C. Peter Wagner, Church Growth and the Whole Gospel (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981), xii. 134 Escobar, “La Fundación de la Fraternidad,” 21. 135 Ibid. 136 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 65. 137 Padilla, “Interview by Author.”

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

111

the Fraternity. As was mentioned, I am in difficult ground if I turn him [them?] down with limited proof. The third man you questioned was John Stam—What do you suggest we do here?138

Were the North Americans truly ready to leave the control in Latin American hands? If judged by the correspondence, we have to answer negatively. This came out clearly during the preparations for the consultation on the Kingdom of God, which was held in Lima, Peru, December 11–17, 1972.139 The issue in question was a name that caused uneasiness and suspicion in the EFMA-IFMA circles: José Míguez Bonino. The Executive Committee of the FTL decided to invite him to present a paper in Lima. The supporters threatened to withdraw the finances if Míguez was invited.140 The power struggle was on. The intermediary between the executive committee and the supporters was Peter Savage, who stood, in his own words, “in the unenviable position of not being able to directly control ‘the happenings’ of each regional gathering and yet must receive the knocks for it. In spite of this through correspondence I am trying to maintain the Fraternity on an even keel.”141 And that was quite a job! It was like trying to stop an eagle in midair. Escobar, Padilla, Nuñez, Arana, and the others were not easy to cage. They were more like birds who enjoy flying freely. What they proposed was openness to invite “many key non-conservative scholars to our gathering so as to hear first hand their thinking.” They were not naive. They knew, firsthand, the theological pressures from the left. They all were present at CELA III and some of them had already written on the topic. However, as Padilla remembered, after Savage told the executive committee about the conditions for financial support, they met and decided that “you are not going to tell us who to invite and who not to invite. This is the FTL [emphasis on the L]. If you want to help us, we are thankful for that. We need the money, but we do not accept any conditions attached. We maintain the

138

Letter from Peter Savage to Clyde W. Taylor, dated March 21, 1971, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 1. 139 The papers of this consultation appeared in Padilla, El Reino de Dios y América Latina. 140 See the letter from Clyde W. Taylor to Peter Savage, dated January 6, 1972, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 2. 141 Letter from Peter Savage to Clyde W. Taylor, dated January 27, 1972, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 2.

112

chapter four

invitation to Míguez Bonino.”142 In his diplomatic role, Savage asked the supporters, “Do you feel that we would do untold damage if we had one or two of these men present?”143 In a subsequent letter, Savage passed on to the supporters the decision to keep the invitation to Míguez Bonino. Savage, then, presented two reasons for not blocking it: Firstly, there is a degree of maturity that has been reached in the Fraternity that will not put in danger either the individual member of his church. Rather than act a paternalistic role, I feel confident that with these exposures and the tight, pedagogical, Biblical discipline that these consultations require, most of the members of the Fraternity will have a deepened conviction of the Word of God. In this degree of liberty, I am sure that the Holy Spirit will guide them and so enrich their life and thought. Secondly, I cannot demand from the Fraternity more than the Evangelical society in the U.S.A., Tyndale Fellowship, United Kingdom, TAP-Asia, when they open their doors to visiting theologians, observers etc., who do not follow “their” line. Most of us who have belonged to these associations have benefitted from a face to face encounter with a key theologian of an opposing theological position. We are confident, however, that the donors would not use a double yardstick for some associations, while closing the doors to us. At this stage, I feel we must have the courage to stand up as a Calvin with the Word of God and face our “reality.”144

In the end, Míguez Bonino was unable to participate due to health reasons, but his paper was read at the meeting. Also, the money was given. Savage’s arguments seemed to have convinced the supporters. This case is significant since it shows the maturing process the new FTL was going through. The executive committee was ready to cut the umbilical cord and have a life on its own. Savage saw this attitude of the executive committee as “a growing son to a father, we would plea for a degree of liberty so that full maturity can be attained in the coming days.”145 However, as Escobar explained, it was not “a free antiAmericanism nor a teenager’s rebellion.”146 For Padilla, for example, an important characteristic of the FTL in its beginnings was its “theological

142

Padilla, “Interview by Author.” Letter from Peter Savage to Clyde W. Taylor, dated January 27, 1972, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 2. 144 Letter from Peter Savage to Clyde W. Taylor, dated April 3, 1972, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 2. 145 Ibid. 146 Escobar, “Heredero de la Reforma Radical,” 64. 143

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

113

pluralism.” For instance, at the consultation on the Kingdom of God in Lima, “on one hand was José Míguez Bonino known as ecumenical and related to the WCC, and on the other hand was Emilio Antonio Nuñez, a respectable figure within the conservative evangelical world.”147 Padilla interpreted that pluralism as an important direction for the FTL to follow. Samuel Ecobar, the first president of the FTL, understood this pluralism within the FTL as a “creative tension,” evident in the first two continental meetings in Cochabamba (1970) and Lima (1972). He said that in Cochabamba “it was clear that we can put ourselves under the authority of the Word of God . . . even though we were not one hundred percent in agreement over a particular theory of inspiration.” Escobar saw the same tension in other parts of the world. He mentions the unsuccessful efforts of Francis Shaeffer and Harold Lindsell “to polarize the North American evangelicals using inerrancy as the canon for orthodoxy.” Escobar identified other voices such as Carl F. Henry, Clark Pinnock, Bernard Ramm, and some professors at Fuller Seminary who “have uncovered the basic sectarianism of this position, untenable within an evangelical tradition that makes justice to the biblical truth and history.”148 Escobar said that in Lima (1972), while studying the theme of the Kingdom of God, the members of the FTL accepted the plurality of approaches to the eschatological dimension of the gospel. He said that they “were willing to walk together in spite of the different degrees in emphasis on the ‘here and now’ of the Kingdom.” Therefore, Escobar concluded, the FTL was learning how to live with a “certain measure of creative tension.”149 Openness to inclusiveness was practiced immediately after the first meeting in Cochabamba. For example, after all the dust of the discussion about the SBL in Costa Rica settled, Savage and Padilla had a personal visit with the professors there. Some professors were negative, like Osvaldo Mottesi, who said, “Look, I have a recommendation for the FTL: euthanasia.”150 But some others, like Orlando Costas, joined

147

Padilla, “Interview by Author.” Samuel Escobar, Los Primeros Seis Años de la Fraternidad. Algunas Reflexiones del Presidente en Ocasión de la Tercera Consulta Internacional (Sao Paulo, Brazil: Unpublished report-FTL, 1977), 3. 149 Ibid. 150 Stam, “Interview by Author.” 148

114

chapter four

the FTL and were present at the consultation on the Kingdom of God in Lima in 1972.151 Since then, several professors of the SBL have been active members of the FTL. Summary What, then, can be said about these first stages in the process of maturity and definition of the FTL until this point? We need to be aware that before the consultation on the Kingdom of God in Lima, the FTL already had a heavy schedule of meetings. There were four regional consultations about the “Church” in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Mexico in 1971. In April of 1972, Saphir Athyal, president of a Seminary in Yeotmal, India, visited the groups of the FTL in six countries. A consultation on “Social Ethics” was held in Lima, Peru, in July the same year.152 Were there any tangible results of such activities? A few months after the FTL officially started, Peter Savage, acting as coordinator, presented to the executive committee his first impressions on the Fraternidad. He wrote, While we desire academic excellence in all the papers we present, we are not as bold as to think that the Fraternidad is already a group of theologians who have reached the limit. I think, otherwise, that the Fraternidad should be the cradle of not only those theologians who have certain degree in excellency but also of those thinkers who are just taking the first steps towards such excellency. Therefore, the image of the Fraternity should not be of a closed group which inside its ivory tower has reached such level of excellency that nobody else can. Contrariwise, we should emphasize that the Fraternidad is a vehicle through which we could discover and encourage future thinkers.153

What Savage did not want was the formation of a “secret society,” or ghetto, that would discourage people without academic credentials to participate freely. He was envisioning a group with some thinkers of high quality forming a Fraternity “willing to listen to a Pentecostal, a Methodist, or any other who is in the process of theological forma-

151 152

Costas, “Teólogo en la Encrucijada,” 25. For the papers of this consultation, see Padilla, Fe Cristiana y Latinoamérica

Hoy. 153 Peter Savage, Memorandum #1, El Trabajo del Coordinador al Comité Deliverativo, March 19, 1971. Personal archives of C. René Padilla, General Pacheco, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

115

tion.” The Fraternidad, for Savage, should be a “vehicle for formulation of creative thinking within the Latin American context, based on the Word of God, and with open communication to the churches in Latin America.”154 In his evaluation of the first year of activities, Savage recognized the good job of the members but also pointed them to some areas that needed attention. First, he mentioned that most of the papers presented so far were the “repetition of the same cliches and slogans from the past without examining with real precision what God wants to say to our context.” Savage challenged the members to “put our feet on the ground and walk our culture’s paths, our predicament, our agonies!” His call was for pertinence, for relevance. Second, he invited those presenting papers to work hard on them, especially to research thoroughly. Savage wanted excellence. Finally, he mentioned that many people could not expend the time needed for reflection because they were “shackled” by several administrative tasks. He exhorted mission boards and churches to “take away those heavy chains that not only destroy the person but also weaken the church itself.”155 He was interested in fostering a commitment to theological reflection. Despite such needed corrections, Peter Savage believed two areas were especially affected by the different consultations: “the methodology as well as the thinking of each of the key theologians in Latin America.”156 Savage recognized that some members of the FTL have a difficult time redefining their theological positions since they “have ‘received’ their theology from their denominations and schools and some have been nurtured on vague generalisations which cannot stand in the light of serious exegesis and have experienced traumatic experiences as they rethought their doctrine.” For another group, Savage explained, the experience in the FTL meant a return to the Scripture from ISAL type theologies. All these personal experiences fit precisely into what Savage envisioned for the FTL before its inception, a “cross-fertilization of minds” that would help many, in combination with a “disciplined structured pedagogical experience in the Word of God,” to take seriously the authority of the Bible.

154

Ibid. Noticiero de la Fraternidad, 6, January 1972. 156 Letter from Peter Savage to Clyde W. Taylor, dated April 3, 1972, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 358,” Box 8, Folder 2. 155

116

chapter four Given time, we will have a group of men who are able and willing to sit under the authority of Scripture and in the discernment and liberty of the Holy Spirit face squarely not only the questionable theological currents found in Latin America, but also take a new look at the Latin culture. What we need is an association that is so creative that it will help the church live within the context of its culture, sociological stresses and strains, so that it can be an effective missionary body which God can work through. The Fraternity serves as a good forum through which both a conscientiousness of the possible acute situation in which the church may find itself if the gospel does not produce deep regeneration and touch the social as well as the ethical mores of the Christian, is awakened, and allows definite encounters with key thinkers.157

Here, Savage mentioned some of the key emphases in the theology of the FTL. First, as seen in Cochabamba, the authority of the Bible was foundational. This theme became a distinctive that differentiated the theological production of the FTL from that of the liberation theologies. For Haitian theologian, Dieueme Noelliste, while “liberation theologians approach theology as an on-going reflection whose primary ground and point of departure is the socio-political context, the Fraternity thinkers see it as a contextualized activity primarily grounded in biblical revelation.”158 Second, there was the Latin American element. The FTL was doing theology with the intention to be relevant and to address those questions that were asked by other theologies in the Latin American context. They called into question the methodology, the basic presuppositions, and the theological outcomes of ISAL. They entered into a critical dialogue with the liberation theologies that had started to appear. They dialogued frankly and boldly, without abandoning their evangelical convictions. All of these experiences gave the FTL elements for growing in maturity and theological independence. As Noelliste writes about liberation theologies and the FTL, “their contribution alters considerably Latin America’s long history of theological dependency. It can no longer be said that the Latin American church [is] completely devoid of responsible and indigenous theology.”159 The third element Savage mentioned was the relation of the FTL with the evangelical church at large in Latin America. Even though the FTL did not pretend to speak in name of the church,160 the people involved understood their theological task as part of the mission of 157 158 159 160

Ibid. Noelliste, “The Church and Human Emancipation”, 102. Ibid., 101. See Estatutos de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana, Articulo 2, c.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

117

the church for the continent. Despite the fact that they were keenly aware of the shortcomings of the evangelical church, they identified themselves unreservedly with it. The commitment to the church was expanded and analyzed in the four gatherings in 1971. The Brazilian meeting dealt with issues like the origin and nature of the church, the authority of the church, and the church after Vatican II. In Argentina the themes were the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the church, the church in the New Testament, church and society, and church and missions.161 In the meeting in Lima the speakers presented papers on worship and communion in the church, the ministry of the church, the charismatic movement and the church, and the church and revolution. The Mexican gathering discussed the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, the church and regeneration, the Latin American expression of the church and the church and ethics.162 It was clear through the intense study and discussion that the FTL sought from the beginning a clear participation within and with the evangelical church in Latin America. The expression that the FTL found is that the church is the visible manifestation of the kingdom of God until the final consummation.163 The FTL was also aware that the theological production should serve the purpose of informing the church better of its mission. They had seen the example of ISAL, which ended up stranded from the church and thereby lost relevance. For example, Pedro Arana wrote that theology “is a servant of the mission of God, the mission with which he has charged his church. It is a mission that has to do with the holistic salvation of his people, and through them with the integral welfare of the world.”164 Along the same line, C. René Padilla included the church as the recipient of the theological production of the FTL. According to Padilla, After the second consultation in Lima it is possible to affirm with solid evidence that definitely in Latin America is appearing slowly an evangelical theology, evangelical in the best sense of the word: a theology that

161 “Consulta Regional en Sao Paulo,” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 3 (1971); “La Asociación Teológica Evangélica—Buenos Aires,” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 3 (1971). 162 “Consulta Regional de la Zona Andina—Lima,” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 4 (1971); “Consulta Regional de México,” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 4 (1971). 163 For a presentation of the ecclesiology of the FTL, see chapter 5 of Noelliste, “The Church and Human Emancipation,” 166–210. Also, chapter 9 of Orme, “The Doctrine of Social Concern,” 179–207. 164 Samuel Escobar and others, “A Latin American Critique of Latin American Theology,” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983).

118

chapter four wants to be forged in a defined historical context, molded by the Word of God, and put to service in the mission of the church.165

Related to the church, the fourth element Savage mentioned was the commitment of the FTL to a social transformation through the incarnation of the gospel by the believers. As stated by Escobar in CLADE I, the relationship of the proclamation of gospel with social responsibility was a tight one.166 Both were considered to be legitimate sides of the gospel. The people of the FTL rejected any separation of them or any dualism that would determine a priority of one over the other. Therefore, they were critical of definitions of evangelism that did not include the social implications of the gospel. They were also critical of those who saw the gospel only in terms of social involvement without regard to spiritual matters. They even coined a phrase for their understanding of the gospel: “Misión Integral.”167 This has become a programmatic theology for the FTL and the many ministries and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that have been inspired by this definition of Christian life. The people who had been part of the FTL from its beginnings testify that participating in the Fraternidad has been a formative, transforming experience. Those personal notes provide for us another window into how the FTL was yielding fruit. For example, Emilio Antonio Nuñez, the oldest person at the initial meeting in Cochabamba 1970, evaluated his time in the FTL as a “fruitful dialogue that has lasted many years.”168 He said, The FTL has been one of the greatest stimuli I have had to continually force myself to reduce my deficit in the field of knowledge, specially in

165 C. René Padilla, “La Segunda Consulta de la FTL en Lima,” Boletín Teológico, no. 4 (1973): 4. 166 Escobar, “The Social Responsibility of the Church.”; idem, “Social Concern and World Evangelism,” in Christ the Liberator—Urbana 70, ed. John Stott and others (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1971); idem, “The Social Impact of the Gospel,” in Is Revolution Change? ed. Brian Griffiths (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972). 167 This expression has been translated different ways trying to express its meaning. Andrew Kirk translates it as “Holistic Mission.” Kirk, “Theology under Re-Appraisal,” 148. See also C. René Padilla, “Wholistic Mission: Evangelical and Ecumenical,” International Review of Mission 81 (1992). However, there is no adequate English equivalent for it. In more recent years, the Micah Network has adopted the transliteration “Integral Mission” with the disclaimer that it comes directly from Spanish. See www .micahnetwork.org. 168 Nuñez, “Testigo de un Nuevo Amanecer,” 107.

the fraternidad teologica latinoamericana—ftl

119

relation to theology in Latin America. Above all, it has strengthened my conviction that when it comes to the study of the Word of God and its application to the individual and to society, each point of entry is nothing more than another point of departure toward wider horizons. The FTL has truly been for me a school of theological reflection in the Latin American context. Far from causing me to abandon my evangelical convictions, it has strengthened them through the comings and goings of brotherly dialogue. I have had in the FTL the opportunity to continue learning to listen, specially those brethren who do not think like me in everything. I am in the process of learning to express the truth in love, respecting other’s opinions, and recognizing their valuable contribution they can make to the difficult task of finding, as Latin Americans, our own path to express our faith, based on the Word of God, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.169

The FTL made its entrance into the world scene at the International Congress of World Evangelization (ICOWE) in Lausanne, Switzerland, July 16–25, 1974. This Latin American contribution to the global evangelical dialogue is the theme of the next chapter. Here, suffice to say that the three-year-old FTL showed, at Lausanne, that those first efforts of theological production were going steadily in the direction toward a mature independence. Peter Savage’s activism was yielding good fruit. Latin Americans could then engage in a one on one theological dialogue on an equal footing with the rest of the world.

169

Ibid., 108. For the testimony of Orlando Costas, Rolando Gutiérrez-Cortéz, Pablo Alberto Deiros, among others, see Padilla, Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana. Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage.

CHAPTER FIVE

LATIN AMERICAN THEOLOGIANS IN INTERNATIONAL FORUMS The International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE), held at Lausanne, Switzerland, July 16–25, 1974, remains as a significant milestone in the history of evangelicalism. Its impact was worldwide. Its constituency went across racial, national, educational, and political boundaries. Its speakers came from the four corners of the world. Its effects were like tidal waves that soon reached the six continents with a strategic program, a clear message, a renewed vision, and a call for unity. ICOWE was also another forum for dialogue between Latin American theologians and their North American interlocutors. Only this time the dialogue assumed universal dimensions. This chapter examines the Latin American contribution at Lausanne and its aftermath. Again following the methodology of Rezeptionsgeschichte this examination presents the Latin American as well as the North American reception of this contribution, and how this contribution and its reception fostered the ongoing process toward maturity and independence of Latin American evangelical theology. Mexican-American missiologist Charles Van Engen viewed the context for Lausanne ’74 as a world turned upside down. Van Engen explained that, for North America, The hippies and the “flower children” had been questioning the most basic American values. The mainline denominations experienced an unprecedented exodus of members. The world that had seemed expansive in 1966 had become a global village in danger of overpopulation and pollution. The Vietnam war seriously questioned the United States’ ability to save the world. The Civil Rights movement ground to a halt after Martin Luther King was assassinated.1

1

Charles E. Van Engen, “A Broadening Vision: Forty Years of Evangelical Theology of Mission, 1946–1986,” in Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880–1980, ed. Joel A. Carpenter and Wilbert R. Shenk (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 217.

122

chapter five

Particularly for evangelicalism, Van Engen understood Lausanne as a time for redefinition and reaffirmation of evangelical theology. This process happened, Van Engen explained, in the midst of an “evangelical renaissance” and new missionary zeal. Van Engen also underscored that at Lausanne, “North American evangelicals were suddenly encountering hundreds of able evangelical leaders in the Third World churches.”2 Among these leaders were several Latin Americans, whose contributions to Lausanne require more consideration than this discussion can provide. Consequently, we will focus our attention on the contribution of two theologians, C. René Padilla and Samuel Escobar, as representatives of the maturing Latin America evangelical theology in dialogue with the rest of the world. We will argue that the impact of Padilla’s and Escobar’ s participation at ICOWE not only went beyond the borders of an inter-American conversation, but reached global dimensions and it represented a step forward in the process of maturity and independence of the evangelical theological production in Latin America. The International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) ICOWE demanded intense preparation due to the nature of its program. The plenary speakers had to submit their papers a year in advance. The papers were mailed to all the registered participants. They were expected to read them carefully and send their responses or questions to the central office in Lausanne. Then, after the speakers received the comments from all over the world, they were asked to react to them at the session instead of reading the original paper. There were also hundreds of small groups with specific topics of interest as well as regional groups where people from the same part of the world met to discuss evangelism and the problems in their area. There were meetings by country, mission-boards, fellowships, theological institutions, and other categories. There were panels on strategic issues like evangelization of Muslims, communists, Hindus, and so on. The program wanted to give every participant practical tools and encouragement to return with new ideas and an obedient heart.

2

Ibid., 218.

latin american theologians in international forums

123

Latin Americans were involved in every part of the program: Manuel Bonilla, Orlando Costas, Robinson Cavalcanti, Pablo Perez, Juan Carlos Ortiz, Luis Santiago Botero, Emilio Antonio Nuñez, and Jorge Leon among others. However, the contribution from Latin America that “really set the Congress alight,”3 was that of René Padilla’s and Samuel Escobar’s plenary papers. Rev. John A. Coleman, from Australia, a participant at Lausanne, noted that the papers presented by Padilla and Escobar “have probably been subject to more comment than all the other papers put together.”4 From the very beginning Samuel Escobar served with ICOWE as a member of the planning, organizing, and program advisory committees.5 He participated in all the planning meetings that took place before the Congress. Initially one would think that Escobar’s key involvement in these committees had something to do with his and Padilla’s visible participation. However, the program director was Paul E. Little, assistant to the president of InterVarsity in the United States. Little had been the director of several Urbana missionary conventions, which gave him organizational skills and “provided him with a unique net of contacts in the evangelical world. Little’s diplomatic experience at Urbana was the source of wise and courageous decisions at several critical moments in the Lausanne process.”6 Plenary speakers were chosen by a subcommittee Little formed. This subcommittee recommended several names for each paper. Such recommendations were distributed to several advisors around the globe who consequently expressed their support or suggested other names. If the first person recommended would not accept, the invitation would have gone to the next person on the list. In Padilla’s and Escobar’s case, they were both the first recommendation. Padilla was recommended for the biblical foundation paper “Evangelism and the World.” The purpose of the paper was,

3 Athol Gill, “Christian Social Responsibility,” in The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant, ed. C. René Padilla (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 91. 4 John A. Coleman, “Aftermath of Lausanne! Evangelism in a Changing World,” New Life, 28 August 1974. 5 For the correspondence to and from Escobar regarding his participation, see Billy Graham Center Archives, “Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE); 1974–,” (Collection 46: Wheaton), Box 30, Folder 35. 6 Samuel Escobar, “The Significance of Urbana ’90,” Missiology 19, no. 3 (1991): 335.

124

chapter five To show the difference between the world and the church in the sense in which we are called out of the world and yet into the world, in what sense this is our Father’s world, and in what sense it lies in the wicked one and belongs to Satan. It would show that the devil is at work everywhere in the world. It would discuss the whole idea of worldly Christianity as spoken of so popularly in ecumenical circles.7

Escobar was recommended for the issue strategic paper “Evangelism and Man’s Search for Freedom, Justice and Fulfillment.” Its purpose was “to show the relation of the gospel to these areas and spell out a Christian’s responsibility to society.” The content of this paper “will discuss how we respond to the theology of revolution and how a Christian is to function in the structures of society.”8 These initial descriptions of the papers hardly seem to prepare the stage for any controversy. However, Escobar and Padilla were instrumental in causing a “significant shift in Christian thinking,”9 a “coming of age for evangelicals,”10 and a “major breakthrough for evangelicals on questions of social ethics and openness in facing these issues.”11 As another participant commented, the results of Escobar’s and Padilla’s speeches “were much more deeply felt than many Western evangelical Christian leaders here could have expected.”12 Speakers at ICOWE In the opening session of the congress, Billy Graham set the tone by expressing the guidelines for the event. Among other things, Graham expected the congress to reaffirm that “our witness must be both word and deed. . . . Perhaps we will not find all the answers, but we reaffirm the fact that our words and our deeds must both reflect the Gospel.”13 Graham hoped that the congress would accomplish four goals: (1) to

7 Billy Graham Center Archives, “International Congress on World Evangelization,” (Collection 53: Wheaton), Box 3, Folder 5. 8 Ibid. 9 New Life, August 8, 1974. 10 Gerald Davis, “A Coming of Age for Evangelicals,” Church Scene, 1 August 1974. 11 Bruce Kaye, “Lausanne: An Assessment,” CWN Series, 16 August 1974. 12 Alan Nichols, “Plain Speaking on Social Issues . . .” New Life, 8 August 1974. 13 Billy Graham, “Why Lausanne,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974), 29.

latin american theologians in international forums

125

frame a biblical declaration on evangelism; (2) to challenge the church to complete the task of world evangelization; (3) to state what the relationship is between evangelism and social responsibility; and (4) to develop a global fellowship among evangelicals of all persuasions.14 The following day, John Stott recognized that “the traditions of the evangelical elders sometimes owe more to culture than to Scripture,”15 a theme that Padilla expanded upon the following day. Stott continued by including social responsibility as part of the mission of the church: Is it not in a servant role that we can find the right synthesis of evangelism and social action? For both should be authentic expressions of the service we are sent into the world to give. How then, someone may ask, are we to reconcile this concept of mission as service with the Great Commission of the risen Lord? The Great Commission neither explains, nor exhausts, nor supersedes the Great Commandment. What it does is to add to the command of neighbor-love and neighbor-service a new and urgent Christian dimension. If we truly love our neighbor we shall without doubt tell him the Good News of Jesus. But equally if we truly love our neighbor we shall not stop there. . . . True, the Gospel lacks credibility if we who preach it are interested only in souls, and have no concern about the welfare of people’s bodies, situations, and community.16

For Stott, evangelism “may and must be defined only in terms of the message,” in contrast to defining it in terms of its results and its methods. “To evangelize is not so to preach that something happens. Of course the objective is that something will happen, namely that people will respond and believe. Nevertheless, biblically speaking, to evangelize is to proclaim the Gospel, whether anything happens or not.”17 Padilla also dealt with this issue in his paper. However, clouds of disagreement appeared soon after Stott’s presentation, stemming from Donald A. McGavran from Pasadena. His definition of evangelism was contrary to Stott’s. For McGavran, evangelism meant “proclaiming Jesus Christ as God and Savior and persuading men to become his disciples and responsible members of his church.”18 14

Ibid., 34. John R. W. Stott, “The Biblical Basis of Evangelism,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974), 65. 16 Ibid., 67. 17 Ibid., 69. 18 Donald Anderson McGavran, “The Dimensions of World Evangelization,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974), 94. 15

126

chapter five

Participants at the Congress must have felt somewhat confused. In the first full day of sessions two opposite agendas were presented. These two distinct trends were also noticeable in how the speakers understood the relationship between social action and evangelism. While for Stott both were part of his definition of “mission,” for McGavran, “horizontal reconciliation of man with man is not vertical reconciliation of man with God. Social action is good; but it must neither be called evangelism nor substituted for it.”19 In his personal presentation, McGavran was more explicit than in the paper sent to the participants prior to the Congress, when answering the questions, “Can we evangelize in today’s world without vigorously engaging in social action? Can men be saved as individuals, if the social order is bad? Must not evangelism aim to change evil social structures?” MacGavran said, Of course, Christians engage in social action. Social structures, when evil, must be changed. Christians have always done this, are doing it, and always will. Ethical improvements, both personal and social, are the fruit of salvation. . . . Biblically well-instructed Christians are the world’s greatest reformers. . . . But first, my friends, you must have some Christians and some churches!! Evangelism is persuading men to accept Christ and his gift of forgiveness, new power, and new righteousness. Evangelism is not proclaiming the desirability of a liquorless world and persuading people to vote for prohibition. Evangelism is not proclaiming the desirability of sharing the wealth and persuading people to take political action to achieve it. Evangelism is something else. Evangelism is proclaiming Jesus Christ as God and only Savior and persuading men to become his disciples and responsible members of his church. That is the first and basic task. Calling people to repent and to become disciples of the Son of Righteousness is the most important political act that anyone can perform. Until politicized Christians realized that, our policies will be terribly inadequate. Once that is done, once the new Christians feed on the Divine Word, ethical improvement follows. . . . They can be, ought to be, and are being led into and indeed pushed into as much righteousness, and beneficial social change as possible.20

Thus, for McGavran, social action by Christians was secondary after evangelism (as he defined it). It was a desirable result and the consequence of evangelism, but it should not have been included as an intentional part of the mission of the church in the world. 19 20

Ibid., 96. Ibid., 109–110.

latin american theologians in international forums

127

Latin American Participation: C. René Padilla The next day, Padilla gave the only major address at the Congress. It was regarded by a journalist as “the best theological presentation of the congress.”21 According to one participant, Padilla’s “response from the podium was vibrant, prophetic, and life-giving.”22 Padilla swung the pendulum back to Stott’s position, though, in a more radical way. The opening paragraph of the paper disclosed the main thrust of it. In his paper, Padilla was interested in the “wider dimensions of the Gospel.” Ignoring and misunderstanding these dimensions, he wrote, “leads inevitably to a misunderstanding of the mission of the church.” The result is an evangelism that regards the individual as a self-contained unit—a Robinson Crusoe to whom God’s call is addressed as on an island—whose salvation takes place exclusively in terms of a relationship to God. It is not seen that the individual does not exist in isolation, and consequently that it is not possible to speak of salvation with no reference to the world of which he is part.23

Here, Padilla was building upon Stott’s terms and definitions: mission, evangelism, salvation, and particularly the relationship of the individual Christian to the world. For his starting point, Padilla used what he called the “paradox of Christian discipleship—to be in the world, but not to be of the world.”24 His paper attempted to explain what such a paradox had to do with evangelism. Padilla divided his paper into three sections. First, he explored the usage of the term “world” in the New Testament. Second, he explained “in what sense evangelism deals with a separation from the world, inasmuch as the disciples of Christ are not of the world.” Third, he developed the implications for evangelism given the fact that believers are in the world.25 In the first part, Padilla argued against both the universalistic and individualistic versions of the gospel. The former is proposed by “contemporary theologians who hold that, on the basis of the work of

21

Kaye, “Lausanne.” Alfred C. Krass, “The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant (Book Review),” Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 1, no. 1 (1977): 23. 23 C. René Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974), 116. 24 Ibid. From John 17:11. Italics in the original. 25 Ibid. 22

128

chapter five

Christ, all men have received eternal life, whatever their position before Christ.”26 The latter is the individualistic concept of redemption as “the logical consequence of an individualistic concept of sin . . . which ignores the reality of materialism, that is, the absolutization of the present age in all its offers.”27 In his conclusion to the first part, Padilla disagreed with McGavran’s proposal on two key issues. First, he stated that evangelism “cannot be reduced to a verbal communication of doctrinal content, with no reference to specific forms of man’s involvement in the world.” Second, he insisted that evangelists should not be confident in the efficiency of their methods.28 However, it was in the other two parts of his paper in which Padilla’s disagreement with McGavran’s definition of evangelism and mission became especially clear. For Padilla, the fact that worldliness had entered the life and mission of the church was seen in the adaptation of the Gospel to the “spirit of the times.” To explain this, he developed two examples, “secular Christianity” and “cultural Christianity.” Secular Christianity is the capitulation of the Gospel to secularism—“the concept that the natural world represents the totality of reality and therefore the only possible knowledge is the ‘scientific.’ ” According to Padilla, secular Christianity laid the foundation “for man to concentrate all his effort in building the earthly city, without having to concern himself with reality ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ the natural realm.”29 So far, so good. Padilla perceived no major disagreements with this part of his paper.30 Where the debate got heated and captured the attention of everyone was with Padilla’s description of cultural Christianity. He defined “cultural Christianity as “the identification of Christianity with a culture or a cultural expression.”31 For Padilla, a dominant contemporary form of cultural Christianity was the “American Way of Life.” He quoted a North American author who said, We have equated ‘Americanism’ with Christianity to such extent that we are tempted to believe that people in other cultures must adopt [North] American institutional patterns when they are converted. We are led through natural psychological processes to an unconscious belief that the

26 27 28 29 30 31

Ibid., 118. Ibid., 120. Ibid. Ibid., 124. Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” 136. Ibid., 125.

latin american theologians in international forums

129

essence of our [North] American Way of Life is basically, if not entirely, Christian.32

For Padilla, the influence of such a form of “cultural Christianity” caused the gospel in the majority of the countries of the world to be equated with the “American Way of Life.” Christianity from the United States projected an image of “a successful businessman who has found the formula for happiness, a formula he wants to share with others freely.” This kind of Christianity makes a merchandise out of the gospel in order to participate in the religious open market. Therefore, “accepting Christ is the means to reach the ideal of the ‘good life,’ at no cost. The cross has lost its offense, since it simply points to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for us, but it is not a call to discipleship.”33 To make this “product” marketable, Padilla continued, North American Christianity relied on technology: The strategy for the evangelization of the world thus becomes a question of mathematical calculation. The problem is to produce the greatest number of Christians at the least possible cost in the shortest possible time. . . . The “cultural Christianity” of our day has at its disposal the most sophisticated technological resources to propagate its message of success throughout the world and to do it efficiently! The problem with this “cultural Christianity” lies in that it reduces the Gospel to a formula for success and equates the triumph of Christ with obtaining the highest number of “conversions.” This is a man-centered Christianity that clearly shows itself to be conditioned by the “technological mentality.” . . . It is the “religious” product of a civilization in which nothing, not even man himself, escapes technology. . . . This is another form of worldliness. The manipulation of the Gospel to achieve successful results inevitably leads to slavery to the world and its powers.34

These remarks revealed the great distance between Padilla’s views and McGavran’s “Church Growth” program. For Padilla, the significance of the Gospel was put at risk in this version of “cultural Christianity.” He was aware that his message would probably be interpreted as projecting a lack of interest in the propagation of the Gospel. He asked if “the day is not close when missionary strategists employ B. F. Skinner’s ‘behavior conditioning’ and ‘Christianize’ the world through the scientific control

32 From David O. Moberg, The Great Reversal: Evangelism Versus Social Concern (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972), 42. 33 Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” 126. 34 Ibid. Italics in the original.

130

chapter five

of environmental conditions and human genetics.”35 Padilla ended this second section by saying that “only in the extent that we are free from this world . . . we are able to serve our fellow men.”36 In this way, he prepared the audience for the third part of his presentation, dealing with evangelism and Christian involvement in the world. In this third part Padilla included the social dimensions of the gospel. For Padilla, the gospel implied a call to repentance. Repentance meant “not merely a bad conscience, but a change of attitude, a restructuring of one’s scale of values, a reorientation of the whole personality. Repentance is more than a private affair between the individual and God. It is the complete reorientation of life in the world—among men—in response to the work of God in Jesus Christ.”37 Ignoring this call to repentance, according to Padilla, had crucial consequences for the gospel. For him, taking this call to repentance seriously meant also taking God and the world seriously. Consequently, “the Gospel is not a call to social quietism. Its goal is not to take a man out of the world, but to put him into it, no longer as a slave but as a son of God and a member of the body of Christ.”38 Related to repentance was salvation, another important term for Padilla. He defined it as man’s return to God as well as to his neighbor. Padilla identified two extremes regarding salvation and interpreted both extremes as misunderstandings of the gospel and of biblical soteriology. The first one, of “secular Christianity,” leaves salvation in the hands of men. As a result, “eschatology is absorbed by the Utopia and the Christian hope becomes confused with the worldly hope proclaimed by Marxism.”39 The second extreme, defines salvation solely in terms of “the future salvation of the soul.” In this case, “religion becomes an escape from present reality,” resulting in a “total withdrawal from the problems of society.”40 After an analysis of Jesus’ ministry—which included kerygma, diaconia, and didache—Padilla concluded that the New Testament “knows nothing of a Gospel that makes a divorce between soteriology and ethics, between communion with God and communion with one’s neighbor, between faith and works.”41 He said, 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Ibid., 127. Ibid. Ibid., 129. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 131.

latin american theologians in international forums

131

In the light of the biblical teaching there is no place for an “otherworldliness” that does not result in the Christian’s commitment to his neighbor, rooted in the Gospel. There is no room for “eschatological paralysis” nor for “social strike.” There is no place for statistics of “how many souls die without Christ every minute,” if they do not take into account how many of those who die, die victims of hunger. There is no place for evangelism that, as it goes by the man who was assaulted by thieves on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, sees in him only a soul that must be saved and ignores the man.42

Padilla’s emphasis received the objection that the call to repentance was not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel. The objectors argued that Jesus called the Jews to repent but after they rejected him he offered salvation by grace to everyone. The argument was that when “we come to the preaching of the Gospel in the Gentile world, the emphasis is on faith not on repentance.”43 For some, Padilla was negating the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone and confusing it with salvation by works. Padilla disagreed with these criticisms. In his public answer, Padilla explained: It is true that the words “repentance” or “repent” are not commonly found in the Pauline epistles (cf. Rom. 2:4, II Cor. 7:9, II Tim. 2:25). This must not lead us, however, to contrast his emphasis on justification by faith with Jesus’ call to repentance. No more can justification be separated from regeneration than forgiveness from repentance. For Paul, as well as for all the writers of the New Testament, the God who justifies or forgives is also the God who delivers from slavery to sin.44

For Padilla, there was a direct correlation between the message and the messenger. He came to this conclusion after his analysis of Jesus’ ministry. In Padilla’s words, “The first condition for genuine evangelism is the crucifixion of the evangelist. Without it the Gospel becomes empty talk and evangelism becomes proselytism.”45 At the end of his paper, Padilla called the church to take seriously the mission given to her, “the building of a new humanity . . . a mission that can be performed only through sacrifice.”46 Padilla’s paper and presentation provoked several reactions, especially his definition of “cultural Christianity” and his identification of it with 42 43 44 45 46

Ibid. Ibid., 141. Ibid., 142. Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” 132. Ibid.

132

chapter five

the “[North] American Way of Life.”47 A British journalist commented that even though Padilla was asked to present in Spanish, forcing the great majority of participants to use simultaneous translation, and therefore reducing the impact, “it still brought him the longest round of applause accorded to any speaker up to that time, even though several people thought Cliff Barrows brought the clapping to an end prematurely–no doubt an innocent enough action, but one which some construed to have deep political overtones!”48 After his presentation, Padilla “became, to the press, the enfant terrible of the Congress.”49 For some people, Padilla’s paper was an overstatement; for others it was an understatement. For some, his criticism of North American Christianity did not go far enough, while for others it was “such a caricature as to create static that cannot but block the transmission of many insights which people attending the conference will need.”50 North Americans shunned him; people from the Third World countries hugged and congratulated him because they felt represented by what he said.51 Some even attributed Padilla’s critical appraisal of North American Christianity to supposed conflicts with his North American wife!52 Padilla lost a few dear North American friends. They did not talk to him again.53 Before discussing Escobar’s paper and presentation, it is relevant to talk about what Michael Green said regarding the relationship between evangelism and social action. Michael Green was the principal of St. John’s College in Nottingham, England. The topic of his paper was “Methods and Strategy in the Evangelism of the Early Church.”54 In the paper sent beforehand to the participants, Green was not as explicit as he was in his presentation at the congress. In Lausanne, Green warned of two dangers in evangelism. First, he mentioned the danger of triumphalism, which produced a preoccupation with numbers, and evangelists who become “arrogant, self-confident in our strategies and 47

Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” 134–146. John Capon, “Let the Earth Hear Whose Voice?” Crusade, September 1974, 26. 49 Krass, “The New Face of Evangelicalism,” 23. 50 Padilla, “Evangelism and the World,” 136. 51 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 52 Billy Graham Center Archives, “Interviews with Carlos Rene Padilla,” (Collection 361: Wheaton), T3. 53 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 54 Michael Green, “Methods and Strategy in the Evangelism of the Early Church,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975). 48

latin american theologians in international forums

133

techniques.”55 The second danger was that of isolating evangelism. What Green meant was the separation of evangelism and social action: It is not enough to say that social action should be the fruit of Gospel preaching: sometimes it is not, as Latin America knows all too well. But in a profound sense the church’s social concern, worship, and fellowship either demonstrate or deny the message that is preached. We cannot escape from the fact that the church is itself part of the kerygma. The Good News of the Kingdom was both preached by Jesus and embodied by him. Both were essential. Neither was secondary. So it must be with us. Our life-style, our attitudes, our concern for the sick and the suffering, the under-privileged and the hungry, either confirm or deny the message of salvation, of wholeness, which we proclaim. Let us beware of separating proclamation from life. Remember that the church is the sign of God’s Kingdom in our world, not just the body of folk to talk about it!56

Green endorsed and reinforced the ideas presented by Padilla. However, right after Green’s speech George W. Peters from Dallas Theological Seminary dismissed social action as “a vague and ‘hidden’ concept [that] may mean many different things to many different people. It must be admitted that it is our extra-biblical word.”57 Peters proposed to use the word “service” instead, while at the same time he warned that in relationship to evangelization, “it may be difficult and even unwise to separate them too rigidly; to fuse them conceptually is biblically unwarranted, historically disadvantageous, and practically confusing.”58 It must have been confusing for the participants who heard, one after the other, two opposite messages on the topic. Latin American Participation: Samuel Escobar When the time came for Samuel Escobar’s presentation, the theme of evangelism and social action was being ardently discussed.59 The paper distributed before the congress was quite explicit on the topic. Escobar’s speech was expected to be “the coup de grace on the social

55

Ibid., 174. Ibid., 176. 57 George W. Peters, “Contemporary Practices of Evangelism,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), 200. 58 Ibid. 59 Nichols, “Plain Speaking on Social Issues.” 56

134

chapter five

involvement issue, building on the foundation carefully laid by Stott, Padilla and Green.”60 From the first paragraphs, Escobar set the tone for the rest of his paper. For him, the realities of “overpopulation, hunger, oppression, war, torture, violence, pollution, and the extreme forms of wealth and poverty”61 were closely related to an evangelism concerned with the whole world. For example, If we put together the growing imbalance of development and affluence in the world, with the past relationship between the “Christian” Western powers and the missionary enterprise to the Third World, we can understand why the suspicion that the whole task of evangelization in its three dimensions is only an “imperialistic plot,” a Western way of manipulating people. It would be like selling opiate to keep the masses of the Third World quiet in the midst of their misery and suffering.62

For Escobar, evangelicals had shared two main attitudes. The first was a commitment to Western ideals, or “to make Christianity the official ideology of the West.” He explain this attitude as a reaction to the Marxist ideology in the “so-called Communist world.”63 The second was an attitude of indifference that says that since the “Gospel is a spiritual message it has nothing to say about social problems.” For Escobar, the implication in this second attitude was that “the social behavior of the convert is not vitally and visibly affected by the message.”64 However, Escobar saw a “rediscovery of the social dimensions of the Gospel” during and after the Berlin Congress on Evangelism of 1966. Escobar presented a close relationship between the message and the life of the messenger. He said that to “emphasize the communication of the message at the expense of the qualities that must characterize the messengers is not a biblical pattern.”65 For Escobar, the danger was to separate the message of the Gospel from its ethical demands. It constituted a betrayal to the very identity of the message, since “spirituality without discipleship in the daily social, economic, and political aspects of life is religiosity and not Christianity.”66 He challenged the Congress

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Capon, “Let the Earth Hear Whose Voice?” 29. Escobar, “Evangelism and Man’s Search,” 303. Ibid., 304. Ibid., 305. Ibid. Ibid., 309. Ibid., 310.

latin american theologians in international forums

135

to “get rid of the false notion that concern for the social implications of the Gospel and the social dimensions of witnessing comes from false doctrine or lack of evangelical conviction.”67 At the end of his paper, Escobar became even more explicit. He directed his plea specifically to Christians in the affluent West. Including himself, he said that if “as evangelicals we rejected the liberal adaptation of the Gospel to the rationalism of the nineteenth century, we should also reject the adaptation of the Gospel to the social conformism or conservatism of the middle class citizen in the powerful West.”68 Escobar’s paper elicited more than 1,000 responses.69 Some pointed out that evangelicals were involved in several ways in order to meet the basic needs of the people. Escobar acknowledged this and named ten cases where missionaries or nationals were in the service of the Kingdom. However, Escobar mentioned that some of those people “have been criticized and told that they should abandon their efforts for the pursuit only of numerical growth of congregations. I hope they will not believe that such is the official position of the Congress.”70 The last comment was probably directed not only to the participants but also, and specially, to the proponents of the Church Growth school. The biblical model of evangelism, said Escobar, was the new community created by Jesus, a community that “has a revolutionary effect in changing a society.” Escobar mentioned as examples what Paul, in the New Testament, and John Wesley, in England, did against slavery. However, Escobar was careful about leaving no doubts about his evangelical convictions. Escobar recognized that “simple liberation from human masters is not the freedom of which the Gospel speaks.” Rather, Escobar defined Christian freedom as “subjection to Jesus Christ as Lord, deliverance from bondage to sin and Satan and consequently the beginning of new life under the Law of Christ, life in the family of the faith where the old human master becomes also the new brother in Christ.”71 Yet, he added, “the heart which has been made free with the freedom of Christ cannot be indifferent to the human longings for deliverance from economic, political or social oppression.”72

67 68 69 70 71 72

Ibid., 311. Ibid., 317. Davis, “A Coming of Age for Evangelicals.” Escobar, “Evangelism and Man’s Search,” 320. Ibid., 322. Ibid.

136

chapter five

Other responses called Escobar’s attention to “the danger that if we concentrate on working out the social implications of the Gospel, we will forget evangelism, and that history proves that fact.”73 He explicitly disagreed with such statement. For him, the social gospel had a bad theology, but at the same time, those with the right theology did not apply it to social issues. Some responses mentioned that not only the powerful Western nations were responsible for all the oppression and injustices in the world. There were also internal forces in each country to blame. Even though Escobar agreed with this idea, he found in it a springboard to warn Christians in the Western nations that the freedom they had and the “possibility of intelligent participation at decision-making levels,” could one day be taken from them. He warned that “it was in those countries where Christians as a majority aligned themselves with the powerful or else refused to let their influence be felt in a transforming way upon the masses, that violent revolution finally became the only political alternative.”74 Escobar’s comments were underscored by Francis Schaeffer’s presentation the next day. Schaeffer described a “platonic element” in some evangelical circles. This Platonism, according to Schaeffer, led many to act “as if giving to missions is spiritual but using our accumulated wealth for man’s needs, including the needs of our brothers in Christ, is not as spiritual. There is nothing like that in the New Testament.”75 For Schaeffer, the lack of compassion in the use of accumulated wealth constituted a strong hindrance to the preaching of the gospel, especially among youth. Schaeffer ended his presentation by calling the church to become a “community which touches the whole spectrum of men and the whole spectrum of life.”76 Radical Discipleship and the Response to Lausanne On Sunday afternoon, the day before Escobar spoke at the plenary session, an unprogrammed meeting took place to discuss the issue of radical discipleship.77 The idea for such impromptu gathering came out 73

Ibid., 324. Ibid., 326. 75 Francis A. Schaeffer, “Form and Freedom in the Church,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), 365. 76 Ibid., 367. 77 Tapes available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 53,” T180, 181, 182, 183, and 184. 74

latin american theologians in international forums

137

of the discussion on the Lausanne covenant.78 Samuel Escobar was a member of the drafting committee.79 There was strong pressure from the more conservative camps to leave the radical paragraphs out of the covenant. Therefore, Athol Gill from Australia, John H. Yoder, Samuel Escobar, René Padilla, and others decided to convoke an open meeting to discuss the topic.80 It turned out to be such an important theme that more than 500 people gave up their free time to participate. Even though there were short presentations by the conveners, most of the time was spent in open discussions with the audience. The meeting was moderated by an Australian, and most of the talking was done by Britons, other Europeans, Asians, Latin Americans, and people from the South Pacific including New Zealanders and Australians. Even Os Guinness had a lengthy intervention from the floor.81 In the opening remarks on the biblical understanding of radical discipleship, Athol Gill explained that for him there was no biblical separation of the spiritual from the practical aspects of Christian life. Padilla emphasized and expanded some of the main points of his previous plenary presentation. Following Gill’s conclusions, Padilla said that what the church needed was not only the right theology but a more faithful obedience to the gospel. Theology, he explained, had significance for practical life. In that way, discipleship should be understood as a total commitment to Jesus Christ in practical life. For Padilla, Christian and biblical discipleship should be drawn from good doctrine, especially from the areas of eschatology, ecclesiology, and ethics.82 Even though Padilla agreed that the spiritual and the practical sides of discipleship could be separated for the sake of understanding, in everyday life they are inseparable. “I cannot be a Christian unless I am a practical Christian.”83 Padilla then concluded by saying that what he proposed at

78 For a brief explanation of the process for the Lausanne Covenant see John R. W. Stott, The Lausanne Covenant: An Exposition and Commentary (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), 1. Also C. René Padilla, ed., The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 10. 79 The other members were John Stott, James D. Douglas, Leighton Ford, and Hudson Armerding. 80 Samuel Escobar, “Interview by Author,” (Wheaton: 29 September 2003). 81 Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 53,” T184. 82 Ibid., T180. 83 Ibid., T181.

138

chapter five

the congress was to reduce the breach between doctrine and practice, between “Sunday Christianity” and everyday faith.84 Escobar’s participation at the radical discipleship meeting was in tune with the preceding ones. For Escobar, the notion that ethics would follow the preaching of the gospel was wrong. Escobar recognized that wherever the gospel goes, it will change society. For him the church was the evangelistic community par excellence, only that it should be a community of people who incarnate the message.85 Athol Gill proposed the idea that Lausanne should have been a forum to repent from the lack of compassion and from pride, and overall to repent from preaching a mutilated gospel.86 This idea of repentance started to resonate, and soon those present began to talk about writing some sort of a declaration to present its main conclusions to the organizers of the congress. The document A Response to Lausanne was distributed to all the participants of the congress.87 It was an intense and polemical document that made many evangelicals “uneasy and even angry.”88 However, Padilla interprets the willingness of almost five hundred participants to sign the Response as “the strongest statement on the basis of holistic mission ever formulated by an evangelical conference up to this date.”89 John Stott announced in a plenary session that the Response was in no way a competing covenant and that he personally had read it and would gladly sign it. With Stott’s carte blanche the Response was attached to the final covenant.90 Stott was not the only main figure that approved the Response to Lausanne. Executive Chairman, Bishop Jack Dain, evaluated the whole initiative of the radical discipleship gathering in positive terms. For Dain, the significance was “the presence in the congress of a substantial minority mainly of younger men and women who sincerely desire a 84

Ibid. Ibid., T182. 86 Ibid. 87 “Theology Implications of Radical Discipleship,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland (Official Reference Volume: Papers and Responses), ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975). See Appendix 3. 88 Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission”, 164. 89 C. René Padilla, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility from Wheaton ‘66 to Wheaton ‘83,” in How Evangelicals Endorsed Social Responsibility (Texts on Evangelical Social Ethics 1974–83 (ii)-a Commentary), ed. C. René Padilla and Chris Sugden (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1985), 29. 90 C. René Padilla, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility: From Wheaton ’66 to Wheaton ’83,” Transformation 2, no. 3 (1985): 29. 85

latin american theologians in international forums

139

more radical type of Christian discipleship.” Dain described the meeting as a “healthy development” and “a sign of maturity.” Bishop Dain added, I believe the congress, on the other hand, was far more radical than any other world congress of evangelicals that has ever been held. I must be frank that I have received quite a little criticism from the other side, who were deeply concerned and disturbed over this. I personally recognise that a minority of people in the congress wanted to go further in the direction of radical discipleship, but I think I would have to say that I do not believe the congress was ready to go further.91

However, contrary to Dain’s comment, the congress moved quite a bit, especially in two areas. First, there was a significant change in its goals. According to the pre-congress brochure, the main purpose of the ICOWE was “to launch a new thrust to complete the evangelization of the world in our century.” Padilla commented that for those going to Lausanne “with this type of expectation, the Congress was obviously a disappointment.”92 As a British newspaper noted, this “goal was abandoned early in the congress. Canon Michael Green and Dr René Padilla were two of the critics of a strategic program.”93 This was a significant move. Lausanne, in contrast with Berlin ’66, was to be a pragmatic congress. “Evangelism” was defined in Berlin, therefore, Lausanne was the time to work on “evangelization.”94 The program showed this practical emphasis in methods and results. The second area where the Congress moved significantly was in the redaction of the section on social responsibility in the Lausanne Covenant. The first draft included one sentence on the topic in section 7: “Christian Social Responsibility: We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men and that we should therefore be concerned for justice throughout human society.”95 In the final covenant this became section 5, and it was totally rewritten and expanded:

91 Interview by Bruce Kaye, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 32, Folder 32. 92 Padilla, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility,” 29. 93 “Young Radicals Make Lausanne ’74 a Milestone for Evangelicals,” Church Scene (National Anglican Newspaper), 15 August 1974. Available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 32, Folder 33. 94 See the comments of the Executive Chairman Jack Dain in (LCWE) Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, The Lausanne Story: “The Whole Church Taking the Gospel to the Whole World.” (Charlotte, NC: LCWE, 1987), 13. 95 Available at Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 32, Folder 38.

140

chapter five We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men from every kind of oppression. Because mankind is made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, color, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with man is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbor and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.96

For James A. Scherer, a Lutheran observer, Article 5 of the covenant was indicative of a new direction of evangelicalism. That new direction was expressed as a “prophetic consciousness” of the Lausanne movement. “This paragraph introduces the language of justice and reconciliation in human society and liberation from oppression into the heretofore detached and individualistic rhetoric of evangelicalism. It is here that the evangelical movement reaches a turning point.”97 According to Padilla, section 5 of the covenant implied that social involvement had “finally been granted full citizenship in evangelical missiology.”98 Athol Gill proposed that also sections 4 and 9 of the covenant were influenced in the same way: “The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his church and responsible service in the world (section 4). Those of us who live in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple life-style in order to contribute more generously to both relief and evangelism (section 9).”99

96

Douglas, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 4–5. Italics in the original. James A. Scherer, Gospel, Church, and Kingdom: Comparative Studies in World Mission Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1987), 173. 98 Padilla, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility,” 29. 99 Gill, “Christian Social Responsibility,” 271, note 211. 97

latin american theologians in international forums

141

Latin Americans, particularly Padilla and Escobar, were instrumental in both changes. They were at the forefront of the discussions and made their ideas heard. The results were expressed by Singaporean Chua Wee Hian: Pax Americana has reached its zenith and is now in a state of rapid decline. The bubbles of triumphalism of North American “success Christianity” have been pricked and deflated at Lausanne. We hope that there will be genuine repentance. I personally think there will be a new and better understanding between us and our American brethren in the postVietnam and post-Watergate era.100

However, there were those participants who presented a different view. For example, commenting on Escobar’s paper and presentation, Australian journalist Gerald Davis wrote that they “were not received in all quarters with enthusiastic applause.” For Davis it was “clear that Mr. Escobar has articulated a view warmly applauded by most of the third world’s evangelicals, and large numbers in Australia, NZ, South Africa, and some other places.” But Davis noticed a different attitude too. For him, “distress noises from North America in particular, and much of Europe to some degree, make it clear the world’s evangelicals at the moment are not agreed on involvement in social issues.”101

100 Letter from Chua Wee Hian to C. René Padilla, dated May 13, 1975, Padilla’s personal archives-Buenos Aires. 101 Davis, “A Coming of Age for Evangelicals.” In fact, the discussion on the relationship between evangelism and social involvement went on after Lausanne, so much so that a consultation on the subject was needed and finally held in 1982 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (LCWE) Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Grand Rapids Report: Evangelism and Social Responsibility: An Evangelical Commitment, Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 21 (Wheaton: LCWE and WEF, 1982). According to John Stott, this consultation was “triggered by the publication of Arthur Johnston’s book The Battle for World Evangelization, in which he traced the decline in the World Council of Churches commitment to biblical authority and Christian mission, warned that in his opinion Lausanne was going the same way as Geneva, and named me as the chief culprit!” John R. W. Stott, “Twenty Years after Lausanne: Some Personal Reflections,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 19, no. 2 (1995): 51. For a brief summary of the conclusions of this consultation, see John R. Reid, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility,” in The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement, ed. Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wilson (Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984). For a Latin American perspective, see Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission”, 199–222.

142

chapter five North American Reception of Padilla’s and Escobar’s Participation at ICOWE

As it could be expected, North Americans reacted to Padilla’s and Escobar’s presentations. We do not have the space here to deal with all of the reactions that were printed. We are choosing instead to concentrate on the perceptions of those North Americans who had a previous knowledge of the conditions within Latin America; they were also influential leaders in North America, whose opinions were taken seriously by their constituencies. Regarding the discussion on the relationship between evangelism and social responsibility, in his memoirs, Carl Henry remembered that in Lausanne “discordant voices were struck.”102 For Henry the differences were reflected in those, like Donald McGavran, who stressed “the primacy of evangelism in terms of personal regeneration,” and the “champions of ‘radical discipleship’ like Samuel Escobar and René Padilla [who] underscored repentance from social sins and the need to call for a changed socio-political order.”103 Henry evaluated as confusing the insistence of the Latin Americans that the church must be in the forefront of socio-economic change, because it “left unsure, however, whether the prospect of present political liberation is an integral facet of the gospel. Nor did they clarify how the life and example of Jesus actually rather than symbolically undergirds such a view.”104 Henry’s opinion on the result of ICOWE was as follows, Consequently the gathering postponed rather than resolved the conflicts and ambiguities in contemporary evangelicalism over the Church’s sociopolitical involvement; ten years after Lausanne American evangelicals were still trying to resolve evangelism/social action issues. Moreover, the Covenant reflected a bias toward the visible institutional Church as the center of God’s world purpose more than the spiritual body of regenerate believers.105

Immediately after Lausanne ’74, Henry recognized that ICOWE linked evangelism and social concern more tightly than Berlin ’66. However, for him, the final draft of the Lausanne Covenant was “still too imprecise

102 Carl F. H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian: An Autobiography (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1986), 349. 103 Ibid., 350. 104 Ibid., 349. 105 Ibid., 350.

latin american theologians in international forums

143

to foster significant ecumenical dialogue and too bland to be biblically adequate.”106 The result of such imprecision, according to Henry, was a lack of clear definition if “social concern, while grounded in God’s creation of man and the world, is a legitimate aspect of—and not simply compatible with and supplementary to—evangelism.”107 Henry had also an opinion about the “radical discipleship” gathering: The “response to Lausanne” signed by the self-proclaimed champions of “radical discipleship” had the merit of identifying the evangel as the “good news of liberation, of restoration, of wholeness, and of salvation that is personal, social, global and cosmic.” Had they not insisted on doing their own thing, had they been a little more social, the “radical disciples” would have found the subsection on “Evangelization and Personal and Society Ethics” contending for much the same emphasis.108

Henry’s comments are difficult to understand in light of the paper he presented at Lausanne.109 In his paper, Henry said that “Christians are duty-bound to exemplify and to promote social justice.”110 Henry listed among the hindrances and obstacles to Christian evangelism the “failure to relate the Christian good news to the material poverty, economic exploitation, and political oppression of masses of people.”111 Regarding the reaction of North Americans to the criticisms of cultural-Christianity, Henry commented, Some Americans at Lausanne remarked that it will be time enough to listen to such complaints about evangelical cultural entrapment when Latin Americans put their own house in order. But that response is disappointingly evasive. American evangelicals must learn the importance of social and political criticism at home, even if the reminder emanates from outsiders who seem most ferocious when leveling criticism at situations other than their own.112

Henry’s assessment provides us a small window into the heart of the debate at Lausanne and the difficulty of the topic. It was not that the 106 Carl F. H. Henry, “The Gospel and Society,” Christianity Today, 13 September 1974, 1365. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Carl F. H. Henry, “Christian Personal and Social Ethics in Relation to Racism, Poverty, War, and Other Problems,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975). 110 Ibid., 1164. 111 Ibid., 1168. 112 Henry, “The Gospel and Society,” 1364.

144

chapter five

Latin Americans were not explicit enough, or that the participants of the “radical discipleship” ad-hoc committee presented an unclear challenge to the congress. It was rather that, as Bishop Dain evaluated, the congress was not ready yet for such a move. The reasons for this reticence for action were more historical than theological. As Stott explained, evangelicals in the twentieth century tended to separate evangelism from social concern “partly because of our reaction against the ‘social gospel’ of liberal optimism.”113 As seen in Carl Henry’s comments, differences in the perception of Lausanne during the congress were not solved by the final covenant, nor by the formation of a continuation committee, LCWE . After the curtains of ICOWE closed, those different perceptions of Lausanne continued. For example, another prominent North American figure, Harold Lindsell, editor of Christianity Today, had similar concerns to Henry’s. According to Lindsell, Lausanne defined the mission of the church as “the evangelization of the world.”114 From the beginning, Lindsell’s understanding differed from Stott’s, Padilla’s, Escobar’s, Green’s, and other plenary presentations. For Lindsell, even though social action was debated again and again at ICOWE, it “was not put on the same plane with the proclamation of the Gospel, nor was it given standing as a substitute for the Gospel.”115 Lindsell showed caution while commenting specifically on Escobar and Padilla. For Lindsell, Escobar “stressed the relation between evangelism and social evils and said that the Christian calling compels Christ’s followers to become involved in the fight for social change, in the overturning of the status quo.”116 This was Lindsell’s interpretation of what Escobar said; he was not quoting verbatim. Lindsell’s summary of Escobar’s ideas might have led the readers to false conclusions. Escobar was careful in avoiding any kind of endorsement of violence and revolutionary coup d’état. Furthermore, for Lindsell, Escobar had an incomplete list of social evils: “Absent from Escobar’s catalogue of social evils were some solidly entrenched ones that cause untold physical and spiritual debasement: alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and pornography.”117

113

Stott, The Lausanne Covenant, 25. Harold Lindsell, “Lausanne 74: An Appraisal,” Christianity Today, 13 September 1974, 1328. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid., 1329. 117 Ibid. 114

latin american theologians in international forums

145

On Padilla, Lindsell mentioned that Time magazine quoted him “to emphasize the point that Lausanne took social action seriously but not in the way that the ecumenical movement does.” Lindsell concluded, therefore, that Lausanne’s stance on social action did not mean a detraction from “the priority of gospel proclamation.”118 Peter Wagner also evaluated ICOWE.119 He started his evaluation making a disclaimer: “I am among those who all along have understood the phrase ‘world evangelization’ in its narrowest and most literal sense. . . . Those who have understood the congress differently will, of course, evaluate it with other frames of reference.”120 Wagner used a military analogy to explain what he saw at the congress. For him, three torpedoes were fired in order to “destroy the central evangelistic nature of the congress.” The first torpedo Wagner described was “an attempt to confuse evangelism with social action.”121 Wagner explained, Not only did the Lausanne program build on what I consider a disproportionate emphasis on social aspects of the Christian mission for a congress “on World Evangelization,” but many influential media reports even exaggerated this, thereby diluting the evangelistic component. It seemed that to some of the reporters it must have been to hear evangelicals expressing social concern, and in many cases social issues, rather than evangelism, made the headlines.122

John Stott’s favorable position regarding the Response to Lausanne, was interpreted by Wagner as a shrewd move “in order to prevent chaos from breaking loose in the plenary session.”123 Wagner described the second torpedo as “an attempt to confuse evangelism with Christian cooperation.”124 This torpedo, Wagner said, was fired by those who “are inclined to postulate a cause-and-effect relation between cooperation and evangelism.” Wagner, as in the first torpedo, blamed the press for this because “setting Lausanne as a worldwide competitor to the World Council of Churches became a favorite angle of some journalists.”125

118 119

Ibid. C. Peter Wagner, “Lausanne Twelve Months Later,” Christianity Today, 4 July

1975. 120 121 122 123 124 125

Ibid., 961. Ibid. Italics in the original. Ibid., 962. Ibid. Ibid. Italics in the original. Ibid.

146

chapter five

According to Wagner, the third torpedo fired against evangelization at Lausanne was “an attempt to confuse evangelism with Christian nurture.”126 The problem was, as Wagner understood it, that “in some cases Christian growth was stressed so strongly at Lausanne that it gained precedence over winning lost men and women to the Christian faith.” Here Wagner identified more precisely where the torpedo came from: Padilla, the only Third World speaker mentioned by Time magazine “those whose primary ministry places them with university students and better educated people, reinforced this emphasis.”127 What became clear in Wagner’s reference to “torpedoes” was his evident discomfort with the direction the congress went. Wagner was relieved that none of the three torpedoes hit. For him the Lausanne Covenant left things clear. In reaction to the first torpedo, “Lausanne avoided the danger of ascribing soteriological significance to political involvement.” Regarding the second torpedo, “evangelism and cooperation were not unduly confused.” In response to the last one, the Covenant “did not go to assert that Christian nurture or growth in discipleship, when rigidly achieved, will invariably promote more effective evangelism, and that as a result the quantity of Christians and Christian churches will increase worldwide.”128 For Wagner, ICOWE’s positive results were evident in three areas. The first was “a new awareness of the amazing progress of world evangelization to date. Just to experience Lausanne was enough to impart a new God-inspired optimism to the discouraged and to give a fresh measure of courage to the fainthearted.”129 The second positive consequence was “a new awareness of the challenge ahead . . . 2.7 billion people of the world who have not yet heard of Jesus.” To Wagner, the third positive consequence of the congress was “a new awareness of the complexity of the task.”130 Wagner concluded: Now that the dust of Lausanne has cleared, I would like to argue that there is no more important fact for the planning of a strategy for world evangelization than the statistical discovery that a full 80 per cent of the world’s unreached peoples cannot be adequately evangelized by their Christian near neighbors.

126 127 128 129 130

Ibid. Italics in the original. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 963. Ibid. Italics in the original.

latin american theologians in international forums

147

One direct result of this is to contradict any thought that the age of cross-cultural missions is over. No longer may we rather complacently say that since churches now exist in every land the natives can finish the job of evangelization. More, not fewer, missionaries are and will be needed, although we must not make the mistake any longer of equating “missionaries” with “Westerners.” Missionaries from the Third World as well as those from the Western nations will staff God’s future labor force for the unreaped harvest fields.131

Absent in Henry’s, Lindsell’s, and Wagner’s evaluation was the spirit of repentance that other participants felt as characteristic of the Congress. They did not mention either that the Lausanne Covenant with its explicit link of evangelism and social concern was signed by the great majority of participants. One can only assume that they also signed the Covenant, since they continued their involvement in the continuation committee immediately after Lausanne. If this assumption is true, their reception and interpretation of the Covenant provides us with an example of a North American reception of Lausanne ’74. They illustrated in their perception of Lausanne ’74 the attitude of triumphalism and pragmatism that Padilla, Escobar, and other speakers alluded to.132 In contrast, Jack Dain and Billy Graham’s evaluation of ICOWE maintained a balance between the different aspects of the gathering. They wrote, To those who were in there, Lausanne ’74 was un unforgettable experience. God called us to repentance for our failures and lack of vision. He encouraged us through a heightened awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit in fruitful evangelization all over the world. He sobered us and called us to prayer as we considered the hard places of the world and the many yet unreached with the Gospel. He enabled us to hear and appreciate points of view other than our own—even those with which we disagreed. Our vision was expanded, our hearts were melted together in love, our minds were stimulated to face issues squarely in the light of his Word, and our wills were moved to enter into a solemn covenant to

131

Ibid. Two years after Lausanne, C. Peter Wagner explicitly recognized that, “we are unashamedly recommending a fiercely pragmatic approach to evangelism. We ought to see clearly that the end does justify the means. What else possibly could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for the reason a good method. If, on the other hand, my method is not accomplishing the goal, how can I be justified in continuing to use it?” (Italics in the original). C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (Glendale, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976), 136–137. Such a pragmatism was precisely what the Latin Americans were calling attention to. 132

148

chapter five be instruments in the hand of our Sovereign Lord so that the Congress theme, “Let the Earth Hear His Voice,” might become a reality.133

Latin American Reception of ICOWE Latin Americans’ perceptions of Lausanne differed substantially from the North Americans’. Padilla, for example, interpreted Lausanne and the Lausanne Covenant as a “death blow to the superficial equation of Christian mission with the multiplication of Christians and churches.”134 For Padilla, the Lausanne Congress eliminated three key dichotomies to clarify the meaning and nature of the Christian mission. The dichotomy eliminated was that between evangelism and social involvement, leaving “no room for a lopsided view of the mission of the church. Evangelicalism is definitely getting over the ‘Church Growth’ syndrome and over the unbiblical divorce between the kerygma and the diakonia.”135 Padilla recognized (and here he agreed with Henry) that the statement in section 5 of the covenant and the Response to Lausanne left many questions unanswered. The second dichotomy eliminated at ICOWE was, according to Padilla, between evangelism and Christian discipleship. For Padilla, Lausanne left no doubt that evangelism is not possible “without a call to discipleship and without a concern for the whole counsel of God. Those who signed the covenant sided against any attempt to separate evangelism from Christian nurture, the kerygma from the didache.”136 The third dichotomy that Lausanne eliminated, Padilla said, was between evangelism and church renewal. He said that the Lausanne Covenant went “far beyond a mere concession to the importance of Christian unity; it throws into relief the impossibility of separating evangelism from church unity.”137 Regarding the Lausanne Covenant, Padilla’s opinion is that, It leaves no foothold for that evangelism according to which the end justifies the means. And it goes beyond that to the expression of a firm commitment on the part of those who live in affluent circumstances to the duty ‘to develop a simple life-style in order to contribute more

133 134 135 136 137

Foreword to Douglas, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, v. Padilla, The New Face of Evangelicalism, 12. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 13.

latin american theologians in international forums

149

generously to both relief and evangelism’ (section 9). The assumption is clearly made, that evangelism is of one piece with church renewal, that the kerygma is inseparable from the koinonia.138

The note of repentance that permeated the congress and the Covenant was perceived by Padilla as “a breath of fresh air coming from people who have oftentimes been too prone to parade their feats in the evangelization of the world.” Consequently, for Padilla, following Lausanne, “every sign of triumphalism among evangelicals may be legitimately interpreted as an attempt to cling to the past.”139 However disappointing to those who expected the Congress to be a big display of the numerical power of evangelicals or a great world gathering aimed exclusively at the multiplication of Christians and churches, the Lausanne meeting turned out to be an updating of the evangelical agenda, made possible by a renunciation of fierce pragmatism and a return to biblical theology. Evangelism remained intact, but was no longer understood as ecclesiocentric activism, but rather as God’s means of placing the totality of life under the lordship of Jesus Christ.140

Thus, for Padilla a “new face of Evangelicalism” emerged from Lausanne. Padilla was sure that the aftermaths of Lausanne were changing, for the better, evangelicalism worldwide. Another Latin American participant, Brazilian missiologist Valdir Steuernagel, evaluated ICOWE in similar terms. Regarding Wagner’s and Padilla’s evaluations of the Congress, Steuernagel commented that both were “looking at the same event and at the same Covenant from very different perspectives and with very different agendas.”141 Steuernagel found the difference between Padilla and Wagner in that Padilla’s argument reflected faithfully “the content of the Congress as well as of the Covenant,” while Wagner’s position “should be interpreted in the light of the post-Lausanne struggle as expressed within the Continuation Committee.”142 According to Steuernagel, Lausanne “put world evangelization decisively on the agenda of world Christianity and even set the tone of much that has been said about world evangelization in the last quarter”

138 139 140 141 142

Ibid. Ibid., 14. Ibid. Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission”, 166. Ibid., 167.

150

chapter five

of the twentieth century.143 He explained the Lausanne movement as a reinterpretation of the “missionary task of the church in a world community that has become global.”144 Steuernagel identified in Lausanne three evangelical approximations to the issue of social responsibility: Lausanne’s attention to social concern reflected the effort of North American evangelicalism to reread the Bible in the light of its own growth and public reemergence. This evangelicalism, typified by Billy Graham, had already become widely recognized and accepted. Lausanne’s attention to sociopolitical involvement reflected the British vein of evangelicalism, which, unlike its North American counterpart, has consistently kept its rich heritage of social and political involvement. John Stott is a good example of his tradition. But Lausanne went even further to raise issues of social justice and to express concern about “every kind of oppression.” This primarily reflected the contribution of a third-world evangelicalism that was reading the Bible in contexts of dependency, poverty, injustice, and oppression. This evangelicalism, in its search for a missionary obedience, was prepared to reevaluate the evangelicalism imported from the North and to face the challenge of becoming contextual. This was a kingdom-oriented evangelicalism, with the Latin American Theological Fraternity being a good example.145

For Steuernagel, Lausanne provided the opportunity for a conversation among those three voices. However, he recognized that the “so-called ‘Lausanne consensus’ reached by Lausanne I and expressed in the Covenant was a nervous consensus and expressed a tender balance.”146 Escobar, evaluating Lausanne three years later, gave insights to understand the precariousness of the consensus at Lausanne. On one side there were at the congress the new voices “revealing a theological and biblical ferment in many ways unexpected.” On the other side was “classical evangelicalism.” For Escobar, talking from the perspective of someone who was actively involved in the organization of ICOWE, “there was no real dialogue. Everybody talked past each other.”147 We

143 Valdir Steuernagel, “Social Concern and Evangelization: The Journey of the Lausanne Movement,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 2 (1991): 53. Steuernagel’s reception bears a particular authority since his doctoral dissertation was an analysis of the Lausanne movement in regard to social responsibility. Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission.” 144 Steuernagel, “Social Concern and Evangelization,” 53. 145 Ibid., 54. 146 Valdir Steuernagel, “Social Concern and Evangelization: Our Journey since Lausanne I,” Transformation 7, no. 1 (1990): 12. 147 Escobar, Los Primeros Seis Años, 1. The expression he uses is “Hubo más bien un diálogo de sordos.”

latin american theologians in international forums

151

have noticed the same tendency in CLADE I. However, at Lausanne the problem reached bigger dimensions. For Escobar, in the end the new voices lost the battle “through the organizational effort afterwards.” Yet, Escobar saw signs of hope even though the ideas presented at Lausanne by the Latin Americans were not being “incorporated in the practice of the main missionary and ecclesiastical bodies who impose their program on the evangelical world, and some openly fight against them.” For him, “This ferment continues flowing, and in the measurement in which it corresponds to biblical truth, there is hope to believe that it will renovate whatever is in need of renewal.”148 Argentinian writer and pastor Arnoldo Canclini evaluated ICOWE from the dual perspective of a convener and participant. Lausanne, for Canclini, belonged to that “human and divine history which is at the same time the history of the Church.”149 Also, Lausanne brought afloat the “reality of the Christian world.” He predicted that the Holy Spirit was going to bring about a “revolution in the Christian world” because of Lausanne.150 Canclini noticed that “the congress was not to adopt the position of brother N nor Dr. Q, rather to listen to all of them, to enrich ourselves with such variety of Spirit inspired thought and to draw with maturity our own conclusions.”151 That there were at Lausanne different positions was clear, according to Canclini. For him, to ask if the congress supported one position was a misunderstanding of the ethos of the Lausanne. However, it was clear to him that at ICOWE there was a sincere “desire not to limit evangelization and mission work to analysis of numbers, theologically shallow preconceptions or statistical tables.”152 Canclini noticed that the hegemony of North American funds and mission strategies was broken at Lausanne. For him, the “majority of European countries are waking up to evangelization and missions.” For example, “Norway is the country which sends more missionaries” per capita than any other country in the world.153 As a result, he proposed significant changes for how things should be done. The patterns for Christian work “should not be any longer, exclusively North American 148

Ibid. Arnoldo Canclini, “¿Qué Hay Más Allá del Congreso de Lausana?” Pensamiento Cristiano 21, no. 83 (1974): 303. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid., 305. 152 Ibid., 308. 153 Ibid. 149

152

chapter five

and perhaps they will not become North American again.”154 Regarding social action, Canclini perceived that what happened at Lausanne was “simply the reflection of the tension that exists in theological and ecclesiastical circles. Today’s world asks for social action. It is impossible to avoid the dilemma of taking a position on this.” However, Canclini concluded that there were strong pressures at Lausanne on the issue of social responsibility that precluded an objective study of the Bible.155 It is not clear in Canclini’s evaluation to which pressures he alluded to or which side of the argument was, in his opinion, more objective. Canclini’s evaluation leads us to another situation at Lausanne. Latin Americans were not united there. The fragmentation we noticed in previous chapters became evident at Lausanne. Carl Henry, for example, saw Latin Americans as divided into four groups, in which “only one group subscribed to the sharp criticism by Orlando Costas of Costa Rica and others that American evangelical missionary support is tainted by links to imperialistic culture and vested economic interests.”156 Another correspondent for Christianity Today commented that Padilla and Escobar “seemed more popular among Anglo-Saxons than among their Latin American peers, who declined to nominate them to the Continuation Committee.”157 The same journalist made reference to an impromptu meeting where “Escobar spoke critically of missionary relationships in Latin America, and he was promptly rebuked by a dozen leaders who said they not only rejected the idea of a moratorium but also would welcome all the missionaries they could get.”158 Escobar sent a letter from Canada, where he was acting as the general secretary of InterVarsity, to correct what he called an inaccuracy in Edward Plowman’s news article. Escobar said, I was present in several impromptu meetings of Latin Americans and I did not see Plowman at any of them, so I imagine the inaccuracy comes from whoever his informant was. The meetings at which relations between national leaders and missionaries were discussed was chaired by my colleague René Padilla, and there were several of those present who insisted on a discussion of that controversial issue. I spoke only once and it was to ask instead that we consider the congress itself, as several

154

Ibid., 309. Ibid., 310. 156 Henry, “The Gospel and Society,” 1364. 157 Edward E. Plowman, “The View from Lausanne,” Christianity Today, 16 August 1974, 1258. 158 Ibid. 155

latin american theologians in international forums

153

others present wanted. So, I was not myself rebuked by any of the brethren present there.159

Elsewhere, Escobar recognized that in Lausanne, “some of us were accused by some Latin American brethren of not being representative, of presenting a message that was not the main concern of Latin American evangelicals. Personally, it made me think because we always need to consider that such accusation is well grounded.”160 However, this recognition of division among Latin American evangelicals did not mean Escobar agreed with how the situation was portrayed by the journalists of Christianity Today. In a letter to ICOWE’s executive chairman, bishop Jack Dain, Escobar made his position clear: I have been dismayed by the misinterpretations that certain press has given. I am especially sorry for the totally biased report that Christianity Today carried, in open contrast with the quality and fairness of Time, several Anglican papers and most of all in my opinion, The Reform Journal. I am afraid that press coverage is symptomatic. It shows in my opinion that segments of Evangelicalism particularly in the U.S.A. were not happy with the way God let the Congress go [and] are unable to dialogue with Evangelicals from a different perspective. . . . It would be a pity if the impact of the Congress is manipulated by the more closed and triumphalistic sectors of Evangelicalism. This fear grows as I think of the Continuation Committee. From my Latin American perspective it is clear to me that while the Congress heard a challenging variety of voices, there were political groups at work in the election procedures, in order to silence some trends and voices. The reference to rebuttals or rejection from our Latin American brethren in Christianity Today expresses a view that was being openly pushed by some American brethren in the Billy Graham team, which even before the Congress were probably hostile to the positions that Padilla or myself expressed. True, not all Latin American brethren agree with us. We know that. But the use of disagreement in order to push some people and some organizations to the front has been taken too far and I feel I must say this–especially for the sake of procedures at the selection of names for a Continuation Committee.161

Wagner’s “three torpedoes” upset Escobar. In another letter to Dain, Escobar interpreted Wagner’s evaluation of Lausanne as part of a 159 Samuel Escobar, “No Rebuke,” Christianity Today, 27 September 1974, 1408. Italics in the original. 160 Escobar, Los Primeros Seis Años. 161 Letter from Samuel Escobar to A. Jack Dain, October 10, 1974, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 30, Folder 35.

154

chapter five

“concerted effort on the part of the conservative elements that are in charge of Christianity Today to change the meaning and the directions of Lausanne.”162 For Escobar, those conservative sectors did not achieve that, “because in the memory of people and in the way in which [the Congress] impressed them, I am sure that a good thing of Lausanne was that it was not an American jamboree, but rather a world forum of evangelicalism. And this is what our friends from Pasadena cannot accept.”163 In a personal interview with Anthony Smith, Escobar explained, After Lausanne I really decided to go back and work more on my own model and be less linked to the world of evangelical politics at a high level. I had had enough of it. I think there is . . . a power-game there. Yes, and it has gone on and on. The Pasadena group were very, very disappointed at Lausanne. They expected it to be their launching platform. . . . It was René Padilla and myself who really created . . . with our papers and the response to them, a counter-effect to the idea that “we have now the right technology for doing things.”164

Padilla also expressed his concerns to improve the theological dialogue between North Americans and Latin Americans.165 Padilla evaluated the “wide range of national and cultural backgrounds” represented at ICOWE as an asset, because “clearly the congress was not dominated by representatives of one particular school, with which all the participants were expected to agree.” Rather, and probably talking about his own participation, all the speakers “had full freedom to express their views.”166 A positive result of Lausanne, according to Padilla, was that the issue of cultural Christianity was being debated in many parts of the world by evangelicals who were “increasingly aware of the need to deliver Christianity from its cultural accretions and to dispel every sign of confusion between Christianity and [North] American ‘power.’”167 Padilla asked a question that in a way summarized his quest: “Are evangelicals in the United States really willing to listen to their Third World brethren who are critical of [North] American cultureChristianity?”168 Padilla had two reasons why North American evan162 Letter from Samuel Escobar to A. Jack Dain, July 29, 1975, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 30, Folder 35. 163 Ibid. 164 Smith, “The Essentials of Missiology”, 42. 165 Padilla, “Christianity American-Style.” 166 Ibid., 61. 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid.

latin american theologians in international forums

155

gelicals should listen to evangelicals from other countries. The first was that in order to understand those who disagree, it is imperative to listen to them: Appealing to ad hominen arguments or pretending that the criticisms are necessarily inspired by ill will against [North] Americans is simply a way of hiding one’s head in the sand. The view that the modern missionary movement has been all too bound up with “[North] American imperialism” is far more widespread than most [North] American evangelicals would like to admit. The important point, however, is not how many people hold that view but whether it is supported by the facts. It is high time for [North] American evangelicals, especially those who are leaders in the churches and in missionary societies, to face the criticisms that are being leveled outside the United States against their “successful” techniques for evangelism and church planting.169

Padilla’s second reason was that “no one had a monopoly on truth.” Those who disagreed with the “growing number of Christians” who believed that “for too long missionary work has been squeezed into a [North] American mold” had two options, according to Padilla. They could either reject as “anti-American” all criticisms, or they could make an “honest evaluation of their position in the light of Scripture to see whether in fact it need to be purged from the defects that others claim to have found in it.”170 Padilla invited his North American readers to realize that, Foreign critics are in a position to tell us something about those things in our lives that reflect our culture rather than our commitment to Christ. God’s purpose for his people all over the world is that they attain to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. It remains to be seen how much the Lausanne congress had helped evangelicals everywhere, toward that end.171

Other International Forums After ICOWE, the Lausanne movement provided several important instances for dialogue. At the LCWE’s meeting in Berlin in September 1976, a Lausanne Theology and Education Group (LTEG) was formed “to promote theological reflection on issues related to world evangelization and, in particular, to explore the implications of the Lausanne 169 170 171

Ibid. Italics in the original. Ibid., 62. Ibid.

156

chapter five

Covenant.”172 The first topic for discussion was the controversial “Homogeneous Unit Principle” (HUP) developed by Fuller Seminary’s School of World Mission. The HUP, an important part of the Church Growth school, had stirred criticisms from several fronts, including Padilla and Costas from Latin America.173 However, as John Stott explained, the discussion on the HUP “somewhat resembled the lobbing of hand grenades across no-man’s-land from the trenches on either side.”174 In June 1977, five proponents of HUP from Fuller and five critics met in Pasadena, California, for a colloquium that “was set up as a common exploration rather than as a confrontation, and as a result we grew in mutual understanding and respect.”175 There was also a consultation on the Gospel and Culture, held January 6–13, 1978, in Willowbank, Sommerset Bridge, Bermuda. “It brought 33 theologians, anthropologists, linguists, missionaries and pastors together from all six continents.”176 The Latin American contingency was prominent at Willowbank. Peter Savage acted as general coordinator; René Padilla presented a theological paper on hermeneutics and culture; and Orlando Costas presented his personal testimony as a case study to understand Christian conversion as a complex experience.177 The LTEG in association with the theological commission of WEF co-sponsored a two-year study on the topic of Simple Life-Style. This process culminated in another consultation, on March 17–21, 1980, in London, England, with “85 evangelical leaders from 27 countries.”178

172 John R. W. Stott, “Ten Years Later: The Lausanne Covenant,” in The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement, ed. Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wilson (Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984), 67. 173 For critics outside Latin America, see Bruce W. Fong, Racial Equality in the Church: A Critique of the Homogeneous Unit Principle in Light of a Practical Theology Perspective (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1996). 174 (LCWE) Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Pasadena Consultation on the Homogeneous Unit Principle, Lausanne Occasional Papers, vol. 1 (Wheaton: LCWE, 1978). 175 Ibid. The participants were Harvie M. Conn (Westminster), Arthur F. Glasser (Fuller), Victor E. W. Hayward (at one time Research Secretary, International Missionary Council), Charles H. Kraft (Fuller), Donald A. McGavran (Fuller), C. René Padilla (Ediciones Certeza), Robert L. Ramseyer (Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries), C. Peter Wagner (Fuller), Ralph D. Winter (United States Center for World Mission), and John H. Yoder (University of Notre Dame). John Stott acted as moderator. 176 (LCWE) Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, The Willowbank Report– Gospel and Culture, Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 2 (Wheaton: LCWE, 1978). See also Robert T. Coote, Editor, and John R. Stott, Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Pub Co 1980, 1980). 177 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, The Willowbank Report.

latin american theologians in international forums

157

René Padilla also presented a paper at this consultation: “New Testament Perspectives on Simple Life-Style.”179 The LTEG and WEF also sponsored the consultation on evangelism and social responsibility, held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 19–25, 1982.180 Padilla participated as a respondent to Arthur Johnson’s paper, “The Kingdom in Relation to the Church and the World.” Also present was Emilio A. Nuñez, who acted as a respondent to Peter Kuzmic. John Stott evaluated these international consultations as valuable to “listen not only to each other’s arguments but to the cherished convictions which lie behind the arguments.” For Stott, such listening helped everyone to “develop towards one another a new understanding, respect and love. This is not to say that we agree about everything, but that our agreements are far greater than our residual differences.”181 There were also other international forums where Latin American theologians participated. For example, the David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, a service agency of the National Liberty Foundation, the organization Peter Savage represented in Latin America, co-sponsored the “Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation,” at Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, June 23–27, 1975. Savage himself was the coordinator. This consultation was the “first of its kind in the history of evangelical missions in Latin America.”182 Escobar acted as director and presented a paper on 178 (LCWE) Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Life-Style. Exposition and Commentary by Alan Nichols, Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 20 (Wheaton: LCWE, 1980). 179 Padilla’s paper and the other papers presented are available at Ronald J. Sider, ed., Lifestyle in the Eighties: An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Lifestyle, Contemporary Issues in Social Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982). For understanding the relationship of the FTL to the theological commission of WEF, see Smith, “The Essentials of Missiology,” 334–343. 180 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Grand Rapids Report. See also, C. René Padilla, “La Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana y la Responsabilidad Social de la Iglesia,” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995): 102–104. 181 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Grand Rapids Report. 182 “Pinebrook Consultation on Latin America, June 1975,” RES News Exchange 12, no. 8 (1975): 1099. See also, “Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation. June 23–27, 1975,” ed. Peter Savage (Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975). The claim that this consultation was the “first of its kind” is contestable since in February of 1955, Evangelical Literature Overseas organized in San Jose, Costa Rica, a conference to “study the problems and possibilities of the evangelical literature in Latin America.” There were delegates from 14 countries representing 27 organizations. The San Jose conference appointed a committee of 15 leaders, which became known as Literatura Evangélica para América Latina (LEAL). For information about the San Jose conference see, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 324,” Box 1, Folder 2.

158

chapter five

“Fostering Indigenous Authorship.” Also, Padilla presented the paper “Contextualization and the Gospel.” Padilla, reminiscing on his participation in this consultation, considered his paper as “one of the cutting-edge reflections in evangelical circles on that theme. It was something that concerned me much.”183 In his paper, Padilla explained that for him, the “revelational ‘givens’ of the Gospel have been uncritically mixed with the cultural and sectarian baggage of the West.” As a result of this, Padilla continued, “neither Catholic nor Protestant Christianity have penetrated the Latin American community more than superficially.”184 Like at Lausanne, Padilla pointed out that to grow in unity Christians from all cultures need of each other’s insights. In light of Padilla’s plea, the consultation centered on discussing questions like, “Does evangelical literature produced in North America fail to show adequate appreciation for this cultural dynamic? To what extent has inappropriate literature been imposed on Latin America? Is the literature enterprise an authentic Christian vocation? Or is it a ‘secular’ pursuit?”185 At the Pinebrook consultation, Escobar and Padilla pleaded for freedom to write and publish. For Escobar, the first necessary condition for indigenous authors to flourish was “freedom and acceptance of risk in the atmosphere of the church.”186 When asked about this, Padilla explained the current situation as resulting from conditions imposed by the publishing houses. In Padilla’s words, “unless one wrote according to the norms of the evangelical orthodoxy in the United States it was impossible to publish.”187 The consultation ended with a commitment of publishers, mission executives, and distributors to intentionally promote Latin American authorship and publishing. There was also a Latin American representation at the consultation on “Church and Nationhood,” cosponsored by the theological commission of WEF and the WCC, September 14–18, 1976, in St. Chrischona, near Basel, Switzerland.188 The FTL was represented by Pablo Pérez, Peter Savage, Samuel Escobar, and Andrew Kirk. The consultation produced 183

Padilla, “Interview by Author.” “Pinebrook Consultation,” 1098. 185 Ibid. 186 Ibid. 187 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 188 Lionel Holmes, ed., Church and Nationhood: A Collection of Papers Originally Presented at a Consultation in Basel, September 1976 (New Delhi: Theological Commission, World Evangelical Fellowship, 1978). 184

latin american theologians in international forums

159

“The Basel Letter to the Churches.”189 Pablo Pérez presented the paper, “The Third World of Emerging Nationalism—Latin America.”190 A commentator said that this meeting was an opportunity for a “fertile dialogue, in the common framework of the evangelical theological heritage: respect for the Word of God, conviction about the need for a new birth, and a strong evangelistic and missionary vocation.”191 Summary The participation of Latin American theologians in international forums and the reception of such participation by North Americans involved some complex dynamics. ICOWE was a recognition of the assiduous work of the FTL. It is significant to notice that when the time came to select the speakers and workshop leaders for Lausanne, there was already a roll of names from which to choose. ICOWE was also the appropriate time for Latin Americans to contribute from their perspective to the global discussion on evangelism and mission. Even though there were at Lausanne several voices and positions, the Latin American participation was particularly influential in breaking the hegemony of North American agendas. It was clear at Lausanne that the Latin American evangelical theology was in a process of maturation and independence. Latin Americans were evaluating and criticizing, positively and negatively, the theological dependence upon North American and European theologies. Padilla and Escobar gave ICOWE an indelible, high-quality, evangelical and prophetic call to order. Even though neither Padilla nor Escobar were nominated for the LCWE, it is important to notice that they continued their contributions within the Lausanne movement from the LTEG. As we explained, both Latin Americans disagreed with the path the LCWE was taking regarding the issues of evangelization and social responsibility. However, their dissidence should not be interpreted as lack of interest in evangelism. After Lausanne, both continued their involvement in evangelism of

189

Ibid., 5–11. Pablo Pérez, “The Third World of Emerging Nationalism—Latin America,” in Church and Nationhood: A Collection of Papers Originally Presented at a Consultation in Basel, September 1976, ed. Lionel Holmes (New Delhi: Theological Commission, World Evangelical Fellowship, 1978), 57–76. 191 “Carta de Basilea Sobre Iglesia y Estado,” Certeza 17, no. 65 (1977): 26. 190

160

chapter five

university students and professionals. They were not opposing evangelism per se, rather a narrow definition of evangelism that left social participation as optional or dispensable. It is important to notice that the themes for the consultations the LTEG organized were central themes in Padilla’s and Escobar’s plenary papers and presentations at ICOWE.192 Themes like gospel and culture, Christian life-style, the Church Growth movement, and social action became contested topics that needed to be expanded and fine-tuned. We could say, without exaggeration, that the Latin Americans gave the Lausanne movement an agenda for the following decade after Lausanne ’74. Such an agenda found support in other parts of the world and was endorsed by the LTEG’s choice of themes for their consultations. Latin Americans did not go to Lausanne just for the sake of controversy, but to enter in an honest and open dialogue with the rest of the world and especially with the North American evangelicals. It was not an easy dialogue. There were many misunderstandings on both sides. But there were also areas of understanding and growth in mutual trust. Not all questions were answered. Nor were all issues resolved. The important improvement was that the dialogue continued, there was an open door of conversation. Although, significant differences remained, Latin Americans were now dialoguing as equal partners. They left behind the days when their main role in the conversation was as a listener and learner. At least, that was how they perceived the dialogue. This change, as we saw, was not that easy for the North American interlocutors. It was much harder for them to abandon their habitual role of speaking as superior. Both sides had to make quite a few adjustments to break traditional ways of approaching each other. In the end, both sides became richer having gained in understanding the others’ points of view. Lausanne also broadened the platform for Latin American evangelical theology. This theology became a conversation partner with other continents. This new environment for theological dialogue provided for Latin Americans new forums of participation. The usual two-way dialogue with North America was expanded to a multi-way conversation with the rest of the world. Latin Americans, for example, were instrumental in the organization of the Conference of Evangelical Mission Theologians from the Two Thirds World, in Bangkok, Thailand,

192

I owe this insight to a personal conversation with Dr. Padilla.

latin american theologians in international forums

161

March 22–25, 1982.193 This conference represented the culmination of a process that started at Lausanne where Latin Americans came into contact with theologians from other parts of the world who were dealing with similar issues and who were struggling to make relevant theology in their own contexts. After Lausanne, the FTL became a productive partner in a theological worldwide network where North Americans were not the only interlocutor. Besides the participation of Latin Americans in the midst of the Lausanne Movement, the FTL continued to pursue a heavy program in Latin America. In 1976, Leon Morris traveled across Latin America speaking to pastors about hermeneutics and New Testament issues. There was a consultation on “God’s People” in Itaicí, Brazil, in March 1977 followed by the Third General Assembly of the FTL. John Stott visited the region between June and July of the same year. Also, in 1979 Michael Green spoke on the evangelization in the early church to pastors in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Peru. Between these activities there were several other sub-regional consultations on different themes.194 All of these activities served as preamble to a more significant advance toward a mature Latin American evangelical theology—the organization of the Segundo Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización (CLADE II), October 31 to November 8, 1979, in Huampaní, Lima, Peru. CLADE II is treated in the next chapter. Here, however, we want to call attention to the fact that the FTL had come to an active role, independent of North American influence, in defining and leading the evangelical theology in Latin America. The time of indigenous congresses and theological initiatives had come to Latin America.

193 For the papers of the Bangkok conference, see Samuel Vinay and Christopher Sudgen, eds., Sharing Jesus in the Two Thirds World: Evangelical Christologies from the Contexts of Poverty, Powerlessness and Religious Pluralism (Bangalore, India: Partnership in Mission Asia: Asia Trading Corporation, 1983). 194 For a more complete list see “Cronología de Actividades de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana.”

CHAPTER SIX

CLADE IIHUAMPANÍ, PERU, NOVEMBER 1979 With the victory of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the instauration of a Marxist regime in Grenada, both in 1979, the inter-American relationship was in dire straits. Washington feared another Cuba in its backyard and its subsequent actions—support to the Contras and the invasion of Grenada in 1982—only deepened the chasm with Latin American. Nicaragua and Grenada became tokens of the enormous abyss of perceptions between North and Latin America. Latin Americans saw in the fall of Somoza the end of several decades of oppression and systematic looting of the country by a small oligarchy, and consequently this victory brought hope for better times and empowering of the people of Latin America.1 For Washington, Latin America and the Caribbean were on the brink of becoming part of the “evil empire,” and therefore it felt the urge to stop the “red danger” of communism.2 President Reagan projected a victorious mood for his country while Latin America was suffering the pain of having “at least 80 per cent of its population under one kind of dictatorship or another—either of the left or of the right,

1 See, for example, Gianni Minà, Un Continente Desaparecido: L’america Latina Vissuta e Raccontata da Samuel Ruiz, Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Eduardo Galeano, Rigoberta Menchú, Jorge Amado, Frei Betto, Pombo e Urbano, i Compagni del Che in Bolivia, Saggi; (Milano: Sperling and Kupfer, 1995); Jesús Cambre Mariño, América Central Durante la Época Reagan (Barcelona: Institut Catòlic d’Estudis Socials, 1989). 2 See United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs, Impact of Cuban-Soviet Ties in the Western Hemisphere, Spring 1979: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session, April 25 and 26, 1979. (Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979); United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Assistance Legislation for Fiscal Years 1980–81: Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session. (Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979); Cyrus R. Vance and United States Dept. of State; Bureau of Public Affairs, Inter-American Challenges for the 1980’s, Current Policy-Dept. Of State; no. 105. (Washington D.C.: Dept. of State Bureau of Public Affairs, 1979); Hermann Kohn, El Salvador, Nicaragua: Aufstand Im Us-Hinterhof, 1. Aufl. ed. (Dortmund: Weltkreis-Verlag, 1981); Anita C. Walter, “Vital Interests Vs. International Law: The Role of the United States in Latin America with Nicaragua as a Case Study.” (B.A. thesis, Bucknell University, 1986).

164

chapter six

but mostly of the right—with all the varied implications that have to do with human rights, repression and fear.”3 In 1979 evangelicals in Latin America were facing urgent and unavoidable questions that demanded answers rooted in the Bible and that had practical applications. How does one explain the Gospel to a generation of orphans of war? Does the Bible speak to the suffering of a continent in captivity?4 Does it have anything to say to the military juntas, dictators, and other repressive regimes? Is the gospel only about a mansion in heaven, or does it have something to do with earthly life for a Latin America in tears? When the time came for the FTL to convene the Segundo Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización—CLADE II—it had as backdrop at least three things. First, there had been at least 200,000 political deaths and 100,000 disappearances on the continent during the 1970s. Second, there was an increasing number of people living under poverty. And third, there was a growing migration of people to the cities with the consequent social complications and new social realities. The region was quite different from what it had been ten years before. Social and political conditions had worsened, and there was little hope of reversing the trend. Samuel Escobar observed: We are in a continent where there is more poverty, more unemployment, more youth with less perspective for the future, less political stability, bigger and more open manifestations of violence and violations of human rights, an unstoppable massive urbanization and a tremendous religious confusion. However, it is clear that the facets of this crisis are different in each country or region.5

On the religious scene, CLADE II was preceded by two important gatherings, one Roman Catholic and the other organized by ecumenical Protestantism. The latter held an assembly of churches in Oaxtepec, Mexico, September 19 to 26, 1978.6 The Consejo Latinoamericano de 3

Pablo Pérez, “Latin America: Hope and Reality,” in Serving Our Generation: Evangelical Strategies for the Eighties, ed. Waldron Scott (Colorado Springs: World Evangelical Fellowship, 1980), 58. 4 This description of Latin America in 1970s comes from Esther Arias and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People: Out of Captivity in Latin America (New York: Friendship Press, 1980). 5 CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80. Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (Lima: 1979), xi. 6 See, Oscar Bolioli, “Repensemos Oaxtepec,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979); Carlos M. Camps Cruell, “Oaxtepec 1978: Barreras a Superar,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979); CELADEC, ed., Oaxtapec un Año Después: Aportes y Documentos. (Lima: Comisión Evangélica Latinoamericana de Educación Cristiana,

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

165

Iglesias (CLAI) affiliated to the WCC was formed in 1982 as a result of this meeting in Oaxtepec. For their part, Roman Catholics met at their Tercera Conferencia Episcopal Latinoamericana, CELAM III in Puebla, Mexico, January 28 to February 13, 1979.7 Even though these two meetings were independent of CLADE II, that they happened at about the same time reflects the ferment that was characteristic of the major Christian expressions in Latin America at the end of the 1970s. CLADE II, in contrast to CLADE I, was completely convened, prepared, administered, and designed by Latin Americans. Less than 10 percent of missionaries. Arno W. Enns said, “all papers were presented by Latin Americans except one presented by a professor of theology in Brazil who was born to missionary parents.8 This is a significant difference from CLADE I and enhanced its Latin American concerns and

1980); CLAI, ed., Oaxtepec 1978: Unidad y Misión en América Latina. (San José, Costa Rica: Comité Editorial del CLAI, 1980); Orlando Costas, “Oaxtepec: ¿Complot Maquiavélico o Soplo del Espíritu?” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978); “Documentos de Oaxtepec,” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978); José Míguez Bonino, “Oaxtepec: Entre el Recelo y la Esperanza,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 59 (1979); idem, ed., Puebla y Oaxtepec: Una Critica Protestante y Católica (Buenos Aires: Tierra Nueva, 1980); Federico S. Pagura, “Cristianismo en Estado de Conversión,” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979). 7 The bibliography on Puebla is extensive. For original documents see CELAM, Puebla: L’evangelizzazione Nel Presente e Nel Futuro Dell’america Latina—Testo Definitivo—Unica Versione Autorizzata (Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana, 1979); idem, Puebla: Evangelization at Present and in the Future of Latin America—Conclusions (Official English Edition) (London: St. Paul Publications, 1980); Gary MacEoin and Nivita Riley, Puebla: A Church Being Born (New York: Paulist Press, 1980). For other analysis of Puebla, see Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, La Evangelización en el Presente y en el Futuro de América Latina: Puebla, Mexico, 1978: Preparación: Documenta de Consulta a Las Conferencias Episcopales (Bogotá: Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, 1977); idem, Terceira Conferência Geral Do Episcopado Latino-Americano, Puebla, México, 1978: A Evangelização No Presente e No Futuro da América Latina, Documento de Consulta Às Conferências Episcopais (Excertos) (São Paulo: Edições Paulinas, 1978); Eagleson and Scharper, Puebla and Beyond: Documentation and Commentary; Roberto Jiménez, Tensiones y Crisis en la Iglesia Latinoamericana: Desde Puebla Hasta la Libertatis Conscientia (1979–1987) (Bogotá; Colombia and San Cristóbal, Venezuela: Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo e Integración de América Latina; Universidad Católica del Táchira; Trípode, 1988); Pope John Paul II and Quentin L. Quade, The Pope and Revolution: John Paul II Confronts Liberation Theology (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1982); López Trujillo, De Medellín a Puebla; Muñoz, Evangelio y Liberación en América Latina: la Teología Pastoral de Puebla; Hans Schöpfer, Lateinamerikanische Befreiungstheologie (Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz Kohlhammer, 1979); Torres, Latin America and the Puebla Conference. 8 Russell Shedd. For his presentation see CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 249–269.

166

chapter six

sensitivities.”9 CLADE II marked the end of the first decade of intensive theological labor. This chapter deals with the reception of CLADE II by Latin Americans and North Americans, and how CLADE II helped further the process of definition and independence for an autochthonous theological production by Latin American evangelicals. According to C. René Padilla, to organize CLADE II was initially an idea Orlando Costas presented to the Executive Committee of the FTL in 1976, and it was taken immediately with enthusiasm.10 After all, “the only thing left of CLADE I was the FTL,” Costas said. Peter Savage started immediately to raise funds, to invite people, and to spread the news. Padilla evaluated the fact that CLADE II happened as a “miracle” since they were only “four lonely cats” convening a conference.11 CLADE II was attended by 266 people from 21 countries and 39 evangelical denominations.12 There were only 12 North Americans registered as participants, “plus a small number of observers and press representatives.”13 Peter Savage acted as the coordinator and Samuel Escobar as chairman. During the first press conference at the congress, on November 1, both Escobar and Savage explained that CLADE II did not have any plans to become a federation of churches. They said CLADE II was instead, A consultation where we seek to reflect on the totality of the ministry of the church in the Latin American context. We do not expect at the end of this congress the formation of any followup structure. Participants will return to their places and, guided by the Holy Spirit, would be able to freely choose from the models of evangelism that were revised at the congress.14 The Executive Committee of the FTL defined five objectives for CLADE II: 1. To stimulate the mobilization of Protestant Christians throughout the continent for an authentic and efficacious evangelization. 2. To consider the challenges and opportunities that Latin America presents to the church’s evangelizing mission on the eve of a new decade.

9 Arno W. Enns, Report on CLADE II (Latin American Congress on Evangelism) (Huampani, Peru, 1979), 1. 10 Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 11 Ibid. 12 For a breakdown by countries and denominations see, Partnership in Mission PIM, CLADE II Reports (Abington, Pa.: Partnership in Mission, 1979). 13 W. Dayton Roberts, “Latin America News Front,” Latin America Evangelist, January–February 1980. 14 CLADE-II, Boletín de Prensa, 2 de Noviembre de 1979 (Huampani, Peru, 1979).

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

167

3. To bring awareness to the numerous spiritual and human resources that are available to Latin American Protestants for the fulfillment of their evangelizing mission. 4. To work out a relevant strategy and contextual evangelistic models for a profound and efficacious communication of the Gospel in Latin America in the 1980s. 5. To strengthen the ties of Protestant evangelistic leaders and thus stimulate a greater cooperation in the communication of the Gospel in the various regions of the continent.15

These five objectives for CLADE II echoed the Lausanne Covenant. The first objective related to the fourth article of the Covenant, where evangelism is defined as “the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God.”16 Objectives two and three were in themselves a response to the challenge laid out in article nine of the Covenant, which called “churches and para-church agencies to pray earnestly for the salvation of the unreached and to launch new efforts to achieve world evangelization.”17 The “contextual evangelistic models” of objective four were a practical application of what article ten of the Covenant said about “the rise of churches deeply rooted in Christ and closely related to their culture.”18 The fourth objective for CLADE II was also a response to what the Lausanne Covenant said in article eight, that the “churches should therefore be asking God and themselves what they should be doing both to reach their own area and to send missionaries to other parts of the world. A reevaluation of our missionary responsibility and role should be continuous.”19 The fifth objective followed the guidelines of articles seven and eight of the Covenant where the churches were encouraged to seek unity, cooperation, and partnership in the evangelistic mission.20 This relationship of CLADE II and Lausanne ’74 was intentional. Organizers of CLADE II understood the gathering to be in line with ICOWE. This came out clearly in the motto they chose for CLADE II:

15 FTL, “Proposal for the Celebration of the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelization (CLADE II),” (Buenos Aires, Argentina: 1978), 3. 16 Douglas, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 4. 17 Ibid., 6. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 See also Kenneth Mullholand and Emilio Antonio Nuñez, The Contextualization of the Gospel: The Documents of CLADE II (San José, Costa Rica: LAECPS, 1980).

168

chapter six

“That Latin America May Hear God’s Voice.”21 A prerequisite for all the participants was to agree with the spirit and the letter of the Lausanne Covenant. Escobar explained that the explicit intention of CLADE II was to take “an inventory of what was being done in evangelism, to reflect on the Gospel message, and to think on the future of the evangelistic task, taking seriously the reality of the Latin American context.”22 The organizers of CLADE II understood that it was a “working congress,” To concentrate on an evangelization rooted in the Word of God and incarnated in the Latin American reality. It is expected that it will not only clarify the content of the Gospel in the context of Latin America, but also that it will bring to the limelight new models of evangelistic action—models that will be at once faithful to the biblical message and open up new programmatic horizons for the evangelization of the millions who are yet beyond the frontiers of the Christian faith.23

They chose Reformation Day as the date to launch CLADE II, with an evening public gathering at a Christian and Missionary Alliance church in Lima. Emilio Antonio Núñez delivered the message, “Heirs of the Reformation,”24 which was broadcasted live to Lima by Radio del Pacifico, a local Christian station and to the whole continent by HCJB radio in Quito, Ecuador. Núñez expounded four tenets of the Protestant Reformation—Sola Gratia, Solus Christos, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura-and applied them to Latin America. In the end, Núñez called the participants to let the Bible “norm our thoughts and feelings in the congress we start today, and in the difficult but glorious task we have ahead in our Latin America.”25 The program of CLADE II had three parts. The first was a descriptive one. It consisted of a presentation and evaluation of evangelism up to that time. It included reports of evangelism to indigenous minorities, urban centers, children, prisoners, students, marginalized youth groups, families, refugees, and others. There were also regional reports from the Southern Cone,26 Brazil, the Andean countries,27 the Caribbean

21

Lausanne’s theme was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.” CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, xi. 23 FTL, “Proposal for the Celebration of the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelization (CLADE II),” 3. 24 CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 163–170. 25 Ibid., 170. 26 Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. 27 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. 22

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

169

and Venezuela, Mexico, and Hispanics in the United States.28 Samuel Escobar concluded that this description of evangelism in Latin America demonstrated that the 1970s in Latin America were years “of real development and steady advance in almost all the countries.”29 The second part of the program was a reflective part. It aimed to reflect on major issues related to evangelism characteristic of each geographical region, followed by a theological reflection on four theological themes: “Christ and Anti-Christ in Proclamation,” “Sin and Salvation in Contemporary Latin America,” “Word and Spirit in the Evangelistic Community,” and “Hope and Hopelessness in the Continental Crisis.” According to Escobar, these topics had “emerged in the various Fraternity meetings as major issues in the field of evangelism.”30 This reflective part of the program aimed to “highlight basic truths of the evangelical message, exploring the biblical root of our heritage, and yet linking the exposition with the particular current conditions of the continent.”31 Speakers from diverse backgrounds participated in this section. Each theme was expounded by two different people to ensure wide representation.32 The information given to all the participants of CLADE II explained that the goal was to promote dialogue and not just to have experts present papers to a passive audience. After the two speakers presented in fifteen minutes the main tenets of their papers, there was a half hour of questions from the participants. In this open time attendees could clarify concepts or comment on the papers. Then, forty-three small groups discussed the papers and wrote a brief summary of different reactions.33 In that way the participants were able to reflect on the themes and elaborate their own conclusions.

28 These reports are available at, CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 1–144. 29 Ibid., xiii. 30 FTL, “Proposal for the Celebration of the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelization (CLADE II),” 4. 31 Samuel Escobar, “Espíritu y Mensaje del CLADE II: Balance y Perspectiva de Una Década de Vida Evangélica en América Latina,” in América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80: Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana, Noviembre de 1979, ed. CLADE II (Lima: 1979), xiii. 32 “Christ and Anti-Christ in Proclamation,” C. René Padilla and Valdir R. Steuernagel; “Sin and Salvation in Contemporary Latin America,” Russell Shedd and Orlando E. Costas; “Word and Spirit in the Evangelistic Community,” J. Norberto Saracco and Rolando Gutiérrez Cortés; “Hope and Hopelessness in the continental Crisis,” Samuel Escobar and Mortimer Arias. These presentations are available at CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 145–335. 33 These summaries are available at ibid., 337–340.

170

chapter six

The third part of the congress was programmatic. It intended to formulate “concrete plans for evangelistic action in the 1980s.”34 These plans were written down on an extensive document with strategic projections for several areas of ministry, including family, urban evangelism, ethnic groups, popular religion, media, students, and youth.35 The last two full days of the congress were dedicated to this section; it took place in small working groups formed by regions and special interests. Enns rated the participation and interaction in those groups as “good” and “excellent,” since the topics were discussed “seriously and creatively. This was especially true of the special interest groupings which were formed by personal choice.”36 The strategic plan was accompanied by the theological agenda of the FTL for the 1980s, which included such themes as Word and Spirit in discipleship, the authority of the Scriptures in view of the increasing interest in the Bible by Roman Catholics, social ethics, christology, and ecclessiology. Escobar explained that these themes “came out of [the FTL’s] mission and not of the academic whim of the latest university celebrity.”37 Part of the program was also devoted to a public rally together with about 10,000 evangelicals from local churches, after which the delegates participated in the Sunday services in many of the evangelical churches in Lima. There was also a panel on the challenges of the eighties to evangelism with Luis Palau, Samuel Libert, Alberto Mottesi, and Orlando Costas. Arno Enns perceived “the potential for sharp confrontation in hallway conversations prior to the session.” However, as Enns explained, there was a “fraternal atmosphere.”38 Two unplanned sessions provided participants the opportunity to listen to the Cuban and Nicaraguan delegates about their experiences as evangelical Christians in their countries. The Cuban representation “assured their CLADE colleagues that Christians in Cuba experience freedom to worship, instruct their youth, and even evangelize, both in their homes and their churches.”39 During the Nicaraguan report the audience hushed. As Faith Sand, who was present at CLADE, reported, 34 FTL, “Proposal for the Celebration of the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelization (CLADE II),” 4. 35 Documento de Proyecciones y Estrategias, CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 341–356. 36 Enns, Report on CLADE II, 2. 37 Escobar, “Espíritu y Mensaje del CLADE II,” xvii. 38 Enns, Report on CLADE II, 2. 39 PIM, CLADE II Reports, 3.

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

171

“No one will forget the evening when the Nicaraguan delegation shared the agonies and the victories of their recent bloody struggles. They felt they had no other option and yet the tragedy remains that everyone lost someone precious to the monstrous revolution.”40 The majority of the delegates “acknowledged with sorrow that they had been naive about their fellow believers’ sufferings and the extent of the dictatorship’s brutality.”41 CLADE II sent the eight Nicaraguan delegates with a monetary offering as a token of love and solidarity.42 The program in itself already represented a step towards maturity and independence from foreign influence. CLADE II showed a variety of approaches to deal with a particular theme. The predominant atmosphere was one of dialogue, of sincere listening with the intention of learning from the other. There were no experts teaching their wisdom to an unlearned majority. The idea was to evaluate and plan for the future together. Organizers did not have a premeditated agenda for the participants to approve. The first part of the program was an intentional effort to make a realistic evaluation of the situation in the continent. Every region was screened by the delegates. They had to work beforehand on a questionnaire to gather information about the situation in the different regions. As Escobar explained, these regional reports showed how the “capacity of evangelicals to understand their context and be able to live and evangelize better had grown and had become sharper during the decade.”43 These reports were prepared and presented by Latin Americans following their own criteria and without the statistical approach that North Americans were so fond of. They did not have charts with percentages and numbers, nor did they have numerical evaluations. Latin Americans looked at the state of the church in the continent through experiential criteria. The second part of the program was a new approach for a congress of this kind. To have different perspectives, sometimes in conflict with each other, was not part of the way things were done before, in contrast, for example, with CLADE I, where the program was knit so tightly and with one string. A flexible program with working groups and open to

40 Faith Annette Sand, “Huampani, Peru, Oct–Nov, 1979,” Missiology 8, no. 3 (1980): 341. 41 PIM, CLADE II Reports, 3. 42 For a short report on the Nicaraguan participation see “Nicaragua: The Shaking and Shifting of the Church,” Christianity Today, 7 December 1979. 43 Escobar, “Espíritu y Mensaje del CLADE II,” xiii.

172

chapter six

unplanned meetings was definitely showing more Latin American characteristics than any other congress before. Latin American inclusiveness already noted was obvious in CLADE II, a trait so difficult for foreigners to understand. The organizers did not have a problem inviting people of such opposite positions like Luis Palau, a mass-evangelist born in Argentina, and Mortimer Arias, a Methodist bishop in Bolivia and sympathetic to liberation theology. The intention, as they explained, was not to open a battle field, but to listen and dialogue in order to enrich the evangelistic experience. Such a program would have been unthinkable only a few years before under foreign leadership. The way the convocation to CLADE II took place was also in sharp contrast with CLADE I. As we noticed in chapter 2, organizers of CLADE I screened carefully the lists of delegates to avoid the participation of some people. In the case of CLADE II the invitation was open for anyone who wanted to participate, if they agreed with the Lausanne Covenant and were involved in any type of evangelism. Understandably so, this kind of a program caused some adjustment pains for a few people. Enns noted this: Because the program was organized and planned by the leadership of the Latin American Theological Fraternity which is accustomed to serious and controversial theological interchange, the CLADE II program was a bit too heavy or concentrated, and also somewhat too controversial for the average participant. This led to some tension, much of which may have been creative and productive, but which on the other hand may have contributed to a rather noticeable tendency to polarize the Evangelical Community of Latin America. Other pressures for polarization proceeded from sectors interested in preserving traditional or specialized group interest. This tendency was largely offset by the position and direct intervention of the key leadership of the congress.44

Another area where CLADE II signified a clear movement toward autochthonous leadership was the finances of the congress. In sharp contrast with CLADE I, for which the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) covered almost the whole cost, approximately 40 percent of the cost of CLADE II was paid by Latin American contributions.45 Also, the sources of foreign support were more European—German, English, and Dutch—than North American.46 Faith Sand commented 44

Enns, Report on CLADE II, 2. Ibid. 46 Padilla and Escobar, when interviewed independently, agreed on this point. Escobar, “Interview by Author”; Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 45

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

173

about the fund-raising process that “CLADE II organizers were paranoid about accepting any First World money that had power strings attached.”47 For example, Escobar remembered that the BGEA agreed to support CLADE II with $5,000, but in the end, after the BGEA realized that “Arias, Costas and others” were playing important roles at the congress, the money was not given.48 CLADE II signified an important move from traditional sources of financial aid, signaling substantial changes of power structures. In contrast to CLADE I, where the strategic plan was presented by the executive committee as a package to be approved, at CLADE II the plan was elaborated by the participants themselves in the small working groups. The plan came from their own interests and from their own understanding of their particular reality. The report prepared by Partnership in Mission (PIM) commented about the document’s strategic projections: There appeared to be a general inclination to rely more consistently and vigorously on local church outreach and family-oriented evangelism (Bible study and prayer groups, etc.) and less on the “big temple” approach, where membership swells into the thousands, and less on the mass crusades which CLADE I had advocated ten years ago.49

The plan was presented to the churches, not as the final word, but as a suggested proposal to be evaluated and implemented. It was divided into the same areas the initial inventory contained: family, churches, urban ministry, rural ministry, ethnic groups, youth, and others. The plan left much room for the delegates and the receptive churches to modify, add, and cut according to whatever they found applicable in their specific location. However, this did not mean the plan was vague and undefined. On the contrary, it contained clear directives with objectives and recommendations for each area. Even on some points, there were practical steps taken at CLADE II. For example, on ethnic groups, the participants decided to name a committee to plan for the first congress of native Latin American leaders some time in 1981 in Ecuador. Moisés Colop assumed the responsibility to start publishing a news bulletin on evangelism among native ethnic groups.50

47 48 49 50

Sand, “Huampani, Peru, Oct–Nov, 1979,” 340. Escobar, “Interview by Author.” PIM, CLADE II Reports, 3. CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, 347.

174

chapter six

Another group that named a committee was the one for the Andean countries. This group also decided to create a center for documentation and information about evangelism and other related issues in their region.51 Both initiatives—from the ethnic groups and Andean countries—merged in 1981 to form CEMAA, the Centro Evangélico de Misiología Andino-Amazónica, under the leadership of Peruvian anthropologist Tito Paredes.52 Alfredo Torres, a Colombian delegate to CLADE II, noted this move toward indigenous initiative: If Western manipulation did exist at the conference, it wasn’t perceived. Rather, we saw at Huampaní a real possibility for the unity of the Latin American people which seems to happen naturally when we get together. Often when the [North] Americans come in they bring their denominations with them and then start making divisions among us.53

North Americans were both encouraged by and suspicious of CLADE II and its organizers. When the convocation for the congress was distributed, Peter Wagner, whom we remember in previous chapters had become increasingly hostile toward the FTL, wrote a letter to Leighton Ford about CLADE II: I discussed CLADE II with Bruno in Washington, Leighton, and his feelings about it are similar to mine. Those who are organizing it are not those who are known to be especially concerned with evangelism as we in the LCWE are looking at it. Rather they tend to accentuate sociopolitical issues and rationalize their activities as a kind of evangelism. I do not believe they are in synch with the other congresses on evangelism which we are supporting in other regions of the world. Their agenda is quite different. As you mention types such as Nilson Fanini, Luis Palau, Bruno Frigioli and Francisco Anabalon represent a different camp in Latin America. I also discussed it a week ago with Orlando Costas, one of the organizers. He argues that the Theological Fraternity was the only evangelical structure that emerged from CLADE I in Bogota and this is correct. It is not reason enough, however, in my opinion, to provide credentials to convene a CLADE II since evangelism as such has not been a central concern of the Fraternity through the years. I feel they are going to use the good reputation of “CLADE” to develop a forum for emphasizing their

51 52 53

Ibid., 349. See www.cemaa.org. Sand, “Huampani, Peru, Oct–Nov, 1979,” 343.

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

175

socio-political ideas. I would predict that this will turn off the grassroots Pentecostals just like Padilla and Escobar’s addresses did in Lausanne. Having said this, I do not believe the LCWE should ever boycott it. But I do believe we should keep a low profile, remain at a cautious distance, and watch carefully how the program develops.54

This letter takes us back to ICOWE and the narrower and wider definitions of evangelism. This letter is also illuminating regarding the path LCWE took on the issue, as Wagner understood it. The whole discussion at Lausanne on social action and evangelism together as the mission of the church was sidetracked and muted to turn the LCWE into an instrument of Church Growth.55 Wagner’s letter is correct in the fact that Latin Americans were definitely not following a North American agenda in CLADE II. The congress had a clear Latin American ethos that did not follow completely what the Church Growth movement and the LCWE were doing in other regions of the world. However, as Steuernagel pointed out, the agenda of CLADE II was “consistently evangelical.”56 What were some of the “socio-political issues” discussed in Huampaní? W. Dayton Roberts described one of them as: The unfelicitous linkage of the Gospel in Latin America with a frequently irresponsible capitalism as well as with the worldwide extension of materialistic consumerism. They also deplored the “privatistic” orientation of Western Christianity and called for the reproductive participation of Christian believers in the prophetic task of the Kingdom as a sign of God’s ultimate victory over sin and Satan.57

One may ask why Wagner and others were so opposed to a congress where these themes were understood as related to evangelism. In a continent where politics and religion have intermixed even since preColumbian, times it was natural for evangelicals to have also related

54 Letter from C. Peter Wagner to Leighton Ford, dated January 31, 1979, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 2, Folder 15. 55 Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission,” chapter 4. The silence of the LCWE about social action as part of the mission of the church as defined by the Lausanne Covenant can also be seen in the publications related to the Lausanne movement after ICOWE. For example, see Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wilson, eds., The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement (Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984); Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, The Lausanne Story. In these publications there is a clear emphasis on Church Growth strategies. These publications use a narrow definition of mission as evangelism without any social involvement. 56 Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission,” 225. 57 Roberts, “Latin America News Front,” 18.

176

chapter six

them. However, there was not among Latin Americans a homogeneous approach to the issue, as Harry Genet indicated: “The Central Americans, subjected to political turmoil, followed by those from some Andean countries, were the most vocal about the relation of faith to political and social issues. Brazilians and participants for South America’s ‘southern cone’ were mostly disinterested.”58 Costas explained the approach to evangelism by the organizers of CLADE II saying that “evangelization does not happen in a vacuum. It is a contextual action from beginning to end.”59 Costas had three reasons for contextual evangelization. First, “because it comes out of a specific historical situation.” Second, “because the people being evangelized are not abstract persons, separated from reality, but men and women of bones and meat who are immersed in concrete historical situations.” And third, “because the evangelization has as its fundamental goal the transformation of all peoples.”60 To recognize, however, that evangelization was a contextual event did not mean that it was always contextualized properly. Costas evaluated the evangelization actually being practiced in Latin America as “spurious” since “the majority of our evangelism programs lack not only historical-social tact but also ecclesiastical authenticity, since they have been practiced in isolation and competitively. The tragedy of evangelism in our continent is that it not only has been superficial but divisive.”61 Therefore, for Costas, evangelism in Latin America was “embarrassing,” Because it not only has reflected and produced confessional and denominational divisions, but it has also been accompanied by the “metaphysical sin”—the negation of our mutual existence as witness of the gospel. While we Christians and churches do not open ourselves one to the others at least to interchange ideas and experiences, even contradictory and conflictive ones; while we do not recognize that in this parcel of the Third World there are others who, even though they have a way of thinking and a practice that is different to ours, are also preoccupied with the “Great Commission” of our Lord, evangelization will continue being an embarrassing scandal.62

58 Harry Genet, “Latin Evangelicals Chart Their Own Course,” Christianity Today, 7 December 1979, 1639. 59 Orlando Costas, “Por Una Auténtica Evangelización Contextual,” Pastoralia 2, no. 3 (1979): 3. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid., 6. 62 Ibid. See also Orlando Costas, La Iglesia y su Misión Evangelizadora (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1971); idem, El Protestantismo en América Latina Hoy: Ensayos del Camino (1972–1974) (San José, Costa Rica: IINDEF, 1975).

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

177

Even though Wagner recognized that the FTL was the only permanent result of CLADE I, he became adamant in giving them credentials as the organizers of CLADE II. It is not clear what the “good reputation of CLADE” meant. By the end of the 1970s no one remembered CLADE I except those at the FTL. If they were not authorized to convene CLADE II, who was? The LCWE? This letter is significant in clarifying the difficulties Latin Americans went through to achieve independence from foreign agendas. It also shows the difficulties those who were accustomed to holding the power in their hands were experiencing seeing their constituency taking their own steps. Wagner’s missive also helps us to see the polarization Enns mentioned above. Interestingly for Wagner, Pentecostals were on his side, and even though he was not one of them, he was worried that they would be pushed aside and not considered by the organizers of CLADE II. In the end, the congress proved his predictions wrong. As Genet said, “Full involvement by Pentecostals at CLADE II showed that they have been accepted into the evangelical mainstream.”63 As noted before, the conveners of CLADE II understood the congress as remaining under the umbrella of the Lausanne movement. Peter Savage, as international coordinator of the FTL, sent a letter to David Howard, who at that time was with WEF, noting this: I am sure you agree that you and that of other members of the LCWE Executive Committee will insure that people around will see CLADE II vitally linked with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. In fact, I should stress that we are insisting that all those who attend CLADE II should be in agreement with the spirit of the Lausanne covenant, and participate in materials based upon the course prepared by the strategy committee of the LCWE.64

This link between CLADE II and the Lausanne movement was a given for the FTL members. However, some North Americans did not see it that way. In a personal note to David Howard regarding Savage’s invitation to CLADE II, Leighton Ford wrote the following: Dave: I would be happy for you to attend CLADE II if your schedule permits. I have certain questions about Peter’s desire to insure that people will see them vitally linked with LCWE. As you know, CLADE II is not really representative of the Lausanne constituency, even in S. America.65 63

Genet, “Latin Evangelicals,” 1640. Letter from Peter Savage to David Howard, October 1, 1979, Billy Graham Center Archives, “Collection 46,” Box 2, Folder 15. 65 Ibid. 64

178

chapter six

Ford’s words show clearly two different perceptions of the Lausanne movement and two different perceptions of CLADE II. For the Latin Americans in the FTL the Lausanne Covenant’s definition of mission included evangelism as well as social action. They went ahead and developed the program for CLADE II with that understanding. Therefore, it would be hard to understand Ford’s caution if we do not realize both sides were using similar language but giving it different meanings. Evangelism was understood by the Latin Americans as part of the mission of the church. For North Americans, evangelism alone was the mission of the church. Ford and Wagner clearly saw the difference. The Latin Americans in charge of CLADE II were not following the banner the LCWE hoisted after ICOWE. This interchange also revealed that the Lausanne movement was bigger than Ford’s and Wagner’s perception of it. In Steuernagel’s words, “despite division and polarization there is Kingdom commitment that might not be always officially sponsored by Lausanne but which dances to the music of its spirit.”66 Steuernagel explained the different perception of Lausanne and CLADE II by North Americans and Latin Americans: “CLADE II, by following the theological agenda of the FTL, did not satisfy the North American evangelical establishment.” Furthermore, the emphasis of the FTL was from the beginning “an authentic Latin American church, facing the task of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in the environment of the suffering, tragic and culturally rich Latin American situation.” For Steuernagel, these differences were characteristic of tensions within the Lausanne movement: “What is the gospel of Jesus Christ all about? Is it possible to proclaim this gospel without relating it to the entire context in which it is announced? If the gospel is truly preached and accepted, how will this fact impact the entire context of life, and how will the emerging church articulate and fulfil its Christian mission in that very context?”67 The two different perceptions of CLADE II also became clear in William Conard’s report.68 Conard was a Plymouth Brethren missionary based in Mexico and a free-lance reporter for several North American publications including Christianity Today and Eternity. Conard reported as one who was present in Huampaní, but his selection of quotations 66

Steuernagel, “The Theology of Mission,” 227. Ibid., 226. 68 Bill Conard, “Latins Pronounce Two Gospel Approaches,” Eternity 31, no. 2 (1980). 67

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

179

and comments showed clearly his concern with how CLADE II went. Regarding the evaluative part of the first two days of the congress, Conard mentioned Dayton Robert’s view that the “cultural ‘context’ might overshadow the biblical ‘text.’” Conard said that some participants at CLADE II even complained “about the lack of biblical emphasis.” Conard even accused the organizers of CLADE II of concealing from participants the real agenda of the congress. According to him, the congress was not about evangelism but about a dialogue with liberation theologies. He said that “many at the congress did not realize this and were surprised to learn of it.”69 For Conard, “government policies seemed to receive disproportionate emphasis for a congress on evangelization, and even more so when observing that in most Latin nations evangelicals represent less than 10 percent of the population.” To close his report, Conard quoted an “important denominational leader,” who said that “I hope that in two or three years we can have a conference that really centers in evangelism.”70 Conard should have noticed that the organizers of CLADE II had a strong evangelistic commitment, but to an evangelism that goes beyond the individual and influences society in general. However, he quoted a Cuban seminary professor who commented: I notice two currents here regarding evangelization: some view evangelization as the creation of political awareness, while others see it as winning souls. We have had to think seriously about this in my country and have decided that not only must we save people from the world, but we must send them back into our society with a biblical message.71

The Cuban professor understood that it was not an either/or evangelism; it was a both/and evangelism. The social, political, and economic context demanded an evangelism that included both sides. It was difficult for Conard, Wagner, and Ford to distance themselves from their own context where the separation of church and state was the norm. However, such was not the case in Latin America.72 It was difficult for 69

Ibid., 18. Ibid., 19. 71 Ibid., 18. 72 See Ernesto Cardenal and Fidel Castro, Cristianismo y Revolución (Buenos Aires: Editorial Quetzal, 1974); Fernando Castillo L., Iglesia Liberadora y Política (Santiago, Chile: Educación y Comunicaciones, 1986); Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Catholic Church, Fede e Conflitto Politico, Quaderni Asal 31 (Roma: Asal, 1977); Larry Jay Diamond, Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder, Colo.: L. Rienner Publishers, 1993); David Lehmann, Democracy and Development in 70

180

chapter six

the North Americans to understand the interest of their Latin American brethren in politics and social conditions. The Latin Americans had relatives and members of their churches jailed, tortured, and killed by repressive governments. They had to deal with a growing number of widows and orphans because of the political climate. They saw over half of their congregations migrate to other continents as political and economic refugees. There was no way they were to negate those hard experiences and talk about a sterilized evangelism uncontaminated with the “germs” of politics. Faith Sand noticed the either/or approach to evangelism by some at CLADE II. She identified particularly Luis Palau who went to Huampaní to present a paper but did not stay to interact with the other participants. Palau “perceived as a threat” the contextualization of the gospel. According to Sand, Palau’s report of CLADE II “borders on the jingoistic as he assails the conferees for stressing the ‘temporal, more than the spiritual ministry of the church.’”73 Sand responded: But the question seems to be, why is “temporal” used pejoratively? Temporal means “of or relating to earthly life” and one cannot but remember the disciples’ concentration on the “eternal” questions like who have the best power seats when the kingdom was established while Christ was

Latin America: Economics, Politics and Religion in the Post-War Period (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990); Daniel H. Levine, ed., Churches and Politics in Latin America (Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1979); Michael Löwy, The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America, Critical Studies in Latin American and Iberian Cultures (New York: Verso, 1996); Edward A. Lynch, Religion and Politics in Latin America: Liberation Theology and Christian Democracy (New York: Praeger, 1991); Carlos Mondragón, “Protestantismo y Paramenicanismo en América Latina,” in Protestantismo y Política en América Latina y el Caribe, ed. Tomás J. Gutierrez S. (Lima, Perú: CEHILA, 1996); C. René Padilla, De la Marginación al Compromiso: los Evangélicos y la Política en América Latina (Buenos Aires: Fraternidad Teologica Latinoamericana, 1991); idem, “Evangelicals and Politics in Latin America,” Transformation 9 (1992); Satya R. Pattnayak, Organized Religion in the Political Transformation of Latin America (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995); Pérez, “The Third World of Emerging Nationalism—Latin America”; Rudolf Schermann, Die Guerilla Gottes: Lateinamerika Zwischen Marx und Christus, 1. Aufl. ed. (Düsseldorf: Econ, 1983); Samuel Silva Gotay, La Transformación de la Función Política en el Pensamiento Teológico Caribeño y Latinoamericano, Documentos de Trabajo; no. 7 (San Germán, Puerto Rico: Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico Centro de Investigaciones del Caribe y América Latina, 1983); Fernando Carlos Vevia Romero, El Discurso Político-Religioso en América Latina, Colección Fin de Milenio. Serie Pensamiento y Utopía (Guadalajara, Jalisco, México: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara, 1990); Hans Zwiefelhofer, Christen und Sozialismus in Lateinamerika (Wuppertal, Düsseldorf: Jugenddienst-Verlag; Patmos-Verlag, 1974). 73 Sand, “Huampani, Peru, Oct–Nov, 1979,” 341.

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

181

caught up in the “temporal” matters like putting mud on the eye of a blind man so that he could say, “All I know is that before I was blind, now I see!” There is no need for the Palau set to convolute the gospel in order to justify their programs of sweeping into a town, giving the message, saving the souls and going on to the next without getting involved in the context. Surely God loves diversity enough to allow Palau’s to do their thing while the Dom Helder Camara’s and the Mother Teresa’s pursue their ministry among the lepers, the poor and the dying.74

According to Padilla, there was at CLADE II a small number of people who would have agreed with Conard. However, “over ninety percent of the people either knew what CLADE was about, because the themes were announced beforehand, or during the congress they grasped the vision of what we were trying to do and subsequently changed their minds and their concept of ministry.”75 The organizers were aware of the criticisms. Padilla, for example, wrote that “CLADE II is likely to be criticized for its emphasis on the need for contextualized evangelization in the 1980s.”76 In the same tone, Escobar observed: We must take into account that there have been foreign commentators who looking at CLADE I saw in our timid efforts to contextualize the gospel a dangerous departure from the “simple gospel.” For them Lima will probably be a terrible apostasy. But we who live the gospel in these lands believe that the Spirit is pushing us in this direction, to take more seriously our witness, to stop reducing the gospel, dressing it with foreign clothes, to put an end to the artificial separation between evangelization and theology, to move from a busy ecclesiastical traffic on to a more serious way of being the Lord’s church in Latin America.77

Escobar and the other organizers of CLADE II showed boldness and commitment to what they understood their calling to be. They acted with maturity and independence. Even though they were keenly aware of the risks, the difficulties, and the possibilities, they decided to go ahead in spite of what others might have said. During the last press conference in Huampaní, Escobar explained that there were some barriers in the communication at CLADE II such as difficult language, too much reading material, and not enough time to understand it. However,

74

Ibid., 342. Padilla, “Interview by Author.” 76 C. René Padilla, “Being God’s Church in Latin America: CLADE II Affirms Evangelical Convictions in the Context of Violence, Exploitation, and Corruption,” Christianity Today, 21 March 1980, 410. 77 Ibid. 75

182

chapter six

Escobar said, “we need to recognize that there are in CLADE II different or conflicting positions within a common biblical framework; there have been different ways to interpret the [Latin American] reality.”78 Savage added to Escobar’s remarks that many people told him during the congress that the understanding of the gospel they had received was static and consequently impeded them from listening to others. Also, Savage said, “we should not forget that all the participants of CLADE II represent different regional situations and therefore bring different ways of perceiving reality.”79 However, the Latin Americans in charge of CLADE II considered the diversity of opinions and approaches to evangelism an asset instead of a liability. As we have noticed, those at the FTL were used to working with “creative tensions.” For Escobar, “it is a symptom of Christian maturity to accept a plurality of thought, even among those who have in common the same evangelical foundation.”80 Latin Americans were more prone to underscore those areas were there was agreement. For example, Escobar, after pointing to the “pluralism” of the congress, expressed the Latin Americans’ evangelical consensus in the opening session: We have one thing in common: our conviction that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is valid today as never before and it answers the yearnings of the Latin American people. What we have in common is our acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God to whose authority we submit ourselves, the conviction that the Holy Spirit is active today in the world and that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Lord, the only way to God and the only hope for men.81

The consensus reached in Huampaní found its expression in the final document of the congress: Carta de CLADE II.82 In this letter to the evangelical people in Latin America, the 266 participants reaffirmed their adhesion to the Declaración de Bogotá of CLADE I and to the Lausanne Covenant. They also expressed their thanksgiving for the evangelical heritage and the efforts of those—either foreigners or nationals—who took the gospel to Latin America. In regard to the situation in the continent and their commitment they declared:

78 79 80 81 82

CLADE-II, Boletín de Prensa, 7 de Noviembre, 1979 (Huampaní, Peru, 1979). Ibid. Ibid. CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, viii. See Appendix 4.

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

183

We have heard the word of God who speaks to us and who also listens to the clamor of those who suffer. We have lifted our eyes towards our continent and have contemplated the drama and tragedy in which our people live in this time of spiritual restlessness, religious confusion, moral corruption and socio-political convulsions. We have heard the shout of those with hunger and thirst for justice, of those who do not have the basics to subsist, of the marginalized ethnic groups, of the destroyed families, of the women who are dispossessed of the use of their rights, of the youth given to vices or pushed to violence, of the children who suffer hunger, abandonment, ignorance and exploitation. On the other hand, we have seen that many Latin Americans have thrown themselves into the idolatry of materialism, submitting the spiritual values under those that a society of consumerism imposes, according to which, human beings are valuable not because of what they are, but because of the abundance of goods they have. There are also those who in their legitimate desire to revindicate the right to live and liberty, or in their desire to keep things as they are, follow ideologies that offer a partial analysis of the Latin American reality and lead to diverse forms of totalitarianism and to human rights violations. There exist also vast sectors enslaved by the satanic powers that manifest themselves in different forms of occultism and religiosity.83

Roberts commenting on the letter from CLADE II said that it “was careful to avoid any overt swing to the left.”84 Genet evaluated the letter as “theologically conservative and socially centrist.”85 Conard, in contrast with his negative evaluation of CLADE II, saw the letter as “conservative evangelical” since it “attested to the supreme authority of the Bible and looked forward to singular blessings in coming decades which will result in the salvation and formation of a great community of faith.”86 For Padilla, the letter indicated al least two things. First, it indicated that “CLADE II was more than a mere reaffirmation of basic evangelical convictions, however: it was an effort to understand the meaning of such convictions within a particular historical context.” Second, while the letter included a direct recognition of “the fantastic numerical growth of evangelical (and especially Pentecostal) churches in Latin America,” it also pointed to “the need for a more holistic approach to the mission of the church, in which faith is regarded as inseparable from obedience and the call to conversion is seen as a call

83 84 85 86

CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, xix. Roberts, “Latin America News Front,” 18. Genet, “Latin Evangelicals,” 1639. Conard, “Latins Pronounce Two Gospel Approaches,” 18.

184

chapter six

to radical discipleship.”87 These words resemble again the dialogue at Lausanne. The letter included a paragraph expressing the significance of the congress for the future: We decide to depend on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit for the faithful fulfilment of the task we have before us. We believe that in the next decade the Lord could bless our people in a special way, save holistically many people, consolidate or restore our families and raise a great community of faith which anticipates, in word and deed, what the Kingdom will be at its final manifestation.88

CLADE II experienced a controversial episode that reflected the two perceptions of the congress and of Latin American evangelical theology. Escobar remembered that when the organizers of CLADE II invited Emilio Castro to greet the congress and pray in a meeting, “some people were opposed showing a blind ecumenism.”89 Emilio Castro was attending a meeting the Commission on Evangelism and Mission of the WCC was having simultaneously in Huampaní. The discussion was so heated that at the end the invitation was withdrawn. However, this situation was a good example to show the inclusiveness the organizers of the congress had demonstrated all along. As we noted, in CLADE II were represented different positions and trends among evangelicals in Latin America. However, as Sand recalled, some “First World mission observers who attended the meeting, apparently felt their control slipping away.”90 Sand mentioned also that those same foreign observers even talked about organizing another congress under the auspices of the BGEA, which meant for the organizers of CLADE II “overt paternalism trying to reenter the world they have recently begun to feel good about.”91 Other observers, however, understood the process of maturation and independence that Latin America theology was going through. Sam Wilson commented: I laud the growing independence and strength of the churches here in Latin America. However, my hope is that we can get beyond this tendency to polarity and begin to work with a growing interdependence sans paternalism. Then the ministry of evangelism as well as social concerns

87 88 89 90 91

Padilla, “Being God’s Church,” 410. Italics in the original. CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, xx. Escobar, “Interview by Author.” Sand, “Huampani, Peru, Oct–Nov, 1979,” 343. Ibid., 344.

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

185

of the church can move forward as we work together for the kingdom of the Lord here on earth.92

Enns saw in CLADE II signs of a “definite moderating and maturing tendency taking place among the leadership of the Latin American Theological Fraternity. The leadership provides a Biblical counterbalance to the radicalization often experienced by young Latin American evangelicals.”93 Therefore, CLADE II served as a platform for a Latin American theology in a process of independence, maturation, and definition. It was understood by the conveners to be in line with CLADE I and ICOWE. The organizers perceived CLADE II as the consolidation of a decade of intense theological production. They saw it as a forum to make known their concerns and program to a larger section of the evangelical community in the continent. For the members of the FTL, CLADE II also represented the challenge to take a bold step and loosen their ties with foreign agencies and theologies. Escobar’s words at the opening session captured well this initiative: This gathering, its program and objectives have been gestated in Latin America. They are evidence of the maturity and rootlessness of the evangelical people in this Indo-American land. The time is over when it was believed that the evangelical churches were plants of other soils, directed from ecclesiastical centers of power in North America and Europe. We thank our European and North American brethren for their solidarity and fraternal support we received without any conditions. We thank God for the freedom to gather and reflect as Latin American evangelicals about our conviction in the Gospel, our thanksgiving for the past and our vision for the future.94

North Americans, conspicuously absent from CLADE II, watched it from a distance. They were not sure what to think about it. Wagner, Ford, Conard, and others were critical and even suspicious. It was difficult for them to empathize with the deep concerns of the Latin American leaders at the congress. North Americans were worlds apart from the everyday situations evangelicals in Latin America were experiencing. They were usually exempt from the social and political hardships and resulting fears Latin Americans suffered in the 1970s. These North Americans saw evangelism as an individual task to fulfill the mission 92 93 94

Ibid. Enns, Report on CLADE II, 3. CLADE-II, América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80, viii.

186

chapter six

of the church while Latin Americans understood it as related to the whole context—political, social, economical, human. CLADE II also constituted a strong break from the financial hegemony of North American institutions. The congress showed that it was possible to meet and to work with whatever means were available. By rejecting monetary help with strings attached, the organizers of CLADE II improved the environment for an indigenous theological production. CLADE II was in a way a planting congress, but also in many ways offered an opportunity to start picking the ripe fruit of the Latin Americans’ theological endeavors. Many of the participants were surprised to see at CLADE II new approaches and also new leadership. To many of them, for the first time, Christ wore a poncho95 and the gospel felt Latin American. Summary In summary, CLADE II, as the first congress on evangelization completely organized by Latin Americans, marked the end of an intense decade of theological production of the FTL in Hispanic Latin America. As previous gatherings, CLADE II was perceived differently by North Americans and Latin Americans. The latter saw the congress following the guidelines and the spirit of the Lausanne Covenant and therefore under the umbrella of the Lausanne movement. North Americans disagreed; they saw CLADE II as not representing LCWE in Latin America. Also following their interpretation of the Lausanne Covenant, the organizers of CLADE II understood evangelism and social involvement as essential parts of the mission of the church, an emphasis reflected in the program of the congress. Their context led them to see a direct application of the gospel to socio-political issues. North Americans saw this mixture of gospel and social action as a danger to the purity of the gospel. They felt uncomfortable with how things were developing. Soon it became an issue of control, a power struggle. One side was reluctant to give it up; the other side was determined to have more of it. The dialogue between North Americans and Latin Americans that

95 Expression borrowed from Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Christ in a Poncho (New York: Orbis Books, 1983).

clade ii—huampaní, peru, november 

187

was taking place within the Lausanne movement, as we saw in chapter 4, was not reflected in CLADE II. Latin Americans did their thing while most North Americans remained at bay. The locals felt empowered by the experience of being in charge; most foreigners did not like the feeling of being left out.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION This time it happened in Quito, the capital city of Ecuador, September 2–8, 2000. CLADE IV gathered more than 1200 evangelical leaders from Latin America to discern their Christian mission for the twenty-first century. This congress, as its two precedent ones, was planned, convened, organized and carried out by the FTL. Several of the theologians we have met in this study acted as main speakers, workshop moderators, and leaders of the congress. The gathering validated in many ways the work and ministry the FTL had over the years. The gospel was still their focus. They continued with their commitment to the centrality and authority of the Scriptures. They had been passing the torch to new generations of leaders who continued fostering the process of maturation and independence in the evangelical theological production from Latin America, a process that begun in the 1970s. It will be recalled that our central research question was this: What were the factors that the people—in Latin America and in the United States—involved in the Latin American evangelical theological production—either as authors or readers—perceived as crucial to bring about maturity and definition for the Hispanic Latin American evangelical theology in the 1970s? A number of factors emerged in our account. A general tendency in important sectors existed in Latin America towards Latinamericanization. We noticed this movement in Catholic circles as well as in the general intellectual arena in Latin America. This was a process that started earlier than the 1970s but in that decade became more evident since practical steps were taken to achieve it. Evangelicals in Latin America participated actively in this process of self-assertion. Latin American evangelicals understood their work of maturation and independence as part of this general mood and accompanied their fellow Latin Americans in their journey with an indigenous theological production. The general move towards independence in Latin America was also furthered by political factors such as the United States’ policies and the several military interventions in the region. The extreme political turmoil most of Latin American countries were undergoing fueled as well

190

chapter seven

such a tendency. The scars in the bodies and hearts of Latin Americans required more than financial “Band-Aids.” Social and political conditions in the continent demanded, overall, a theological explanation. The task of the church was to make the Bible speak to the generation of the 1970s in a way that was faithful to the Gospel and relevant to the times. The group of theologians with whom we have become familiar in this study assumed that challenge as their calling. They confronted, head on, the confusion caused by dissonant religious voices and presented the evangelical church with a message and strategies that encouraged Christians to be salt and light in a suffering Latin America. Despite the cross-communication with the North Americans, the difficult but continuous dialogue spurred Latin American evangelicals to group and join efforts in their theological production. This theology was produced in the midst of intensive ministry and debate on several fronts. These theologians traveled across the continent and abroad. They organized conferences, congresses, meetings of many kinds to discuss ardently, passionately, and deeply the different issues the situation demanded. They were not satisfied with pat answers. They believed the gospel message was at stake and they were not going to let it be kidnaped by anyone. They remained updated about the different theological and religious happenings and tendencies and presented a direct response to those they understood as a threat. When they rejected the Anglo-Saxon clothes of the traditions they received, they tried to weed out the basic tenets of the gospel from its cultural entrapments. In doing so, their commitment to the authority of the Scripture and their submission to the work of the Holy Spirit grew and became stronger. North Americans had mixed feelings about these developments all along. They felt encouraged that Latin Americans were coming of age. Yet, the North Americans we have studied became increasingly uncomfortable with what they saw. How might we understand their reactions? The studies and research of Robert C. Holub helps us in this matter. Holub explained: Throughout the eighties I set out to investigate various aspects of the transformations and difficulties of border crossings in numerous essays and reviews . . . What I found, in the most general terms, is that what matters most in the appropriation of a theory from a foreign country is how it fits into an already established constellation in the importing country. Traditions and the possibility of assimilating something alien to a familiar frame of reference were the most important determinants of whether a given theoretical direction would be absorbed or rejected, whether it

conclusion

191

would be welcomed as an enrichment of the native heritage or rejected, ignored, or ridiculed as an unwanted intruder on foreign soil.1

Holub concluded that, “when a theory is imported into another country, it often assumes a different status than it had in its native land . . . One of the ways to make a foreign theory appear more acceptable in a strange theoretical environment is to assimilate it to a familiar tradition.”2 Holub’s conclusions give us a way to assess the reaction of North Americans towards the Latin American evangelical theological production in the 1970s. North Americans needed a familiar category or frame of reference in order to understand and assimilate what their Latin American brethren were saying. As suggested in this study the “Cold War” provided such frame of reference. North Americans, whose views have been presented in this book, understood the boldness and courage of the Latin American theologians as open rebellion, as a stratagem of Communism to conquer their souls. North Americans were not used to being challenged by their mission fields. Also, since most of what North Americans were hearing sounded like theological battles of the past-Social Gospel, liberal theologies, higher criticism, etc.—they could not break away from those experiences and listen unbiasedly. According to Holub’s findings, this was a natural response. Many of the issues that came up in the conversations were, from the point of view of Latin Americans, foreign questions. North Americans tried to bring Latin Americans into their discussions but they sounded alien to the latter. Yet, the reaction of North American evangelicals against what Latin American evangelicals were doing is understandable in light of the evangelical history in the United States. This history has been marked by the fundamentalistic controversy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Evangelicalism in the United States developed a sense of precision in doctrine as a defense against what was perceived as direct attacks to the fundamentals of the faith. Evangelicalism in the United States became a group dedicated to preserve the purity of evangelical doctrine. Therefore, when Latin Americans started to think theologically—within a different historical context and without the North American doctrinal development—North Americans felt their history being played again and reacted as they did in earlier

1 2

Holub, Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction, ix. Ibid., 84.

192

chapter seven

theological disputes. North Americans’ response was not intended to cause harm, rather to protect their understanding of the gospel and to warn Latin Americans of perceived dangers. North American opposition served as a catalyst, as an incentive for Latin Americans to present an unified, though not always cohesive, position. Latin Americans were willing to assume the consequences of their actions. They cut financial strings, institutional demands, and abandoned foreign strategies, and foreign theological agendas. They did not cut themselves off, though, from the fellowship of the church. They remained faithful to their evangelical convictions without wavering. And they continue so until this day. Their lives and ministries have shown that North American fears that they would slide down a slippery-slope towards liberalism were unfounded. Latin American evangelicals understood their process of maturation and independence as a responsible answer to counteract the influence of the mixture of the gospel message with the “North American way of life” in their churches. The FTL gave the evangelical church in Latin America a clear possibility to become united. However, unity did not happen. The divisions and denominational strongholds that existed before the FTL began remained unchanged. Even though the members of the FTL represented several denominations, they were acting on their personal behalf and not as representatives of any particular tradition. The church in Latin America became even more polarized in the 1970s. The traditional lines became more like trenches to keep the others out. This fragmentation will need further study to understand how in the midst of such turmoil, the theological production in Latin America was able to develop and mature. The formation of CLAI3 and CONELA4 in 1982 as opposing expressions of Latin American evangelicalism deserves an in-depth study to unlock the emergence of such a gulf between brethren. The research and study we have presented in this book support and demonstrate the thesis that there was a significant development towards a maturation and independence of the evangelical theological production in Hispanic Latin America in the 1970s. That decade marked an important turning point for Latin American evangelicals in which they developed a theology faithful to the Scriptures and pertinent to the questions and conditions in the Latin American countries.

3 4

Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias. Confraternidad Evangélica Latinoamericana.

conclusion

193

A number of questions could not be addressed in our study and warrant further research and analysis. For example, the reasons for a halt in the dialogue between North America and Latin America in the 1980s are not clear.5 What factors—either cultural, political, economical, theological, and others—brought the theological dialogue to an end? Nonetheless, the theological production from Latin America has not stopped. Rather, it has continued with more Latin American people involved and more works printed.6 If, as this work has shown, what evangelical Latin Americans were doing theologically between 1969 and 1979 was mostly unknown in North America, this is even more the case now. In the 1970s, as we have seen, open avenues of dialogue existed. However, by the end of the decade the dialogue was waning. This could explain why the final document of CLADE II7 was never translated into English. This may signal the beginnings of a break, an ending of dealings between Latin Americans and North Americans. What happened to keep a dialogue from happening? CLADE III (1992) and IV (2000) received minimal attention in the United States. Other gatherings organized by the FTL in the last three decades have passed unnoticed. It would be highly desirable to see a fraternal dialogue resume in which both sides make the effort to listen carefully. This would bring glory to God and healing to the church. It would cause growth in understanding, unity, and brotherly love. It would benefit the theological academic world in North America and Latin America. Perhaps the question should be broadened to find if there was any dialogue between theologians in the United States and the rest of the world. What we could conclude here is that an inter-American theological dialogue took place in the initial stages of theological development in Latin America in the 1970s. It was not an easy interchange, however, but the fact that it existed proved that such a dialogue is possible. By the time of CLADE II (1979), both sides were widening the distance between them and soon they stopped talking. The members of the FTL

5 An exception was the conference entitled “Context and Hermeneutics in the Americas,” in 1983 with thirty-five scholars from the United States and Latin America. See, Mark Branson and C. René Padilla, eds., Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in the Americas. A Report on the Context and Hermeneutics in the Americas Conference Sponsored by Theological Students Fellowship and the Latin American Theological Fraternity, Tlayacapan, Mexico, November 24–29, 1983 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). 6 For example Editorial Kairós in Buenos Aires, Argentina, published over 20 titles in 2002 alone. 7 See appendix 4.

194

chapter seven

found more empathic ears for their theological enterprises in Europe and other Third-World forums. They found their financial support outside of the United States and the need for a continuous relationship ceased. We have observed that one of the reasons the Hispanic theological production from Latin America has remained unknown in the United States is the lack of a translation program. Only a handful of the theological works produced in Spanish by Latin Americans has been translated into English, and most of the time those that have been translated are not representative of such a production. This void in the academic field in the United States is another question waiting for an answer. Are finances the reason? Are marketing strategies responsible? Or perhaps the question should be: does a genuine interest in the scholarly evangelical sector in North America exist? In the 1970s Latin Americans showed that they were able to tackle theological questions at the same level as North Americans. Perhaps Latin Americans were not sufficiently convincing to attract serious attention in the United States. Or perhaps, evangelicals in the United States, following the general cultural tendencies in their country, see little good coming from Latin America. As this study has shown, historical, cultural, ideological and public opinion factors are, many times, a heavier influence upon us than biblical and theological understanding in choosing our allies or foes. If the reasons are cultural, a mere translation program would not do. North Americans need a changed attitude and a disposition to learn from the Latin Americans, and vice versa. Learning requires more than just speaking the language or reading some articles. It demands personal involvement, incarnational empathy, and sacrificial listening. Only then, might both sides together promote a richer understanding of the Kingdom. The challenge for the next generations of theologians, both in Latin America and North America, is to become more global and less provincial. The author prays that this study will serve to open doors to new avenues of dialogue and joint efforts between North American theologians and their Latin American counterparts.

APPENDIX ONE

THE EVANGELICAL DECLARATION OF BOGOTA FIRST LATIN AMERICAN EVANGELICAL CONGRESS Bogota, Colombia November 21–29, 1969 Those of us united here, believers in Jesus Christ, members of the several denominational communities which work on our continent among Latin American people, have met together in this First Latin American Congress on Evangelism, in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit Himself has led us to this encounter with the purpose of examining anew our evangelistic mission in the light of Biblical teaching and the present Latin American situation. Our presence in this Congress has exhibited our unity in Christ, the spiritual and not the organizational nature of which, is rooted in our common evangelical heritage, based on the truths of the Bible, the authority of which as the Word of God and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, we affirm categorically. Consequently, this declaration which we present to the Latin American evangelical people, is an expression of a consensus in which there is agreement on the fundamentals; but there is also room for diversity which comes from the abundant grace of God through which gifts are given to His people: diversity within unity. This declaration also attempts to reflect the self examination which the Lord Jesus Christ has caused us to undergo during these days, making us feel the urgency both of the multiple crises which afflict our people, and the imperative nature of His command to evangelize. Together we have recognized the necessity of living the Christian life to the full and proclaiming the total Gospel to the Latin American man in the context of his many needs. We share what the Lord’ has shown us with a sense of urgency, but with no intention of legislating for the life of the Latin American churches. Instead, we invite the Latin American people to read and study these declarations which express the convictions which the Lord has brought home to us during the Congress. THUS, WE DECLARE:

196

appendix one

1. The evangelical presence in Latin America is the fruit of the action of God through an immense flow of Christian love, missionary vision, sacrificial spirit, work, effort, time, and money invested here by the foreign missions which have been laboring for more than a century, including the work of the Bible Societies. This glance at our history cannot do less than awaken within us a spirit of gratitude for the work of the pioneers. At the same time, looking toward the future, we are conscious of new responsibilities, new tasks, and new structures which form a true challenge to Latin American believers and to the indigenous leadership in all dimensions of the ministry. 2. The commission to preach the Gospel to every creature is an imperative clearly expressed in the Word of God. Evangelism is not something optional: it lies at the very essence of the Church: it is her supreme task. The dynamic, which undergirds the evangelistic task, is the action of the Holy Spirit. It is He who gives gifts to the Church, who prepares the evangelist, who testifies of Christ to the hearer, who illuminates, who convicts of sin, righteousness, judgement, and eternal damnation: who changes the sinner into a new creature, and who makes him part of the Church and a co-laborer with God in evangelism. Where this initiative of the Spirit is not recognized, evangelism is reduced to a mere human endeavor. 3. Our theology of evangelism determines our evangelistic efforts, or the lack of them. The simplicity of the Gospel is never in conflict with the theological dimensions. The essence of the Gospel is the self revelation of God in Jesus Christ. We reaffirm the historicity of Christ according to Scripture: His incarnation, His crucifixion, and His resurrection. We reaffirm the unique quality of His mediatory work, as a result of which the sinner finds pardon for his sins and justification by faith alone, without repeating that sacrifice. We also reaffirm that Christ is the Lord and head of the Church, and that the final manifestation of His Lordship over the world will be made evident in His second coming, the hope of the redeemed. This is the good news which, when proclaimed and accepted, radically transforms man. 4. Latin America’s fields are white and ready for harvest. Large segments of the population show receptivity to the Gospel, but such an hour of opportunity demands an adequate strategy. We need to reevaluate our present evangelistic methods in the light of amazingly rapid growth in some denominations. Such an evaluation, together with a careful consideration of the life of the New Testament Church, will show first of all the need for the total mobilization of the Church for

the evangelical declaration of bogota

197

the evangelistic task. To be true to the Bible, we must recognize that such mobilization must be the work of the Holy Spirit, who will use intelligent and creative methods which the Church, beginning with the local congregation, develops. 5. In our day we have been witnesses of the startling progress of mass media which, through a combination of efficiency and lack of ethics on the part of those who control them, have created a chaos of voices which confuse the Latin American man. In the midst of this confusion, the clear, distinct, simple and powerful message of Christ should find its way to the listeners. Christ’s messenger is under the pressing obligation to understand and employ modern means of communication in order to capture the interest of the Latin American man, dialogue with him, and communicate the Gospel intelligently and meaningfully to his present condition. 6. The process of evangelization must occur in concrete human situations. Social structures have their influence on the Church and on those who receive the Gospel. If this fact is not recognized, the Gospel is betrayed and the Christian life is impoverished. The time has come for us evangelicals to take seriously our social responsibility. In order to do this, we must build on a biblical foundation which implies evangelical doctrine and the example of Jesus Christ carried to its logical implications, Christ’s example become incarnated in the critical Latin American situation of underdevelopment, injustice, hunger, violence, and despair. Men cannot build the Kingdom of God on earth, but evangelical action will contribute toward the creation of a better world as a foreshadowing of that Kingdom whose coming we pray for daily. 7. The population explosion presents us with the challenge of a youthful, generation growing in geometric proportions just at the moment when the church is experiencing an exodus of its young people and a ministerial crisis within the new generation. The forward march of the church needs to come to terms with a strategy which will realistically diagnose the crisis of youth and reconcile it with the demands of Christ. The message of Christ needs to be announced in a way which will capture youthful imagination and energy, channeling them toward the conquest of Latin America for Christ, The enthusiasm, vigor, goodwill, and adventure that characterize today’s youth could bring about the deep transformation that our people long for. 8. The evangelistic task does not end with proclamation and conversion. New converts need a shepherding ministry which will ground them in doctrine, teach them how to live the Christian life in their own

198

appendix one

setting, and help them to express their faithfulness to Christ in the social-cultural context in which God has placed them. All planning for evangelistic efforts should offer the theological bases and the practical means for a good follow-up program. 9. In a continent where the majority are nominal Catholics, we cannot shut our eyes to the ferment of renewal within the Church of Rome, The “aggiornamento” faces us up both with risk and opportunity: changes in liturgy, ecclesiology, politics and strategy still leave untouched the dogmas which separate evangelicals from Rome. Nevertheless, our trust in the Word of God, the distribution and, reading of which continue to accelerate within Catholicism, cause us to hope for fruit of renewal, and they present us with an opportunity for dialogue on a personal level. This needs to be an intelligent dialogue, and it demands from our churches a deeper and more consistent teaching of our own evangelical heritage, so as to avoid the risks of a false and misunderstood ecumenism. 10. In a spirit of thankfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ for the way He has permitted the growth of the Gospel in our lands, we confess at the same time our failure to obey His commands in this critical hour. But we affirm our faith in the resources of His grace, which will equip His own to fulfill the tasks He has given them, and our faith in the help and power of the Holy Spirit which was promised to the Church “until the end of the age.” To our Lord and Savior, to whom we give the glory both now and forever, we commit ourselves. Amen. Accepted by Vote of The Congress, Bogota, November 29, 1969

APPENDIX TWO

EVANGELICAL DECLARATION OF COCHABAMBA We have met here to reflect together on the revelation of God, that free and sovereign God who “in many and various ways spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days has spoken to us by a Son” (Heb. 1:1–2). We believe that special revelation is the first and indispensable condition for knowing God and understanding the significance of human life and history. While God has made Himself partially known through nature and through the law written in the hearts of men, He has revealed Himself in the clearest and most definite way through Jesus Christ, to whom the Bible testifies. It is primarily upon this fact that we base our theological reflection and attempt to understand our mission as the people of God in Latin America. We recognize our debt to the missionaries who brought us the Gospel. At the same time we believe that a theological reflection relevant to our own peoples must take into account the dramatic reality of the Latin American scene, and make an effort to identify and remove the foreign trappings in which the message has been wrapped. God reveals Himself through a historical process which began with the creation described in Genesis and will end with the consummation of all things described in Revelation. He reveals Himself in special historic events which have been interpreted through the voice of God communicating through the apostles and prophets. The Bible derives its authority from its relationship to God’s revelation which finds its highest fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It is the Scripture, the words of which, inspired by God, communicate the Word of God, and infallibly fulfill the purpose for which they were given: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). It is a book written by men, and as such it bears an indelible human imprint, but at the same time it is a divine book, written under the control of the Holy Spirit. To deny the fact of inspiration is, in the final analysis, equivalent to denying the special revelation of God. The Bible cannot be separated from the history of salvation, as a part of which it came into being through the action of the Holy Spirit. The only absolute authority is that which is found in God Himself. A

200

appendix two

definition of the meaning and scope of biblical authority is possible only when the Bible is placed in the total context of God’s revelation in history and of His saving purposes. The Bible is also inseparable from Jesus Christ and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. God exercises His authority through the written word and through the Spirit. And this authority is normative for all that which is related to Christian faith and practice. The acknowledgment of biblical authority may be considered one of the most widespread characteristics of the evangelical movement in Latin America. This is to be expected within a movement the great majority of which is theologically conservative. Nevertheless, we must admit that the way most evangelicals in Latin America use the Bible does not always coincide with the high view of the Scriptures they profess. The Bible is highly respected, but the voice of the Lord who speaks through it is not always obeyed, and this disobedience is rationalized in many ways. We need a hermeneutic which does justice to the biblical text in every case. Preaching is often void of biblical substance. The evangelical pulpit is in a state of crisis. We find among ourselves a depressing ignorance of the Bible and of the application of its message to today’s needs. The biblical message is indisputably pertinent to Latin Americans, but its proclamation does not play the part it should among us. We are living in a difficult moment for the evangelical church of our continent. This demands a new evaluation of our situation. The need of the hour is to turn to the Word of God in submission to the Holy Spirit. It involves returning to the Bible and to the “Lord who reigns through it. It is to call into question our “evangelical traditions” in light of written revelation. It means placing every activity of the church under the judgment of the Word of the living God. It is to obey the clear demands of the Word of God in announcing the message of Jesus Christ to all, calling all people to be His disciples, and, within the complex social, political and economic scene in Latin America, to become a community which expresses the spirit of justice, kindness, and service which is implied in the Gospel. We rejoice at the movement for the distribution and study of the Bible in Roman Catholic circles. We realize that this movement is like an alarm bell which rings to awaken us from the slumber into which many of us evangelicals have fallen with a closed Bible in our hands. It shows us that a new biblical movement is needed in the evangelical church in Latin America.

evangelical declaration of cochabamba

201

Today’s ideologies, which increasingly challenge us, can also be a prod in God’s hands to make us listen to His voice. Now is the time to search the Scriptures to rediscover the true Christian hope, that dynamic which makes us “rejoice in hope.” It is time to recognize how much biblical teaching we have left aside because of cur own human traditions and because of those human visions of a new world which feed the Utopias of our time. Thus, we who know the Truth, we who have the only true Hope, we who have been the object of the supreme Love, will be able to present to our Latin America the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ with a brilliance which will outshine all false gospels. We give thanks to God for His objective revelation given “once for all” which we have in the Bible. We give thanks to God for His Spirit who illumines and applies the written Word. Cochabamba, December 18, 1970

APPENDIX THREE

LETTER TO LAUSANNEIMPLICATIONS OF RADICAL DISCIPLESHIP A number of issues have thrust themselves upon us from papers delivered in this Congress and, from the subsequent wrestling with them under the authority of God’s Word, a number of us have felt the compulsion of his Spirit to share this response. We affirm that . . . The evangel is God’s Good News in Jesus Christ; it is Good News of the reign he proclaimed and embodies; of God’s mission of love to restore the world to wholeness through the Cross of Christ and him alone; of his victory over the demonic powers of destruction and death; of his Lordship over the entire universe; it is Good News of a new creation of a new humanity, a new birth through him by his lifegiving Spirit; of the gifts of the messianic reign contained in Jesus and mediated through him by his Spirit; of the charismatic community empowered to embody his reign of shalom here and now before the whole creation and make his Good News seen and known. It is Good News of liberation, of restoration, of wholeness, and of salvation that is personal, social, global and cosmic. Jesus is Lord! Alleluia! Let the earth hear his voice! The communication of the evangel in its fullness to every person worldwide is a mandate of the Lord Jesus to his community. There is no biblical dichotomy between the Word spoken and the Word made visible in the lives of God’s people. Men will look as they listen and what they see must be at one with what they hear. The Christian community must chatter, discuss and proclaim the Gospel; it must express the Gospel in its life as the new society, in its sacrificial service of others as a genuine expression of God’s love, in its prophetic exposing and opposing of all demonic forces that deny the Lordship of Christ and keep men less than fully human; in its pursuit of real justice for all men; in its responsible and caring trusteeship of God’s creation and its resources. There are times when our communication may be by attitude and action only, and times when the spoken Word will stand alone; but

letter to lausanne

203

we must repudiate as demonic the attempt to drive a wedge between evangelism and social action. The response demanded by the evangel is that men and women repent of their sin and every other lordship than that of Jesus Christ, and commit themselves to him to serve him in the world. Men are not already reconciled to God and simply awaiting the realization of it. Nor can biblical authority be found for the false hope of universalism; the reality of the eternal destruction of evil and all who cling to it must be solemnly affirmed, however humbly agnostic the Bible requires us to be about its nature. Salvation is by God’s grace on the sole ground of Christ’s death and resurrection and is received by obedient faith. Repentance is demanded; men must experience a change of understanding, attitude and orientation. But the new birth is not merely a subjective experience of forgiveness. It is a placement within the messianic community, God’s new order which exists as a sign of God’s reign to be consummated at the end of the age. Methods in evangelization must center in Jesus Christ who took our humanity, our frailty, our death and gave himself in suffering servanthood for others. He sends his community into the world, as the Father sent him, to identify and agonize with men, to renounce status and demonic power, and to give itself in selfless service of others for God. Those who proclaim the Cross must be continually marked by the Cross. With unashamed commitment to Jesus Christ we must engage in the mutual listening of dialogue, the reward of which is understanding. We need to meet men on their own ground and be particularly attentive to the powerless. We must use the language, thought-forms and imagery appropriate to differing cultures. As Christians, we must live in such unity and love that men may believe. We must allow God to make visible in the new humanity the quality of life that reflects Christ and demonstrates his reign. We must respect cultural integrity while being free from all that denies or distorts the Lordship of Christ. God’s Spirit overcomes all barriers of race, color and culture. Strategy for world evangelization in our generation is with God, from whom we eagerly anticipate the renewal of his community, equipping us with love and power so that the whole Christian community may make known the whole Gospel to the whole man throughout the whole world. We believe God to be calling us into greater unity and partnership throughout the earth to fulfill the commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.

204

appendix three

We confess that . . . We have been failing in our obedience to the Lordship of Christ and have been refusing to submit to his Word and be led by his Spirit. We have failed to incarnate the Gospel and to come to men as servants for Christ’s sake. Our testimony has often been marred by triumphalism and arrogance, by lack of faith in God and by diminished love for his people. We have often been in bondage to a particular culture and sought to spread it in the name of Jesus. We have not been aware of when we have debased and distorted the Gospel by acceptance of a contrary value system. We have been partisan in our condemnation of totalitarianism and violence and have failed to condemn societal and institutionalized sin, especially that of racism. We have sometimes so identified ourselves with particular political systems that the Gospel has been compromised and the prophetic voice muted. We have frequently denied the rights and neglected the cries of the underprivileged and those struggling for freedom and justice. We have often separated Jesus Christ the Savior from Jesus Christ the Lord. We have sometimes distorted the biblical understanding of man as a total being and have courted an unbiblical dualism. We have insulated new Christians from life in the world and given simplistic responses to complex problems. We have sometimes manipulated our message, used pressure techniques and been unduly pre-occupied with statistics. We have allowed eagerness for qualitative growth to render us silent about the whole counsel of God. We have been usurping God’s Holy Spirit of love and power. We rejoice . . . In our membership by his Spirit in the Body of Christ and in the joy and love he has given us in each other. In the openness and honesty with which we have met each other and have experienced mutual acceptance and forgiveness. In the possibilities for men to read his Word in their own languages through indigenous translations. In the stimulation of mind and challenge to action that has come to us from his Word as we have placed the needs of our generation under its judgment and light.

letter to lausanne

205

In the prophetic voices of our brothers and sisters in this Congress, with whom we go forth in humility and hope. In the certainty that the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ. He shall reign forever. Alleluia! We resolve . . . To submit ourselves afresh to the Word of God and to the leading of his Spirit, to pray and work together for the renewal of his community as the expression of his reign, to participate in God’s mission to his world in our generation, showing forth Jesus as Lord and Savior, and calling on all men everywhere to repent, to submit to his Lordship, to know his salvation, to identify in him with the oppressed and work for the liberation of all men and women in his name. LET THE EARTH HEAR HIS VOICE!

APPENDIX FOUR

CARTA DE CLADE II AL PUEBLO EVANGELICO DE AMERICA LATINA Amados hermanos en Cristo: Que la gracia y la paz del trino Dios sea con cada uno. A diez años de haberse celebrado en Bogotá, Colombia, el 1er Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización, nos nemos reunido en Huampaní, Perú, del 31 de octubre al 8 de noviembre del presente año, 266 participantes que venimos de diferentes sectores del pueblo evangélico latinoamericano. Nuestro propósito ha sido considerar juntos la tarea evangelizadora que somos llamados a cumplir en las próximas décadas, en nuestro contexto histórico. Hemos querido deliberar sobre nuestra misión sometiéndonos a la autoridad suprema de las Sagradas Escrituras, a la dirección soberana del Espíritu Santo y al señorío de Jesucristo, en una atmósfera de amor fraternal. En esta actitud reafirmamos nuestra adhesión a la Declaración del 1er Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización y al Pacto del Congreso Mundial de Evangelización celebrado en Lausana, Suiza, en julio de 1974. Estamos profundamente agradecidos a Dios por nuestra herencia evangélica y por los esfuerzos realizados de parte de los pioneros, tanto nacionales como extranjeros. Hemos decidido renovar nuestro compromiso de lealtad al Evangelio y de fidelidad a la tarea de evangelizar en el contexto del pueblo latinoamericano. Al mismo tiempo sentimos que debemos responder al desafío misionero que, a nivel mundial, representan los millones de personas que no conocen a Jesucristo como Señor y Salvador. Hemos oído la Palabra de Dios quien nos habla y quien también escucha el clamor de los que sufren. Hemos alzado los ojos hacia nuestro continente y contemplado el drama y la tragedia que viven nuestros pueblos en esta hora de inquietud espiritual, confusión religiosa, corrupción moral y convulsiones sociales y políticas. Hemos oído el clamor de los que tienen hambre y sed de justicia, de los que se hallan desprovistos de lo que es básico para su subsistencia, de los grupos étnicos marginados, de las familias destruidas, de las mujeres despojadas del

carta de clade ii al pueblo evangelico

207

uso de sus derechos, de los jóvenes entregados al vicio o empujados a la violencia, de los niños que sufren hambre, abondono, ignorancia y explotación. Por otra parte, hemos visto que muchos latinoamericanos están entregándose a la idolatría del materialismo, sometiendo los valores del espíritu a los que impone la sociedad de consumo, según la cual el ser humano vale no por lo que es en sí mismo, sino por la abundancia de los bienes que posee. Hay también los que en su deseo legítimo de reivindicar el derecho a la vida y la libertad o a fin de mantener el estado de cosas vigentes, siguen ideologías que ofrecen un análisis parcial de la realidad latinoamericana y conducen a formas diversas de totalitarismo y a la violación de los derechos humanos. Existen asimismo vastos sectores esclavisados por los poderes satánicos que se manifiestan en formas variadas de ocultismo y religiosidad. Este cuadro sombrío que ofrece la realidad latinoamericana lo vemos, a la luz de la Palabra de Dios, como expresión del pecado que afecta radicalmente la relación del hombre con Dios, con su prójimo y con la creación. Percibimos en todo lo que se opone al señorío de Jesucristo la acción del Anticristo que ya está en el mundo, Alabamos al Señor, sin embargo, porque en medio de esta situación el Espíritu de Dios ha estado manifestandose poderosamente. Nos alienta el testimonio que hemos compartido en CLADE II de la obra maravillosa que Dios viene llevando a cabo en nuestros respectivos países. Millares se han entregado a Jesucristo como Señor encontrando liberación en El, e incorporándose a iglesias locales. Muchas iglesias han sido renovadas en su vida y misión. El pueblo de Dios avanza en su comprensión de lo que significa el discipulado radical en un mundo de cambios constantes y súbitos. Todo esto es fruto del Evangelio que es mensaje de salvación y esperanza en Jesucristo a quien están sometidas todas las cosas. Alentados por esta esperanza hemos decidido intensificar nuestra acción evangelizadora. Queremos ademas dedicarnos con mayor ahinco al estudio de la Palabra para escuchar con humildad y espíritu de obediencia, lo que El tenga que decir en esta hora crítica de nuestra historia. Confesamos que como Pueblo de Dios no siempre hemos atendido las demandas del Evangelio que predicamos, como lo demuestra nuestra falta de unidad y nuestra indiferencia frente a las necesidades materiales y espirituales de nuestro prójimo. Reconocemos que no hemos hecho todo lo que con la ayuda del Señor hubiéramos podido realizar en beneficio de nuestro pueblo. Pero nos proponemos depender del poder transformador del Espíritu Santo para

208

appendix four

el fiel cumplimiento de la tarea que nos queda por delante. Creemos que en la próxima década el Señor puede bendecir de manera singular a nuestros pueblos, salvar integralmente a muchísimas personas, consolidar o restaurar nuestras familias y levantar una gran comunidad de fe que sea un anticipo, en palabra y hecho, de lo que será el Reino en su manifestacion final. Como un aporte para la acción que nos corresponde presentamos el “Documento de Estrategia” elaborado por todos los participantes de este Congreso. Recomendamos su uso de acuerdo a cada situación. En el amor de Cristo instamos a nuestros hermanos en la fe a hacerse eco de estos anhelos y juntar filas para dedicarnos a la misión de Dios alentados por la esperanza en el Señor resucitado y triunfante, cuyo advenimiento aguardamos. Anhelamos que Dios cumpla su propósito en el mundo, en su Iglesia y en nuestras vidas y que los pueblos latinoamericanos escuchen la voz de Dios, a su gracia nos encomendamos todos y les hacemos llegar un fraternal saludo. 2o Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización (CLADE II)

BIBLIOGRAPHY “Actividades Asociación Teológica.” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 63 (1969): 231– 232. Aguilar, Alfonso. Pan-Americanism from Monroe to the Present—A View from the Other Side. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968. Albright, L. S. The International Missionary Council: Its History, Functions, and Relationships. New York and London: International Missionary Council, 1946. Alvarez, Carmelo E. El Protestantismo Latinoamericano: Entre la Crisis y el Desafío. México: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1981. ——. “Latin American Protestantism (1969–1978).” In The Challenge of Christian Communities: Papers from the International Ecumenical Congress of Theology, February 20–March 2, 1980, Sao Paulo, Brazil, ed. Sergio Torres and John Eagleson, 103–106. New York: Orbis Books, 1981. Alves, Rubem. Protestantism and Repression: A Brazilian Case Study. New York: Orbis Books, 1981. Amaya, Ismael E. “La Inspiración de la Biblia en la Teología Latinoamericana.” In El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage, 79–119. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972. Anderson, Charles W. Politics and Economic Change in Latin America: The Governing of Restless Nations. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1967. Arana Quiroz, Pedro. Progreso, Técnica y Hombre. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Certeza, 1970. ——. Providencia y Revolución. Lima, Peru: El Estandarte de la Verdad, 1970. ——. “La Revelación de Dios y la Teología en Latinoamérica.” In El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage, 37–78. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972. ——. “The Great Problem of the Evangelical Church in Latin America.” I.F.E.S. Journal 26, no. 1 (1973): 19–22. ——. “Evangelization in the Latin American University.” International Review of Mission 63, no. 252 (1974): 507–514. ——. “The Spiritual Diagnosis of Latin America.” In Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation, ed. Peter Savage, 1–9. Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975. Arias, Esther, and Mortimer Arias. The Cry of My People: Out of Captivity in Latin America. New York: Friendship Press, 1980. Arias, Mortimer. “Polemics and Restatement.” Christian Century, 2 June 1971, 698– 700. “Asociación Teológica se Fundó en Buenos Aires.” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 62 (1969): 223. Avila, Mariano. “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics: A Critical Examination of the Contextual Hermeneutics of the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana.” Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1996. Báez-Camargo, Gonzalo. Hacia la Renovación Religiosa en Hispano-América: Resumen e Interpretación del Congreso Evangélico Hispano-Americano de la Habana. Mexico, D.F.: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1930. Barro, Antonio Carlos. “Orlando Enrique Costas: Mission Theologian on the Way and at the Crossroads.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission, 1993.

210

bibliography

Bastian, Jean Pierre. Historia del Protestantismo en América Latina. 2d ed. México: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1990. Beach, Harlan. World Statistics of Christian Missions. New York: The Committee of Reference and Council of the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, 1916. Beardslee III, John W. “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review.” Reformed Review 24 (1971): 98–99. “Beware Revolution, CLADE Speaker Warns.” Christianity Today, 18 December 1970, 43. Billy Graham Center Archives. “Evangelical Missions Information Service, 1964–.” Collection 218: Wheaton. ——. “International Congress on World Evangelization.” Collection 53: Wheaton. ——. “Interviews with Carlos Rene Padilla.” Collection 361: Wheaton. ——. “Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE); 1974–.” Collection 46: Wheaton. ——. “Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelizacion (CLADE), 1969.” Collection 324: Wheaton. ——. “Wagner, Charles Peter, 1930–.” Collection 358: Wheaton. Birkeflet, Svein Helge, and Kjell Nordstokke. Latin American Liberation Theology: A Bibliography on Essential Writings. Oslo: University of Oslo Faculty of Theology, 1991. Bolioli, Oscar. “Repensemos Oaxtepec.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979): 79–88. Branson, Mark, and C. René Padilla, eds. Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in the Americas. A Report on the Context and Hermeneutics in the Americas Conference Sponsored by Theological Students Fellowship and the Latin American Theological Fraternity, Tlayacapan, Mexico, November 24–29, 1983. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Bucafusco, P. Luis. “Impresiones Personales Sobre la III CELA.” In Deudores al Mundo, III Conferencia Evangélica (CELA), 13–16. Montevideo: UNELAM, 1969. Burr, Robert N. Our Troubled Hemisphere: Perspectives on United States-Latin American Relations. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967. Cambre Mariño, Jesús. América Central Durante la Época Reagan. Barcelona: Institut Catòlic d’Estudis Socials, 1989. Camps Cruell, Carlos M. “Oaxtepec 1978: Barreras a Superar.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979): 73–78. Canclini, Arnoldo. “¿Qué Hay Más Allá del Congreso de Lausana?” Pensamiento Cristiano 21, no. 83 (1974): 302–311. Capon, John. “Let the Earth Hear Whose Voice?” Crusade, September 1974. Cardenal, Ernesto, and Fidel Castro. Cristianismo y Revolución. Buenos Aires: Editorial Quetzal, 1974. “Carta de Basilea Sobre Iglesia y Estado.” Certeza 17, no. 65 (1977): 26–28. Castillo L., Fernando. Iglesia Liberadora y Política. Santiago, Chile: Educación y Comunicaciones, 1986. Castro, Emilio. “The Church in Latin America.” In World Christian Handbook, 1968, ed. H. Wakelin Coxill, 19–23. London: Lutterworth Press, 1967. Catholic Church, Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano. Medellín: Conclusiones. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano. (2d: 1968: Bogotá and Medellín, Colombia.). 6. ed. Documentos CELAM. Bogotá: Secretariado General del CELAM, 1971. ——. Fede e Conflitto Politico Quaderni Asal; 31. Roma: Asal, 1977. ——. La Evangelización en el Presente y en el Futuro de América Latina: Puebla, Mexico, 1978: Preparación: Documenta de Consulta a Las Conferencias Episcopales. Bogotá: Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, 1977. ——. Iglesia y América Latina: Cifras. Bogotá: CELAM, 1978.

bibliography

211

——. La Iglesia y América Latina: Aportes Pastorales Desde el CELAM, Conclusiones de los Principales Encuentros Organizados Por el CELAM en los Diez Últimos Años. 2 vols. Bogotá: Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano Secretariado General del CELAM, 1978. ——. Terceira Conferência Geral Do Episcopado Latino-Americano, Puebla, México, 1978: A Evangelização No Presente e No Futuro da América Latina Documento de Consulta Às Conferências Episcopais (Excertos). São Paulo: Edições Paulinas, 1978. ——. Medellín Conclusiones: la Iglesia en la Actual Transformación de América Latina a la Luz del Concilio. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latino-Americano; (2d, 1968, Bogotá and Medellin, Colombia). Bogotá: Secretariado General del CELAM, 1990. Catholic Church, Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, Instituto Pastoral. Medellín Teología y Pastoral para América Latina. Vol. 1, 1 (marzo 1975). Medellín, Colombia: Instituto Pastoral del CELAM, 1975. Catholic Church, Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, and Alfonso López Trujillo. Medellín: Reflexiones en el CELAM. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1977. CCLA. Latin American Ferment: Addresses Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, at New York City, October 19–20, 1944. New York: The Committee, 1949. CELADEC, ed. Oaxtapec un Año Después: Aportes y Documentos. Lima: Comisión Evangélica Latinoamericana de Educación Cristiana, 1980. CELA-I. El Cristianismo Evangélico en América Latina. Informes y Resoluciones de la Primera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana, 18 al 30 de Julio de 1949, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1949. CELA-II. Cristo la Esperanza para América Latina: Ponencias-Informes-Comentarios de la Segunda Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana, 20 de Julio a 6 de Agosto de 1961, Lima, Perú. Buenos Aires: Confederación Evangélica del Río de la Plata, 1962. CELAM. Presencia de la Iglesia en América Latina: Documentos Pastorales de la 2a. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano. Medellín, Colombia, Agosto– Setiembre 1968 “Versión Original, Sujeta Por el CELAM a Revisión de Estilo”. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Búsqueda, 1968. ——. Puebla: L’evangelizzazione Nel Presente e Nel Futuro Dell’america Latina—Testo Definitivo—Unica Versione Autorizzata. Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana, 1979. ——. Puebla: Evangelization at Present and in the Future of Latin America—Conclusions (Official English Edition). London: St. Paul Publications, 1980. Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo e Integración de América Latina, Roberto Jiménez C., and Roger Vekemans. Desarrollo y Revolución, Iglesia y Liberación (Bibliografía). Bogotá: CEDIAL, 1973. “Christians and Social Change in Latin America. Findings of the First Latin American Consultation on Church and Society, 23d to 27th July, 1961, Huampani, Peru.” In First Latin American Evangelical Consultation on Church and Society. Huampani, Peru: Latin American Commission on Church and Society, Montevideo, Uruguay, and Department of Church and Society of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, 1961. Christians, Clifford, Earl J. Schipper, and Wesley Smedes, eds. Who in the World? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. CLADE-I. Acción en Cristo para un Continente en Crisis: Recopilación de Las Ponencias, Conferencias y Estudios Bíblicos del Congreso Latinoamericano de Evangelización, Bogotá, Colombia, Noviembre de 1969. San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1969. CLADE-II. América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80. Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana. Lima, 1979. ——. Boletín de Prensa, 2 de Noviembre de 1979. Huampani, Peru, 1979. ——. Boletín de Prensa, 7 de Noviembre, 1979. Huampaní, Peru, 1979. CLAI, ed. Oaxtepec 1978: Unidad y Misión en América Latina. San José, Costa Rica: Comité Editorial del CLAI, 1980.

212

bibliography

Clasper, Paul. “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review.” Foundations 15, no. 2 (1972): 94–95. Cleary, Edward. Crisis and Change: The Catholic Church in Latin America. New York: Orbis Books, 1985. Cohen, Ralph, ed. New Directions in Literary History. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974. Coleman, John A. “Aftermath of Lausanne! Evangelism in a Changing World.” New Life, 28 August 1974. Colonnese, Louis M., and Catholic Church. Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano. Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano. The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council: Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops, Bogotá, 24 August, Medellín, 26 August–6 September, Colombia, 1968. 2 vols. Bogota: General Secretariat of CELAM, 1970. Comblin, Joseph. The Church and the National Security State. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979. Comblin, Joseph, and Alberto Methol Ferré. Dos Ensayos Sobre Seguridad Nacional. Santiago de Chile: Arzobispado de Santiago Vicaría de la Solidaridad, 1979. Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, CCLA. Christian Work in Latin America. Vol. 1. 3 vols. New York: The Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada, 1917. Conard, Bill. “Latins Pronounce Two Gospel Approaches.” Eternity 31, no. 2 (1980): 18–19. Cone, James H. Teologie Dal Terzo Mondo, Teologia Nera e Teologia Latino-Americana Della Liberazione. Brescia: Queriniana, 1974. “Conservative Theologians Meet in Bolivia.” Latin America Pulse 5, no. 6 (1970): 9. “Consulta Regional de la Zona Andina–Lima.” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 4 (1971). “Consulta Regional de México.” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 4 (1971). “Consulta Regional en Sao Paulo.” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 3 (1971). Conteris, Hiber. “El Rol de la Iglesia en el Cambio Social de América Latina.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 3, no. 7 (1965): 53–60. Coote, Robert T., Editor, and John R. Stott. Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Pub Co 1980., 1980. COPEC/CECOPE (Organization). “Nuestro Siglo: Revista Trimestral.” 33 no. México, D.F.: Copec/Cecope, 1983. Costas, Orlando. La Iglesia y su Misión Evangelizadora. Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1971. ——. The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering Critique from the Third World. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974. ——. “Evangelism and the Gospel of Salvation.” International Review of Mission, 63, no. 249 (1974): 24–37. ——. El Protestantismo en América Latina Hoy: Ensayos del Camino (1972–1974). San José, Costa Rica: IINDEF, 1975. ——. Theology of the Crossroads in Contemporary Latin America, Missiology in Mainline Protestantism: 1969–1974. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1976. ——. “Oaxtepec: ¿Complot Maquiavélico o Soplo del Espíritu?” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978): 3–4. ——. “Compromiso y Misión.” San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1979. ——. “Por Una Auténtica Evangelización Contextual.” Pastoralia 2, no. 3 (1979): 3–7. ——. “Teólogo en la Encrucijada.” In Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla, 13–35. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984.

bibliography

213

Coy, Terrell Frank. “Incarnation and the Kingdom of God: The Political Theologies of Orlando Costas, C. René Padilla, and Samuel Escobar.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999. “Cronología de Actividades de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana.” Boletín Teológico 27, no. 59–60 (1995): 26–33. Crow, John A. The Epic of Latin America. 3d ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. Damboriena, Prudencio S. J. Etapas y Métodos del Protestantismo Latino-Americano. Vol. 1. 2 vols. El Protestantismo en América Latina. Friburg, Switzerland: FERES, 1962. ——. La Situación del Protestantismo en los Países Latino-Americanos. Vol. 2. 2 vols. El Protestantismo en América Latina. Friburg, Switzerland: FERES, 1963. D’Avanzo, Bruno. Chiesa e Liberazione in America Latina: da un Ethos del Sistema ad un Ethos Di Liberazione Temi Etici Nella Storia; 4. Bologna: Dehoniane, 1988. Davis, Gerald. “A Coming of Age for Evangelicals.” Church Scene, 1 August 1974. Davis, Thomas J., ed. Liberation Theology: A Bibliography Selected from the ATLA Religion Database. Chicago: American Theologian Library Association, 1985. Dayton, Edward R., and Samuel Wilson, eds. The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement. Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984. de Onís, José. The United States as Seen by Spanish American Writers, 1776–1890. New York: The Hispanic Institute in the United States, 1952. de Santa Ana, Julio. “Palabras Preliminares.” Cristianismo y Sociedad, Enero-Abril, 1963, 3–4. ——. Protestantismo, Cultura y Sociedad: Problemas y Perspectivas de la Fe Evangélica en América Latina. Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1970. Deiros, Pablo. Protestantismo en América Latina. Ayer, Hoy y Mañana. Nashville: Editorial Caribe, 1997. Dekker, James C. “North American Protestant Theology: Impact on Central America.” Evangelical Review of Theology 9, no. 3 (1985): 226–243. del Río, Angel. The Clash and Attraction of Two Cultures: The Hispanic and AngloSaxon Worlds in America. Translated by James F. Shearer (El mundo hispanico y el mundo anglo-sajón: Choque y atracción de dos culturas). Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1965. Diamond, Larry Jay. Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries. Boulder, Colo.: L. Rienner Publishers, 1993. “Documentos de Oaxtepec.” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978): 87–135. Douglas, J. D., ed. Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland (Official Reference Volume: Papers and Responses). Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. ——, ed. Twentieth-Century Dictionary of Christian Biography. Grand Rapids, Mich. and Carlisle, U.K.: Baker Books and PaterNoster, 1995. Eagleson, John, and Philip J. Scharper. Puebla and Beyond: Documentation and Commentary. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979. ECLA. “Mortimer Arias Reports on Piriapolis Meetings in Christian Century.” Pulse 3, no. 3 (1968): 2–3. ——. “Manuel de Mello to Take His Church into the World Council.” Pulse 4, no. 2 (1969): 8. ——. “WCC Project in Latin America.” Pulse 4, no. 3 (1969): 15–20. ——. “The Evangelical Declaration of Bogota (Official Translation).” Pulse 5, no. 1 (1970): 7–9. ——. “Ismael Amaya Evaluates CLADE/USA.” Pulse 5, no. 6 (1970): 1–4. Elliot, Daniel C. “Theology and Mission from Latin America: The Latin American Theological Fraternity.” Masters thesis, Wheaton College Graduate School, 1992.

214

bibliography

Elliot, Elisabeth. Through Gates of Splendor. New York: Harper, 1957. Enns, Arno W. Report on CLADE II (Latin American Congress on Evangelism). Huampani, Peru, 1979. Escobar, Samuel. “Interview by Author.” Wheaton, 29 September 2003. ——. “¿Somos Fundamentalistas?” Pensamiento Cristiano 13 (1966): 88–96. ——. Diálogo Entre Cristo y Marx. Lima, Perú: Publicaciones AGEUP, 1967. ——. “Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide—Review.” Pensamiento Cristiano 15, no. 60 (1968): 314. ——. “Crónica de la Tercera Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana.” Pensamiento Cristiano 16, no. 63 (1969): 224–229. ——. “Divided Protestantism Struggles with Latin America Problems.” World Vision Magazine, November 1969, 32–35. ——. “La Nueva Generación Evangélica.” Pensamiento Cristiano (1969): 188–193. ——. “The Social Responsibility of the Church.” Latin America Evangelist, March–April 1970, 4–7. ——. “The Social Responsibility of the Church in Latin America.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 6, no. 3 (1970): 129–152. ——. “A Look Ahead.” World Vision Magazine 15, no. 5 (1971): 11–13. ——. “Social Concern and World Evangelism.” In Christ the Liberator—Urbana 70, ed. John Stott and others, 103–112. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1971. ——. “Biblical Content and Anglo-Saxon Trappings in Latin American Theology.” Occasional Bulletin of the Latin American Theological Fraternity, no. 3 (1972): 1–32. ——. Decadencia de la Religión. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Certeza, 1972. ——. “El Contenido Bíblico y el Ropaje Anglosajón en la Teología Latinoamericana.” In El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage, 17–36. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972. ——. “The Social Impact of the Gospel.” In Is Revolution Change? ed. Brian Griffiths, 84–105. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972. ——. “No Rebuke.” Christianity Today, 27 September 1974, 1407–1408. ——. “Search for Freedom, Justice, and Fulfillment.” Engage/Social Action 2 (1974): 34–40. ——. “Evangelism and Man’s Search for Freedom, Justice, and Fulfillment.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas, 303–318. Minneapolis: World Wide, 1975. ——. “The Gospel and Contemporary Ideologies.” In The Gospel Today: Working Papers for Discussion and Application: IFES General Committee, 1975. ——. Los Primeros Seis Años de la Fraternidad. Algunas Reflexiones del Presidente en Ocasión de la Tercera Consulta Internacional. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Unpublished report–FTL, 1977. ——. La Chispa y la Llama. Breve Historia de la Comunidad Internacional de Estudiantes Evangélicos en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1978. ——. “La Teología Evangélica Hoy.” Pensamiento Cristiano 24, no. 4 (1978): 232– 237. ——. “Del CLADE I al CLADE II: Evangélicos en Busca de Una Evangelización Contextual.” Pastoralia 2, no. 3 (1979): 22–30. ——. “Espíritu y Mensaje del CLADE II: Balance y Perspectiva de Una Década de Vida Evangélica en América Latina.” In América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80: Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana, Noviembre de 1979, ed. CLADE II, ix–xvii. Lima, 1979. ——. “¿Qué Significa Ser Evangélico Hoy?” Misión 1 (1982): 14–18, 35–39. ——. “Heredero de la Reforma Radical.” In Hacia Una Teología Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor a Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla, 51–71. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984.

bibliography

215

——. La Fe Evangélica y Las Teologías de la Liberación. El Paso: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1987. ——. “Evangelical Theology in Latin America: The Development of a Missiological Christology.” Missiology 19, no. 3 (1991): 315–332. ——. Los Evangélicos: ¿Nueva Leyenda Negra en América Latina? Mexico: Casa Unida de Publicaciones, 1991. ——. “The Significance of Urbana ‘90.” Missiology 19, no. 3 (1991): 333–338. ——. “La Fundación de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana: Breve Ensayo Histórico.” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995): 7–25. Escobar, Samuel , C. René Padilla, and Yamauchi. ¿Quién Es Cristo Hoy? Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1970. Escobar, Samuel, Pedro Arana, Valdir Steuernagel, and Rodrigo Zapata. “A Latin American Critique of Latin American Theology.” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983): 48–62. Escobar, Samuel, and John Driver. Christian Mission and Social Justice. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1978. Estatutos de la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana. Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1970. “Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation. June 23–27, 1975.” ed. Peter Savage. Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975. “Evangelism in Latin America.” Christianity Today, 19 December 1969, 22. Fischer, David Hackett. Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Fischer, Gerd-Dieter. Richard Shaull’s “Theologie der Revolution”: Ihre Theologische und Ethische Argumentation Auf Dem Hintergrund der Situation in Lateinamerika. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang, 1984. Flinn, Frank K. “Liberation Theology and the Political Order in Latin America.” In Spirit Matters: The Worldwide Impact of Religion on Contemporary Politics, ed. Richard L. Rubenstein, 308–340. New York: Paragon House, 1987. Fong, Bruce W. Racial Equality in the Church: A Critique of the Homogeneous Unit Principle in Light of a Practical Theology Perspective. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1996. Fornet-Betancourt, Raúl. Annäherung an Lateinamerika: die Theologie der Befreiung und die Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung Lateinamerikas. Erstausg. ed. Frankfurt: Materialis Verlag, 1984. FTL. “Proposal for the Celebration of the Second Latin American Congress on Evangelization (CLADE II).” Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1978. Furtado, Celso. “La Hegemonía de los Estados Unidos y el Futuro de América Latina.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 4, no. 11 (1966): 18–38. Gairdner, W. H. T. “Edinburgh 1910” an Account and Interpretation of the World Missionary Conference. Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910. Galilea, Segundo, and Confederación Latinoamericana de Religiosos. Información Teológica y Pastoral Sobre América Latina. Obra Dirigida Por Segundo Galilea. Colaboración de Edgard Beltrán et al. Bogotá; Conferación Latinoamericana de Religiosos, Secretariado General de la CLAR, 1974. Gaspar, Edmund. United States-Latin America: A Special Relationship? Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978. Genet, Harry. “Latin Evangelicals Chart Their Own Course.” Christianity Today, 7 December 1979, 1638–1640. Gill, Athol. “Christian Social Responsibility.” In The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant, ed. C. René Padilla, 87–102. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976.

216

bibliography

Gossain, Juan. “El Congreso Evangelista: Trajes Típicos Bajo la Lluvia Dominical.” El Espectador, 24 de noviembre 1969. Graham, Billy. “Why Lausanne.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 22–36. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974. Grave, Franz, and Dorothea Meilwes. Reichtum der Armen, Armut der Reichen: Lateinamerika an der Schwelle des Dritten Jahrtausends. 1. Aufl. ed. München: Don Bosco, 2001. Green, Michael. “Methods and Strategy in the Evangelism of the Early Church.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 159–180. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. Gremillion, Joseph. The Church and Culture since Vatican II: The Experience of North and Latin America. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1985. Griffiths, Brian, ed. Is Revolution Change? London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972. Grimm, Gunter. Rezeptionsgeschichte: Grundlegung Einer Theorie Mit Analysen und Bibliographie. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1977. Gutiérrez S., Tomás J. “De Panamá a Quito: los Congresos Evangélicos en América Latina. Iglesia, Misión e Identidad (1916–1992).” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995): 35–64. Handy, Robert T. “The American Messianic Consciousness: The Concept of the Chosen People and Manifest Destiny.” Review and Expositor 73, no. 1 (1976): 47–58. Harrison, Lawrence E. The Pan-American Dream. Do Latin America’s Cultural Values Discourage True Partnership with the United States and Canada? New York: Basic Books, 1997. Hartlyn, Jonathan, and Arturo Valenzuela. “Democracy in Latin America since 1930.” In Latin America since 1930: Economy, Society and Politics. Part 2: Politics and Society, ed. Leslie Bethell, 6, 99–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Hayward, Victor E. W. Third Latin American Evangelical Conference. Buenos Aires: Secretariat for Relationships with Christian Councils, 1969. Report 17. Helfenstein, Pius Franz. “Evangelikale Theologie der Befreiung. Das Reich Gottes in der Theologie der ‘Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana’ und der Gägigen Befreiungstheologie, Ein Vergleich.” Dissertation, Basel University, 1991. Henry, Carl F. H. “The Gospel and Society.” Christianity Today, 13 September 1974, 1364–1365. ——. “Christian Personal and Social Ethics in Relation to Racism, Poverty, War, and Other Problems.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 1163–1180. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. ——. Confessions of a Theologian: An Autobiography. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1986. Henry, Carl F. H., and W. Stanley Mooneyham, eds. One Race, One Gospel, One Task. World Congress on Evangelism, Berlin, 1966. Official Reference Volumes: Papers and Reports. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1967. Hinkelammert, Franz J. Democracia y Totalitarismo. San José, Costa Rica: DEI, 1987. Hodges, Melvin L. “Mission and Church Growth.” In The Church’s Worldwide Mission: An Analysis of the Current State of Evangelical Missions, and a Strategy for Future Activity, ed. Harold Lindsell. Waco, Tex.: World Books, 1966. Hoekstra, Harvey T. The World Council of Churches and the Demise of Evangelism. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1979. Holmes, Lionel, ed. Church and Nationhood: A Collection of Papers Originally Presented at a Consultation in Basel, September 1976. New Delhi: Theological Commission, World Evangelical Fellowship, 1978.

bibliography

217

Holtorf, Cornelius. The Reception History of Monuments. 1995. Accessed 7 February 2002. Available from http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/CITDPress/Holtorf/2.4.html; internet. Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 1984. ——. Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Hünermann, Peter, Juan Carlos Scannone, and Margit Eckholt. Lateinamerika und die Katholische Soziallehre: Ein Lateinamerikanisch-Deutsches Dialogprogramm. 3 vols. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1993. Ibarra, Eduardo. Christianisme en Amerique Latine. Bibliographie Internationale 1973–1974 Établie Par Ordineteur. Strausbourg: Cerdic Publications, 1977. Inman, Samuel Guy. Evangelicals at Havana: Being an Account of the Hispanic American Evangelical Congress, at Havana, Cuba, June 20–30, 1929. New York: CCLA, 1929. Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos. “Bibliografía Teológica Comentada del Área Iberoamericana.” v. 22 cm. Buenos Aires, Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos de la Asociación Interconfesional de Estudios Teológicos, 1975. ISAL. Encuentro y Desafío: La Acción Cristiana Evangélica Latinoamericana Ante la Cambiante Situación Social, Política y Económica. Montevideo: ISAL, 1961. ——. “Un Intento de ‘Encarnación’.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 5, no. 14 (1967): 113–119. ——. “III Consulta Latinoamericana de ISAL.” Carta de Isal 1, no. 1 (1968): 1–4. Jauß, Hans Robert. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” In New Directions in Literary History, ed. Ralph Cohen, 11–41. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974. ——. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Translated by Timothy Bahti. Vol. 2 Theory and History of Literature, ed. Wlad Godzich and Johen Schulte-Sasse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. ——. Pour Une Herméneutique Littéraire. Translated by Maurice Jacob. Paris: Gallimard, 1988. Jiménez, Roberto. Tensiones y Crisis en la Iglesia Latinoamericana: Desde Puebla Hasta la Libertatis Conscientia (1979–1987). Bogotá; Colombia and San Cristóbal, Venezuela: Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo e Integración de América Latina; Universidad Católica del Táchira; Trípode, 1988. John Paul II, Pope, and Quentin L. Quade. The Pope and Revolution: John Paul II Confronts Liberation Theology. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1982. Johnston, Arthur P. “A Study of the Theology of Evangelism in the International Missionary Council, 1921–1961.” Ph.D. Diss., Université de Strasbourg, 1969. ——. The Battle for World Evangelism. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978. Kaye, Bruce. “Lausanne: An Assessment.” CWN Series, 16 August 1974. Kern, Bruno. Theologie Im Horizont des Marxismus: zur Geschichte der Marxismusrezeption in der Lateinamerikanischen Theologie der Befreiung. Mainz: Matthias-GrünewaldVerlag, 1992. Kirk, J. Andrew. “Theology under Re-Appraisal: A Latin American View.” In Today’s Church and Today’s World with a Special Focus on the Ministry of Bishops, 144–152. London: CIO Publishing, 1978. Kohn, Hermann. El Salvador, Nicaragua: Aufstand Im Us-Hinterhof. 1. Aufl. ed. Dortmund: Weltkreis-Verlag, 1981. Krass, Alfred C. “The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant (Book Review).” Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 1, no. 1 (1977): 23–24.

218

bibliography

——. Evangelizing Neopagan North America. The Word That Frees. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1982. “La Asociación Teológica Evangélica–Buenos Aires.” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, no. 3 (1971). Lastra, Carlos. “Plan Para América Latina.” In Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis, 72–75. San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1969. ——. “Letter to the Editor.” Christianity Today, 16 January 1970, 30. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. The Great Century in the Americas, Austral-Asia, and Africa. A.D. 1800–A.D. 1914. Vol. 5 A History of the Expansion of Christianity. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1943. Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, (LCWE). Pasadena Consultation on the Homogeneous Unit Principle. Vol. 1 Lausanne Occasional Papers. Wheaton: LCWE, 1978. ——. The Willowbank Report–Gospel and Culture Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 2. Wheaton: LCWE, 1978. ——. An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Life-Style. Exposition and Commentary by Alan Nichols Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 20. Wheaton: LCWE, 1980. ——. Grand Rapids Report: Evangelism and Social Responsibility: An Evangelical Commitment Lausanne Occasional Papers no. 21. Wheaton: LCWE and WEF, 1982. ——. The Lausanne Story: “the Whole Church Taking the Gospel to the Whole World.” Charlotte, NC: LCWE, 1987. Ledogar, Robert J. Hungry for Profits: U.S. Food and Drug Multinationals in Latin America. New York: Idoc/North America, 1975. Lehmann, David. Democracy and Development in Latin America: Economics, Politics and Religion in the Post-War Period. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990. Levine, Daniel H., ed. Churches and Politics in Latin America. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1979. Liebman, Seymour B. Exploring the Latin American Mind. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976. Liggett, Thomas J. “Protestant Parley in Peru.” The Christian Century, 4 October 1961, 1166–1168. Liggett, Thomas J., and Committee on Cooperation in Latin America. The Latin American Evangelical Church in Inter-Church Relationships: The Wider Responsibilities of the Evangelical Churches in Latin America: Study Conference of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America. New York: Committee on Cooperation in Latin America of the Division of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1959. Lindsell, Harold. “Lausanne 74: An Appraisal.” Christianity Today, 13 September 1974, 1327–1332. ——. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Link, Hannelore. Rezeptionsforschung: Eine Einfürung in Methoden und Probleme. Stuttgart and Berlin: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1976. Lopez, Mauricio. “The Secular Context of Mission: Latin America in the Decade of the Sixties.” In Report of the Consultation on the Future Role of the Missionary in Latin America. November 16–20, 1970, Oaxtepec, Mexico, ed. William L. Wipfler and Emilio Castro, 4–8. New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1970. López Trujillo, Alfonso. De Medellín a Puebla Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos; 417. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1980. Lores, Ruben. “Manifest Destiny and the Missionary Enterprise.” Study Encounter 11, no. 1 (1975): 1–16. Löwy, Michael. The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America. Critical Studies in Latin American and Iberian Cultures. New York: Verso, 1996. Löwy, Michael, and Michael Gibson. La Guerre des Dieux: Religion et Politique en Amérique Latine. Histoire. Paris: Editions du Félin, 1998.

bibliography

219

Lynch, Edward A. Religion and Politics in Latin America: Liberation Theology and Christian Democracy. New York: Praeger, 1991. MacEoin, Gary, and Nivita Riley. Puebla: A Church Being Born. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. Mackay, John A. The Latin American Churches and the Ecumenical Movement. New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and CCLA, 1963. Malley, François. Libération: Mouvements, Analyses, Recherches, Théologies: Essai Bibliographique Série Bibliographie. Paris: Centre L.-J. Lebret, 1974. McGavran, Donald Anderson. “The Dimensions of World Evangelization.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 94–115. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974. ——, ed. Church Growth and Christian Mission. New York and London: Harper and Row, 1965. McGrath, Marcos. Los Textos de Medellín y el Proceso de Cambio en América Latina: Aprobación de Las Conclusiones de Medellín, Por la Santa Sede: Texto Integro de Las Conclusiones de la Segunda Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano CELAM: Los Signos de los Tiempos en América Latina. Vol. 5 Colección La Iglesia en América Latina. San Salvador: UCA, 1977. McIntire, Carl. “Mensaje de la III Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana Promueve Destrucción del Cristianismo.” Christian Beacon (Special Spanish Edition), August 21, 1969. McQuilkin, J. Robertson. “High Theology Low.” Christianity Today, 12 March 1971, 26. Mead, Sidney E. “Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Last, Best Hope of Earth’: The American Dream of Destiny and Democracy.” Church History 23, no. 1 (1954): 3–16. Means, Frank K. The Mission Boards and the Evangelical Churches in Latin America: From Missions to Mission in Latin America: Study Conference of the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, Part 4. New York: Committee on Cooperation in Latin America, 1958. Melano Couch, Beatriz. “New Visions of the Church in Latin America: A Protestant View.” In The Emergent Gospel: Theology from the Underside of History. Papers from the Ecumenical Dialogue of Third World Theologians, Dar Es Salaam, August 5–12, 1976, ed. Sergio Torres and Virginia Fabella, 193–226. New York: Orbis Books, 1978. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2002. Microsoft Corporation, [CD-ROM]. Míguez Bonino, José. “Nuestra Deuda Para con la Comunidad Católica Romana.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 8, no. 22 (1970): 31–40. ——. Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ——. “How Does United States Presence Help, Hinder or Compromise Christian Mission in Latin America?” Review and Expositor 74, no. 2 (1977): 173–182. ——. “Oaxtepec: Entre el Recelo y la Esperanza.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 59 (1979): 77–78. ——. Faces of Latin American Protestantism. Translated by Eugene L. Stockwell. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ——, ed. Puebla y Oaxtepec: Una Critica Protestante y Católica. Buenos Aires: Tierra Nueva, 1980. Minà, Gianni. Un Continente Desaparecido: L’america Latina Vissuta e Raccontata da Samuel Ruiz, Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Eduardo Galeano, Rigoberta Menchú, Jorge Amado, Frei Betto, Pombo e Urbano, i Compagni del Che in Bolivia, Saggi. Milano: Sperling and Kupfer, 1995. Moberg, David O. The Great Reversal: Evangelism Versus Social Concern. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972. Mondragón, Carlos. “Protestantismo y Paramenicanismo en América Latina.” In Protestantismo y Política en América Latina y el Caribe, ed. Tomás J. Gutierrez S., 47–57. Lima, Perú: CEHILA, 1996.

220

bibliography

Morales, Miguel A. “El Espíritu Santo en la Evangelización.” In Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis, 44–48. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1969. Mullholand, Kenneth, and Emilio Antonio Nuñez. The Contextualization of the Gospel: The Documents of CLADE II. San José, Costa Rica: LAECPS, 1980. Muñoz, Ronaldo. Evangelio y Liberación en América Latina: la Teología Pastoral de Puebla. Santiago de Chile: Arzobispado de Santiago Vicaría de la Solidaridad, 1980. Musto, Ronald G. Liberation Theologies: A Research Guide. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1991. Neely, Alan. “Protestant Antecedents of the Latin American Theology of Liberation.” Ph.D. Diss., American University, 1977. Nelson, Wilton, and John Kessler. “The Panama Congress of 1916 and Its Impact on Protestantism in Latin America.” Evangelical Review of Theology 2, no. 1 (1978): 41–58. Nessan, Craig L. Orthopraxis or Heresy: The North American Theological Response to Latin American Liberation Theology American Academy of Religion Academy Series no. 63. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989. “Nicaragua: The Shaking and Shifting of the Church.” Christianity Today, 7 December 1979, 1638. Nichols, Alan. “Plain Speaking on Social Issues . . .” New Life, 8 August 1974. Nida, Eugene A. Understanding Latin Americans with Special Reference to Religious Values and Movements. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1974. Noelliste, Diememme E. “The Church and Human Emancipation: A Critical Comparison of Liberation Theology and the Latin American Theological Fraternity.” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1987. Novak, Michael. Will It Liberate? Questions About Liberation Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1986. Nuñez, Emilio Antonio. “Posición de la Iglesia Frente al ‘Aggiornamento’.” In Acción en Cristo Para un Continente en Crisis, 39–44. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1969. ——. “Teólogos Latinoamericanos para la América Latina.” Boletín Teológico, November 1972. ——. “Herederos de la Reforma.” In América Latina y la Evangelización en los Años 80. Un Congreso Auspiciado Por la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana, 163–170. Lima: CLADE-II, 1979. ——. “Towards an Evangelical Latin American Theology.” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983): 123–131. ——. “Testigo de un Nuevo Amanecer.” In Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana: Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage, ed. C. René Padilla, 101–111. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Caribe, 1984. ——. Liberation Theology. Translated by Paul E. Sywulka. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985. ——. Teología de la Liberación. Miami: Caribe, 1986. Nuñez, Emilio Antonio, and William David Taylor. Crisis in Latin America. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. Odell, Luis L. “Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 1, no. 1 (1963): 65–67. ——. “Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina—Cooperación Evangélica en América Latina.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 3, no. 7 (1965): 61–68. ——. América Hoy; Acción de Dios y Responsabilidad del Hombre. Montevideo: ISAL, 1966. Orme, John Howard. “The Doctrine of Social Concern in Latin American Theology: A Critical Appraisal of the Evangelical Position.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.

bibliography

221

Packer, J. I. Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Westchester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1980. Padilla, C. Rene. “Theology in the Making.” Christianity Today, 10 May 1974, 59–60. Padilla, C. René. “Interview by Author.” Wheaton, 7–8 March, 2003. ——. “Is It Possible in Spain?” I.F.E.S. Journal 17, no. 2 (1964): 5–8. ——. “Student Witness in Latin America Today.” I.F.E.S. Journal 19, no. 2 (1966): 11–22. ——. “Latin American Report.” I.F.E.S. Journal 20, no. 3 (1967): 33–39. ——. “Lima 1967.” I.F.E.S. Journal 20, no. 1 (1967): 6–11. ——. “Teología Latinoamericana: ¿Izquierdista o Evangélica?” Pensamiento Cristiano 17, no. 66 (1970): 133–140. ——. “Highly Misleading.” Christianity Today, 7 May 1971, 31. ——. “A Steep Climb Ahead for Theology in Latin America.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 7, no. 2 (1971): 99–106. ——. “La Autoridad de la Biblia en la Teología Latinoamericana.” In El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia, ed. Peter Savage, 121–153. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972. ——. “La Teología en Latinoamérica.” Pensamiento Cristiano 19, no. 75 (1972): 205–213. ——. “Revolution and Revelation.” In Is Revolution Change? ed. Brian Griffiths, 70–83. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972. ——. “La Segunda Consulta de la FTL en Lima.” Boletín Teológico, no. 4 (1973). ——. “Evangelism and the World.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 116–146. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974. ——. “Christianity American-Style.” Christianity Today, 10 October 1975, 61–62. ——. El Evangelio Hoy. Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1975. ——. El Reino de Dios y América Latina. El Paso: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1975. ——. “Evangelism and the World.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 116–133. Minneapolis: World Wide, 1975. ——. “What Is the Gospel?” In The Gospel Today: Working Papers for Discussion and Application: IFES General Committee, 1975. ——. “Being God’s Church in Latin America: CLADE II Affirms Evangelical Convictions in the Context of Violence, Exploitation, and Corruption.” Christianity Today, 21 March 1980, 410. ——. “Evangelism and Social Responsibility from Wheaton ’66 to Wheaton ’83.” In How Evangelicals Endorsed Social Responsibility (Texts on Evangelical Social Ethics 1974–83 (ii)-a Commentary), ed. C. René Padilla and Chris Sugden, 4–17. Nottingham: Grove Books, 1985. ——. “Evangelism and Social Responsibility: From Wheaton ’66 to Wheaton ’83.” Transformation 2, no. 3 (1985): 27–33. ——. De la Marginación al Compromiso: los Evangélicos y la Política en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Fraternidad Teologica Latinoamericana, 1991. ——. “Evangelicals and Politics in Latin America.” Transformation 9 (1992): 2–33. ——. “Wholistic Mission: Evangelical and Ecumenical.” International Review of Mission 81 (1992): 381–382. ——. “La Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana y la Responsabilidad Social de la Iglesia.” Boletín Teológico 59/60 (1995): 98–114. ——, ed. Fe Cristiana y Latinoamérica Hoy. Buenos Aires: Certeza, 1974. ——, ed. The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976. ——, ed. Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana. Ensayos en Honor de Pedro Savage. San José/Miami: Caribe, 1984.

222

bibliography

Pagura, Federico S. “Cristianismo en Estado de Conversión.” Cristianismo y Sociedad 17, no. 61–62 (1979): 57–65. Parra Escobar, Ernesto, and Raúl Vidales. La Politica Della Trilaterale: Una Nuova Aggressione All’america Latina Quaderni Asal. Nuova Serie; Anno 2, 10 (LuglioAgosto 1979). Bologna: E.M.I., 1979. Pastor, Robert A. Wirlpool: U.S. Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Pattnayak, Satya R. Organized Religion in the Political Transformation of Latin America. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995. Pedersen, Ulla. Befrielsesteologien i Latinamerika 1960–1990: en Annoteret Bibliografi over Litteratur i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger: Slotsholmen, Universitetsbiblioteket Amager Og Universitetsbiblioteket Fiolstræde Fagbibliografier/Kongelige Bibliotek, 17. København: Det kongelige Bibliotek, 1991. Perdomo, Edgar Alan. “Una Descripción Histórica de la Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana (Primera de Dos Partes).” Kairós 32, enero–junio (2003): 95–127. ——. “Una Descripción Histórica de la Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana (Segunda de Dos Partes).” Kairós 33, julio-diciembre (2003): 83–116. Pérez Esquivel, Adolfo. Christ in a Poncho. New York: Orbis Books, 1983. Pérez, Pablo. “The Third World of Emerging Nationalism—Latin America.” In Church and Nationhood: A Collection of Papers Originally Presented at a Consultation in Basel, September 1976, ed. Lionel Holmes, 70–75. New Delhi: Theological Commission, World Evangelical Fellowship, 1978. ——. “Latin America: Hope and Reality.” In Serving Our Generation: Evangelical Strategies for the Eighties, ed. Waldron Scott, 57–76. Colorado Springs: World Evangelical Fellowship, 1980. Peters, George W. “Contemporary Practices of Evangelism.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 181–204. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. Piedra, Arturo. Evangelización Protestante en América Latina. Análisis de Las Razones Que Justificaron y Promovieron la Expansión Protestante 1830–1960. Vol. 1. Quito, Ecuador: CLAI, 2000. PIM, Partnership in Mission. CLADE II Reports. Abington, Pa.: Partnership in Mission, 1979. “Pinebrook Consultation on Latin America, June 1975.” RES News Exchange 12, no. 8 (1975): 1098–1099. Planchet, Regis. La Intervención Protestante en Mexico y Sud America. El Paso, Tex.: Revista Catolica, 1928. Plowman, Edward E. “The View from Lausanne.” Christianity Today, 16 August 1974, 1257–1259. Proffitt III, T. D. “Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Book Review.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (1973): 187–188. “Protestants Confer in Latin America.” The Christian Century, 3 August 1949, 907. “Publicación del Simposium—‘La Biblia.’” Noticiero de la Fraternidad, Agosto 1971, 1. PULSE. “CLADE Surpasses Expectation.” Pulse 4, no. 6 (1969): 1–2. Quebedeaux, Richard. The Worldly Evangelicals. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978. Rahner, Karl, Christian Modehn, and Hans Zwiefelhofer. Befreiende Theologie: D. Beitr. Lateinamerikas zur Theologie D. Gegenwart. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz Kohlhammer, 1977. Rangel, Carlos. The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. Translated by Ivan Kats (Du bon sauvage au bon révolutionnaire). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.

bibliography

223

Read, William R., Victor M. Monterroso, and Harmon A. Johnson. Latin American Church Growth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. “Recuerdos de un Maestro (1) Una Entrevista con Samuel Escobar.” Iglesia y Misión 15, no. 56 (1996): 34–35. “Recuerdos de un Maestro (2) Una Entrevista con Samuel Escobar.” Iglesia y Misión 15, no. 57 (1996): 29–30. Rees, Paul S. “Far ‘South of the Border’.” World Vision Magazine, October 1969, 47. Reid, John R. “Evangelism and Social Responsibility.” In The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement, ed. Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wilson, 73–77. Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984. Report of Commission I: Carrying the Gospel to All the Non-Christian World. Vol. 1. 9 vols. World Missionary Conference, 1910. Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910. Roberts, W. Dayton. Revolution in Evangelism: The Story of Evangelism in Depth in Latin America. Chicago: Moody, 1967. ——. “Latin American Protestants: Which Way Will They Go?” Christianity Today, 10 October 1969, 14–16. ——. “El Movimiento de Cooperación Evangélica: De San José 1948 a Bogotá 1969.” Pastoralia 1, no. 2 (1978): 34–51. ——. “Latin America News Front.” Latin America Evangelist, January–February 1980, 18. Rooy, Sidney H. “Hijo de la Reforma.” In Hacia Una Teología Evangélica Latinoamericana, ed. C. René Padilla, 121–139. San José, Costa Rica: Caribe, 1984. Rubenstein, Richard L., and John K. Roth. The Politics of Latin American Liberation Theology: Understanding the Challenge to U.S. Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute Press, 1988. Rush, Ormond. The Reception of Doctrine: An Appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss’ Reception Aesthetics and Literary Hermeneutics. Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia 19. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997. Sand, Faith Annette. “Huampani, Peru, Oct-Nov, 1979.” Missiology 8, no. 3 (1980): 339–344. Savage, Peter. Fraternidad de Teólogos Latinoamericanos. Cochabamba: FTL, 1971. ——, ed. El Debate Contemporáneo Sobre la Biblia. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1972. Scataglini, Alberto, Gabriel Ortiz Ramírez, and Valentín Vale Navarro. La Brújula para el Ministerio Evangélico. Por 23 Destacados Dirigentes Evangélicos de América Latina. Deerfield, Fla.: Editorial Vida, 1979. Schaeffer, Francis A. “Form and Freedom in the Church.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 361–379. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. Scherer, James A. Gospel, Church, and Kingdom: Comparative Studies in World Mission Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1987. Schermann, Rudolf. Die Guerilla Gottes: Lateinamerika Zwischen Marx und Christus. 1. Aufl. ed. Düsseldorf: Econ, 1983. Schöpfer, Hans. Theologie der Gesellschaft: Interdisziplinäre Grundlagenbibliographie zur Einf. In D. Befreiungs—U. Polittheolog. Problematik 1960–1975 Studien zur Interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums; Bd. 11. Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Las Vegas: Lang, 1977. ——. Theologie der Gesellschaft: Interdiziplinäre Grundlagenbibliographie zur Einführung in der Befreiungs–und Polittheologische Problematik: 1960–1975. Bern and Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1977. ——. Lateinamerikanische Befreiungstheologie. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz Kohlhammer, 1979, 1979.

224

bibliography

Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998. Schwoebel, Aaron Michael. Theology and Revolution in Central America. Vol. 50 Undergraduate Research Papers, Albion College. Albion, Mich.: Albion College, 1995. Sider, Ronald J., ed. Lifestyle in the Eighties: An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Lifestyle, Contemporary Issues in Social Ethics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. Silva Gotay, Samuel. La Transformación de la Función Política en el Pensamiento Teológico Caribeño y Latinoamericano Documentos de Trabajo; no. 7. San Germán, Puerto Rico: Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico Centro de Investigaciones del Caribe y América Latina, 1983. ——. “Protestantismo y Política en Puerto Rico a Partir de la Invasión de Estados Unidos.” In Protestantismo y Política en América Latina y el Caribe, ed. Tomás J. Gutiérrez S., 235–262. Lima, Peru: CEHILA, 1996. Sinclair, John H. Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected References Mainly in English, Spanish and Portuguese and Useful Bibliographical Aids to Assist the Student and Researcher in the General Field of Latin American Studies. Austin, Tex.: The Hispanic American Institute, 1967. ——. Protestantism in Latin America: A Bibliographical Guide. 2d ed. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1976. Smith, Anthony C. “The Essentials of Missiology from the Evangelical Perspective of the ‘Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana’.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983. Smith, Gaddis. The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945–1993. New York: Hill and Wang, 1994. “Special Issue: Report on Latin American Theologians.” Latin American Pulse, January 1971. Speer, Robert E. Christianity and the Nations. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1910. ——. South American Problems. New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1912. Speer, Robert E., Samuel G. Inman, and Frank K. Sanders, eds. Christian Work in South America: Official Report of the Congress on Christian Work in South America, at Montevideo, Uruguay, April, 1925. Edited by CCLA. Vol. 1: Unoccupied Fields, Indians, Education, Evangelism, Social Movements, Health Industry. New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1925. ——, eds. Christian Work in South America: Official Report of the Congress on Christian Work in South America, at Montevideo, Uruguay, April, 1925. Edited by CCLA. Vol. 2: Church and the Community, Religious Education, Literature, Relations Between Foreign and National Workers, Special Religous Problems, Cooperaton and Unity. New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1925. Stam, Juan. “Interview by Author.” San José, Costa Rica, 9 August, 2002. Steuernagel, Valdir. “The Theology of Mission in Its Relation to Social Responsibility within the Lausanne Movement.” Ph.D. diss., Lutheran School of Theology, 1988. ——. “Social Concern and Evangelization: Our Journey since Lausanne I.” Transformation 7, no. 1 (1990): 12–16. ——. “Social Concern and Evangelization: The Journey of the Lausanne Movement.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 2 (1991): 53–56. Stoll, David. Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. Stott, John R. W. “The Biblical Basis of Evangelism.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas, 65–78. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1974.

bibliography

225

——. The Lausanne Covenant: An Exposition and Commentary. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. ——. “Ten Years Later: The Lausanne Covenant.” In The Future of World Evangelization: The Lausanne Movement, ed. Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wilson, 65–70. Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1984. ——. “Twenty Years after Lausanne: Some Personal Reflections.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 19, no. 2 (1995): 50–55. Stuntz, Homer C. South American Neighbors. New York and Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern, 1916. Taylor, Clyde W., and Wade T. Coggins. Protestant Missions in Latin America; Maps. Washington D.C.: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1960. ——. Protestant Missions in Latin America; a Statistical Survey. Washington D.C.: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1961. Taylor, William David. “The Latin American World: A Personal Perspective.” In Evangelical Literature in the Latin World Consultation, ed. Peter Savage, 1–36. Pinebrook Conference Center, Stroudsburg, Pa.: David C. Cook Foundation and Partnership in Mission, 1975. “Theology Implications of Radical Discipleship.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on World Evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland (Official Reference Volume: Papers and Responses), ed. J. D. Douglas, 1294–1296. Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. Thomson, Martyn P. “Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meaning.” History and Theory 32 (1993): 248–272. Torres, Sergio. Latin America and the Puebla Conference. New York: Theology in the Americas, 1978. ——. Puebla 1979: The III Conference of the Latin American Bishops. New York: Theology in the Americas, 1979. Traverzo Galarza, David. “The Emergence of a Latino Radical Evangelical Social Ethic in the Work and Thought of Orlando E. Costas: An Ethico-Theological Discourse from the Underside of History.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1992. UNELAM. Deudores al Mundo: III Conferencia Evangélica (CELA): Informes—Comentarios de la III Conferencia Evangélica Latinoamericana. Montevideo: UNELAM, 1969. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Foreign Assistance Legislation for Fiscal Years 1980–81: Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on InterAmerican Affairs. Impact of Cuban-Soviet Ties in the Western Hemisphere, Spring 1979: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session, April 25 and 26, 1979. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. Van Engen, Charles E. “A Broadening Vision: Forty Years of Evangelical Theology of Mission, 1946–1986.” In Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880–1980, ed. Joel A. Carpenter and Wilbert R. Shenk, 203–232. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Vance, Cyrus R., and United States Dept. of State; Bureau of Public Affairs. Inter-American Challenges for the 1980’s. Current Policy—Dept. Of State; no. 105. Washington D.C.: Dept. of State Bureau of Public Affairs, 1979. Vargas, Armando. “La Plenitud del Discipulado Evangélico Hoy. Crónica del Congreso Internacional Sobre Evangelización Mundial.” Certeza 56 (1974): 240–242. Various. Gonzalo Báez-Camargo: Una Vida al Descubierto. Mexico D.F.: Centro de Comunicación Cultural CUPSA A.C., 1985.

226

bibliography

Vevia Romero, Fernando Carlos. El Discurso Político-Religioso en América Latina Colección Fin de Milenio. Serie Pensamiento y Utopía. Guadalajara, Jalisco, México: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara, 1990. Vinay, Samuel, and Christopher Sudgen, eds. Sharing Jesus in the Two Thirds World: Evangelical Christologies from the Contexts of Poverty, Powerlessness and Religious Pluralism. Bangalore, India: Partnership in Mission Asia: Asia Trading Corporation, 1983. Wagner, C. Peter. “Who Killed the Congress?” World Vision Magazine 12, no. 1 (1968): 20, 21, 44. ——. Confidential Report—Third Latin American Protestant Congress (III CELA). 1969. ——. Teología Latinoamericana ¿Izquierdista o Evangélica? Miami: Editorial Vida, 1969. ——. “The Latin American Congress on Evangelism (Special Report to Theological News, WEF).” Pulse 5, no. 1 (1970): 3–6. ——. Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? The Struggle for the Faith in a Young Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. ——. “High Theology in the Andes.” Christianity Today, 15 January 1971, 28–29. ——. “Lausanne Twelve Months Later.” Christianity Today, 4 July 1975, 961–963. ——. Your Church Can Grow. Glendale, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976. ——. Church Growth and the Whole Gospel. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. Waldenfels, Hans. Theologen der Dritten Welt: Elf Biographische Skizzen Aus Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika. München: C. H. Beck, 1982. Walter, Anita C. “Vital Interests Vs. International Law: The Role of the United States in Latin America with Nicaragua as a Case Study.” B.A. thesis, Bucknell University, 1986. Warren, Robbins Bruce. “Contextualization in Costa Rican Theological Education Today: A History of the Seminario Bíblico Latinoamericano. San José, Costa Rica, 1922–1990.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Methodist University, 1991. Wiarda, Howard J. Finding Our Way? Toward Maturity in U.S.-Latin American Relations. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1987. Wisløff, Carl F. “The Doctrinal Position of the I.F.E.S.” I.F.E.S. Journal 16, no. 3 (1963): 1–6. Wood, Robert S. M. Missionary Crisis and Challenge in Latin America. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1964. World Book 2003 (Deluxe). World Book, Inc., Chicago [CD-ROM]. World Council of Churches, Bowman Foster Stockwell, and Wilfred Scopes. The Christian Ministry in Latin America and the Caribean; Report of a Survey of Theological Education in the Evangelical Churches, Undertaken February–May, 1961, on Behalf of the International Missionary Council (Now the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches). Geneva, New York: World Council of Churches, 1962. World Update; Latin America, 1973. New York: Friendship Press, 1973. “Young Radicals Make Lausanne ’74 a Milestone for Evangelicals.” Church Scene (National Anglican Newspaper), 15 August 1974. Youngblood, Ronald, ed. Evangelicals and Inerrancy: Selections from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (1954–1979). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984. Zea, Leopoldo. The Latin-American Mind. Translated by James H. Abbott and Lowell Dunham. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. ——. Latin America and the World. Translated by Frances K. Hendricks and Beatrice Berler. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969. ——. América Como Consciencia. México: UNAM, 1972. Zwiefelhofer, Hans. Christen und Sozialismus in Lateinamerika. Wuppertal, Düsseldorf: Jugenddienst-Verlag; Patmos-Verlag, 1974.

INDEX Alliance for Progress 4, 29, 40 Alvarez, Carmelo 45, 46, 49 Anglo-Saxon 10, 31, 36, 38, 43, 45, 68, 84, 97, 100, 107, 162, 190, 213, 214 Arana, Pedro 6, 16, 17, 18, 57, 58, 59, 96, 111, 117 Argentina 3, 13, 17, 53, 72, 75, 77, 81, 84, 90, 91, 114, 117, 168, 172 Arias, Mortimer 17, 18, 71, 87, 88, 89, 110, 172, 173 Athyal, Saphir 26, 114 Baéz-Camargo, Gonzalo 90 Barth, Karl 50, 51, 72, 95 Bastian, Jean Pierre 7, 8, 15 Berlin, Congress 18, 80, 134, 139, 142 BGEA 49, 61, 63, 73, 74, 172, 173, 184 Bible 9, 17, 25, 81, 87, 92, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 116, 150, 152, 164, 168, 170, 173, 182, 183, 190, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 203 Bogotá 19, 25, 40, 70–74, 78, 83, 87, 88, 89, 174, 182 195, 197, 198, 206 Bolivia 3, 15, 17, 19, 20, 25, 55, 77, 83, 87, 103, 107, 168, 172 Brazil 3, 4, 30, 61, 62, 63, 66, 114, 161, 165, 168 Buenos Aires 17, 53, 90, 91 Campus Crusade 84 Canclini, Arnoldo 151, 152 Castro, Emilio 56, 64, 66, 85, 184 Catholic 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 31, 39, 53, 83, 87, 103, 158, 164, 165, 170, 189, 198, 200 Catholic Church 5, 6, 53, 75, 78 Catholicism 7, 8, 19, 71, 198 CCLA 52, 54 CELA 2, 49, 52–56, 60, 61, 62, 64–72, 79, 111 CELAM 5, 165 Chile 3, 4, 58, 62, 63, 66 Christianity Today 15, 101, 102, 103, 107, 144, 152, 153, 154, 178 Church(es) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 41–46, 49, 50,

51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67–70, 72, 75–79, 84–89, 92, 93, 94, 105, 112, 114–118, 122, 124–128, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146–151, 155, 157, 158, 159, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 178–181, 183–186, 190, 192, 193, 195–198, 200 Church Growth 20, 26, 64, 84, 85, 86, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 129, 156, 160 CLADE 2, 25, 49, 52, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69–81, 83, 85, 87–92, 96, 118, 151, 161, 163–187, 189, 193, 206, 207, 208 Cochabamba 15, 19, 20, 25, 83, 92–96, 100–105, 107, 113, 116, 118, 199, 201 Cold War 1, 29, 33, 37, 38, 47, 50, 62, 70, 191 Colombia 3, 5, 19, 25, 29, 40, 73, 75, 195, 206 Communism 50, 66, 163, 191 Costas, Orlando 4, 18, 26, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 85, 93, 94, 95, 113, 123, 152, 156, 166, 170, 173, 174, 176 Cuba 29, 50, 163, 170 Dain, Jack 138, 139, 144, 147, 153 Democracy 36, 38, 43 Dominican Republic 3, 161 EAF 59, 60, 77, 80 Ecuador 3, 19, 26, 60, 161, 168, 173, 189 Ecumenical 10, 51, 56, 57, 59, 62, 65, 69, 71, 72, 74, 88, 92, 96, 113, 124, 143, 145, 164 Ecumenism 56, 61, 68, 69, 184, 198 Edinburgh, Conference 52, 53 EFMA 55, 61, 63, 111 Escobar, Samuel 2, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 26, 65, 66, 69, 78, 79, 80, 84, 88, 89, 91–98, 100, 101, 110–113, 118, 122, 123, 124, 132–138, 191, 142, 144, 147, 150–154, 157–160, 164, 166, 168–173, 179, 181–185 Evangelical(s) 1, 2, 6–11, 13–20, 23–27, 34, 41, 42 45, 49, 50, 51, 52,

228

index

54–57, 59–62, 64–69, 71–80, 83, 84, 85, 87–98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 121–129, 131, 134–161, 164, 166, 169–179, 182–185, 189–201 Evangelicalism 7, 8, 45, 61, 107, 121, 122, 140, 142, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154, 191, 192 Evangelism 2, 9, 15, 18, 25, 26, 44, 61, 64, 65, 70–73, 78, 79, 80, 85, 86, 89, 118, 122–128, 130–136, 139, 140, 142–149, 155, 157, 159, 160, 166–170, 172–176, 178–180, 184, 185, 186, 195, 196, 203 Evangelism in Depth 59, 74 FTL 2, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 50, 80, 83, 90–96, 98–119, 158, 159, 161, 164, 166, 170, 174, 177, 178, 182, 185, 186, 189, 192, 193 Gill, Athol 137, 138, 140 Gospel 9, 14, 25, 27, 42, 43, 44, 46, 59, 63, 70, 76, 78, 81, 86, 87, 89, 99, 113, 116, 118, 124, 125, 127, 128–131, 133–138, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152, 156, 158, 160, 164, 167, 168, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 185, 189–192, 195–204 Graham, Billy 18, 25, 26, 49, 73, 124, 147, 150, 153, 172 Green, Michael 26, 132, 133, 134, 139, 144, 161 Guatemala 3, 4, 19, 46, 75 Henry, Carl 18, 26, 113, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 152 ICOWE 2, 119, 121–124, 139, 142–151, 153, 154, 155, 159, 160, 167, 175, 178, 185 IFES 17, 18, 19, 20, 90, 96 IFMA 61, 111 Independence 2, 14, 29, 37, 42, 68, 116, 119, 121, 122, 159, 166, 171, 177, 181, 184, 185, 189, 192 Inerrancy 98–107, 113 InterVarsity 18, 101, 102, 103, 107, 123, 152 ISAL 50, 51, 56–60, 63, 66, 69, 89, 90, 115, 116, 117 Jauß, Hans Robert 21, 22, 23 Jesus 25, 43, 81, 91, 99, 105, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 140, 142, 146, 149, 178, 182, 195–205

Kirk, Andrew 14, 91, 96, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 158 LAM 72, 79, 94, 95 Lastra, Carlos 74–77, 80 Latin American Theology 6, 11, 12, 15, 51, 83, 87, 88, 100, 185 Lausanne 2, 26, 27, 62, 78, 119, 121, 122, 123, 132, 137, 139, 140–155, 158–161, 167, 168, 172, 175, 177, 178, 182, 184, 187, 202 Lausanne Covenant 26, 137, 139, 142, 146, 147, 148, 156, 167, 168, 172, 177, 178, 182, 186 LCWE 144, 155, 159, 174, 175, 177, 178, 186 Liberation Theologies 1, 10, 12, 13, 58, 116, 172, 179 Lima 17, 18, 25, 54, 55, 56, 93, 111, 113, 114, 117, 161, 168, 170, 180, 181 Lindsell, Harold 102, 113, 144, 145, 147 Lores, Ruben 42, 43, 46 Mackay, John 55 Manifest Destiny 38, 42, 43, 46 McGavran, Donald 20, 107, 108, 109, 125, 126, 128, 129, 142 Mexico 4, 5, 34, 37, 38, 41, 75, 114, 164, 165, 169, 178 Míguez Bonino, José 40, 43, 55, 71, 72, 85, 91, 95, 101, 112, 113 Misión Integral 118 Morris, Leon 26, 161 Nicaragua 3, 4, 163, 170, 171 Nida, Eugene 33, 39 Nuñez, Emilio Antonio 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 71, 72, 96, 111, 113, 118, 123, 157, 168 Palau, Luis 170, 172, 174, 180, 181 Panama 3, 54 Pentecostal(s) 54, 63, 72, 97, 114, 175, 177, 183 Peru 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 50, 54, 56, 72, 73, 75, 111, 114, 161, 163, 206 Poverty 4, 33, 43, 62, 81, 86, 134, 143, 150, 164 Protestant(s) 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 31, 43, 45, 49, 53–57, 66, 83, 92, 158, 166, 167 Protestantism 8, 9, 10, 44, 45, 46, 49, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63–68, 90, 164 Puerto Rico 18, 45, 46, 74, 75, 161

index Quito

19, 168, 189

Reformation 8, 49, 100, 168 Rezeptionsgeschichte 2, 20, 21, 23, 29, 49, 83, 121 Roberts, Dayton 72, 79, 81, 96, 175, 183 Salvation 78, 79, 105, 117, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 140, 143, 167, 169, 183, 199, 202, 203, 205 Santiago, Efraín 61, 62, 73, 74, 75 Savage, Peter 19, 27, 50, 51, 52, 92–98, 108, 119, 156, 157, 158, 166, 177, 182 Sinclair, John H. 11, 13, 84 Social Gospel 9, 63, 70, 136, 144, 191 Social Responsibility 78, 89, 93, 118, 125, 139, 142, 150, 152, 157, 159, 197 Steuernagel, Valdir 149, 150, 175, 178 Stott, John 26, 125, 126, 127, 134, 138, 144, 145, 150, 156, 157, 161

Taylor, Clyde 102, 110

229 61, 63, 64, 71–76, 95,

UNELAM 56, 69 United States 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 29–47, 60, 73, 75, 96, 99, 102, 103, 104, 107, 110, 121, 123, 129, 154, 155, 158, 169, 189, 191, 193, 194 Uruguay 3, 4, 17, 18, 57, 66, 158 Vatican 5, 6, 117 Venezuela 4, 75, 169 Vietnam 29, 121, 141 Wagner, Peter 11, 19, 20, 50, 51, 56, 62, 64, 70, 71, 75, 78, 83–89, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101–110, 145, 146, 147, 149, 153, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 185 WCC 10, 17, 49, 55, 58, 60–63, 65, 68, 69, 70, 80, 113, 158, 165, 184 World Council of Churches 10, 17, 49, 62, 63, 70, 74, 155 Zea, Leopoldo

33, 36, 37