Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teologia Eliberarii Vs Teologia Prosperitatii PDF
Teologia Eliberarii Vs Teologia Prosperitatii PDF
Versus
Theology of Prosperity
JULIO SEVERO
1
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y — J U L I O S E V E R O
Contents
Endorsements .................................................................................................... 2
Theology of Liberation Versus Theology of Prosperity....................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
The Dethroning of the Theology of Integral Mission and the Demonization of
Neo-Pentecostalism. .......................................................................................... 5
Neo-Pentecostalism Dethrones Theology of Integral Mission............................ 6
Liberation Theology Precursors ......................................................................... 7
The “Dialogue Prophet” for the Theology of Integral Mission ............................. 9
Pentecostal Minority Affected by the Theology of Integral Mission .................. 10
Frustration of the Integral Mission Leadership with Neo-Pentecostals ............ 11
Victory for the Poor and Victory for the Progressive “Dialogue” ....................... 13
Theology of Integral Mission and Anticonservative Extremism ........................ 14
Theology of Integral Mission Demonizes neo-Pentecostalism ......................... 15
Socialism Versus Neo-Pentecostalism ............................................................ 18
Opportunistic Or Ideological Followers of the Workers’ Party .......................... 19
A Brazil Without an Elijah ................................................................................. 21
Complicity and Silence Versus Complicity and Imperfect Testimony of
Christians in Brazil ........................................................................................... 22
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes! ....................................................................................... 23
Does an Anti-Neopentecostal Critic Deserve the Title of “Defender of Faith”? 25
Stupid Alliances................................................................................................ 26
The Biggest Obstacle for the Total Socialist Advance in Brazil........................ 28
Humility for Everyone ....................................................................................... 29
For Further Online Reading: ............................................................................ 30
1
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Endorsements
It is very important to be aware of the inroads that Marxist ideology has made into
some branches of Christianity. In Latin America the nice-sounding concept of
misión integral (integral mission) has turned out to be a thinly-disguised platform for
leftist politics. Julio Severo understands this and he skillfully exposes these
potentially harmful ideas in his book, Theology of Liberation vs. Theology of Prosperity. In
it he helps bring forth the reality that even deeper and more permanent social
change from poverty to prosperity can be effectively produced by proclaiming and
practicing the biblical doctrine of the kingdom, opening the door for the
transforming power of the Holy Spirit. This is a book that I highly recommend!
Julio Severo points up a reality of the Christian community in Brazil that finds
expression in other countries as well. Liberal churches and theologians try to wed
the Christian faith to socialism, a secular political philosophy. The net result: they
talk mostly to each other while their churches decline in members and influence.
Meanwhile Pentecostal churches have reached out to the poor and powerless, and
more recently, with the spread of the charismatic movement in many churches, to
people from all walks of life. Their message is a biblical and uncomplicated
message of salvation through Christ, and new life in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Their churches grow, people’s lives are changed. I hope the truth in this little
booklet will impact the lives and understanding of many people in Brazil. And,
who knows, even beyond Brazil!
— Larry Christenson, theologian and author, longtime leader in the charismatic renewal
among Lutherans.
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
T
here is a raging clash of worlds in Brazil, which is one of the most
spiritualistic nations in the world. Individuals involved in Afro-Brazilian
religions as Candomblé (similar to Santeria and voodoo) are experiencing
power encounters with the Gospel thanks to neo-Pentecostal churches.
Yet, these churches face massive opposition from more traditionalist Protestant
churches, especially because of their Prosperity Theology. This opposition comes
particularly from the Brazilian blogosphere, where mostly self-proclaimed
Calvinist apologetic bloggers incessantly attack neo-Pentecostals.
Nonetheless, they do not attack the massive infiltration of liberal and leftist ideas
among Calvinist churches and leaders in Brazil. In fact, most of them espouse
such ideas.
They also attack capitalism, even though political economist Max Weber has
pointed out a connection between capitalism and Calvinism. They prefer to be
“progressive,” which in Brazil, according the renowned Aurelio Dictionary,
means: “One who, not being a member of a socialist or communist party,
embraces and/or advocates socialist or Marxist principles.”
Their attitude toward capitalism is a far cry from that of Calvin and his immediate
successors.
3
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
The Max Weber Dictionary says, “According to Calvinism (but not according to
Calvin himself), the accumulation of riches was one of the signs that the believer
was among the elect — ‘a sign of God’s blessing.’”
The website “A Puritan’s Mind” says, “The blessing of the Lord maketh rich…
And as riches are in themselves God’s blessings, so are we to desire them for the
comfortable course of our natural and civil states.”
In this point, one could say that Prosperity Theology had a major Calvinist
precedent.
But modern-day left-leaning Calvinists have different ideas about their old
predecessors and their views on riches. This is why they fiercely oppose capitalism
and neo-Pentecostalism.
Puritans, who were strict Calvinists, were known, especially in their early history in
America, for their practice of burning witches, sticking probably to the Old
Testament. Because of the high numbers of witchcraft adherents in Brazil, they
would have been massively overloaded in their efforts to burn them all.
Yet, the clash of worlds in Brazil is not limited to witchcraft, which is widespread
in Brazilian society. Marxism has been equally or more prevalent, with major
inroads into seminaries and churches of historical Protestant denominations.
4
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Liberalism and leftism, which have been ravaging Calvinist and other traditionalist
Protestant churches in America, are predominant among self-proclaimed Calvinist
apologetic bloggers in Brazil.
However, they are not concerned about the fate of their liberal counterparts in
America, because they are busy attacking neo-Pentecostals.
This e-booklet explores briefly the nature of such attacks and their origin, and how
all Christians, neo-Pentecostals and Calvinists, should unite against a bigger enemy
and thief.
I
n early 2012, two prominent Workers’ Party leaders shocked Brazil by
revealing that the only remaining obstacle today to the advance of the
socialist agenda in Brazil are neo-Pentecostals.
In the socialist secular “theology,” the poor are taught to see big government as
the supreme provider for all their needs. In socialism, the State is God. Neo-
Pentecostalism brought about a powerful, unparalleled demystification of that
socialist worldview by educating the people to see God as the supreme provider
for all human needs. In neo-Pentecostalism, though doctrinal deficiencies exist,
God is God.
5
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
the Theology of Liberation and in the Protestant form of the Theology of Integral
Mission [Teologia da Missão Integral]) also has an obsessive concern regarding
neo-Pentecostalism.
churches supporting this line of doctrine under the pretense of lacking true
spiritual dedication and religious devotion. Caio Fábio and Robinson Cavalcanti,
who had prominent roles in initiatives to bring evangelicals into the fold of the
socialist Workers’ Party, became “prophets” against the Theology of Prosperity
and for the Theology of the Integral Mission, which uses the Gospel to serve the
sole purpose of a platform for socialist ideology. As Ariovaldo Ramos, a
prominent progressive Reformed Baptist minister and former president of World
Vision in Brazil, has put it: “Theology of Integral Mission is a Protestant variant of
the Theology of Liberation.”
In addition to his classes and contacts with seminarians, Shaull was a frequent
lecturer in congresses for youths and Christian students throughout Brazil, inside
and out of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB).
Bringing as part of his baggage the Social Gospel, a leftist theology affecting
American Protestant churches since at least the late 19th century, he formed a close
relationship with Brazilian Presbyterian ministers Rubem Alves and Jaime Wright.
From 1942 to 1950, Rev. Shaull was a missionary in Colombia, which later would
become, with Brazil, a major Latin-American focus of Liberation Theology.
Officially, that theology was founded by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez,
who published in 1971 the book “Liberation Theology.” But three years before,
Rubem Alves had already written a book with the same title and spirit. Alves, who
was a disciple of Shaull, called his master a prophet and patriarch, “father of a
nation,” because Shaull helped in the birth of a new church, according to the
image and likeness of Liberation Theology.
Shaull’s leftist inclinations faced opposition from groups within the Brazilian
Presbyterian Church which Fábio never faced. Shaull lacked Fábio’s “charisma” to
7
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
In his view, if those poor-filled churches continued to grow explosively, the face
of the evangelical church in Latin America would be predominantly Pentecostal
and neo-Pentecostal in the future. His questioning was: how to convert those
churches to Liberation Theology so predominant in historical churches? Answer:
The dialogue between historical and neo-Pentecostal churches. In that encounter,
Pentecostals would come with their experience of easy coexistence with the poor
and non-Pentecostals would come with their theology-ideology.
That “dialogue” came largely true in the 1990s with Caio Fábio’s efforts to get
close to neo-Pentecostal churches, including being a prominent lecturer in great
events at the Heal Our Land Evangelical Fellowship (Sara Nossa Terra). That
approach was fundamental later for a Protestant, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal
unification for the massive evangelical support of the socialist candidate Lula in
the 2002 election.
Shaull and his disciple, Rubem Alves, are considered the parents on the Protestant
side of Liberation Theology (according to a Mackenzie Presbyterian University
document). In general, Shaull was the precursor of Liberation Theology. Alves,
another precursor, eventually abandoned ministry and became an apostate. The
Catholic side also had its parents and “prophets”: Cardinal Evaristo Arns, Cardinal
Hélder Câmara (founder of CNBB), Frei Betto and Leonardo Boff.
Although the Social Gospel from America helped to produce the Protestant
version of Liberation Theology in Brazil, it was only with the Catholic
implementation that this theology became practical theology with political results
(Liberation Theology + CNBB = PT).
Among Catholics, that theology led to the very foundation of the Workers’ Party.
Among evangelicals, the “Protestant” version has been leading equally to socialism
generally and to enlisting more and more members in the Workers’ Party
specifically.
“I brought Lula near evangelicals, who for years called him the ‘devil.’ I created many
opportunities for him to have the chance of the church noticing him.”
The most important Presbyterian minister in Brazil was promoting the most
important socialist candidate in Brazil in the 1990s, without major opposition
inside of his own Presbyterian denomination. The Theology of Integral Mission
churches, for the most part from such historical denominations as Baptist,
Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian, had embraced Caio Fábio’s leadership in
his initiatives for “undemonize” Lula and his ideology.
After Caio Fábio’s resounding moral and financial fall in the late 1990s, others
continued his fight, including his disciple Ariovaldo Ramos and his friend
Robinson Cavalcanti.
9
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
However, before his fall, Fábio achieved significant “victories” for his cause:
1. He almost unified most of the historical churches of Brazil under the flag of the
Theology of Integral Mission in the 1980s and 1990s. The only obstacle was the
explosive growth of neo-Pentecostalism.
2. He was able, to a large extent, to popularize the Workers’ Party and socialism
among evangelicals, guaranteeing that “socialism doesn’t eat children”, as if the socialist
obsession to legalize abortion does not cannibalize and exterminate any baby.
3. He was unable to lead most neo-Pentecostal churches into the Theology of Integral
Mission, but his “dialogue” bridge was fundamental to soften their attitudes to Lula
and the Workers’ Party.
Before his fall, Fábio had time to launch the “dialogue” bridge and make some
headway. However, if Shaull had been able to keep Fábio’s soft, persuasive and
smart speech going, Brazil would have a traditional, Pentecostal and neo-
Pentecostal church today largely mesmerized by the Theology of Integral Mission.
What Gondim, Cavalcanti and others never mentioned is that the precursor of
Liberation Theology was not a Brazilian. He was a Princeton Theological Seminar
professor, an enthusiast of the Social Gospel and Marxist ideals, turned his
theology into an imperialistic tool in every sense of the word. Furthermore, if the
focus of the opposition to Liberation Theology were the evangelical conservatism
10
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
coming from America, why didn’t they avoid the “imperialistic” nation? Cavalcanti
traveled to the US every year, and he had sent his son to live in America. Leftist
ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and other historical denominations
preferred exile in the US during the military regime in Brazil. Rev. Walter
Altmann, former-president of the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession of
Brazil (IECLB), seems to have had more consistency: he had financial connections
with the Soviet Union and, like Shaull, connections with the World Council of
Churches.
The fact is that the Liberation Theology, camouflaged and sweetened later as
Theology of Integral Mission, killed Gondim’s pentecostalism, making him like a
mere leftist of any traditional church.
11
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Gondim also repeatedly complains that the Theology of Integral Mission had its
advance stopped by conservatives in the Lausanne Congress for World
Evangelization (Manila 1989). Ed Rene Kivitz, a theological companion of
Gondim, had already denounced Peter Wagner as leader of the conservative
opposition. Wagner’s performance, today leader of the world apostolic movement,
exemplifies the neo-Pentecostal potential to stop the leftist progress in the
churches. In the dissertation of Gondim (p. 53), Wagner’s mistake was to
“propose spiritual war as a solution for social problems” — a typically neo-
Pentecostal solution, in contrast with the leftist solution of political revolutions.
Salvation, in its original term, includes spiritual and also emotional and physical
rescue. Progressive Protestants interpret that breadth of salvation as an excuse for
political interventions, as if the Kingdom of God were just “food, drink” (Romans
14:17) and government welfare programs. In contrast, Wagner interpreted that the
church should preach and demonstrate the Gospel of the Kingdom of God,
including using Jesus’ authority to heal the sick and expel demons. It is a
demonstration in tune with the miracles that follow those that believe (Mark
16:16). But the demonstration of the Gospel, for progressive Protestants, is
limited to social action many times strictly in partnership with socialist politics and
governments. Nothing else.
Any rejection of that kind of social action as an intrinsic part of the Gospel
receives the label of “fundamentalism.” In the dissertation of Gondim, even Billy
Graham does not escape that label, because the most famous evangelist in the
world refused to give support and money to progressive Protestant groups in
Latin America. Graham’s refusal gave him a negative image among the Theology
of Integral Mission followers. In contrast, Gondim abundantly praises Liberation
Theology and the Social Gospel and he recognizes that the largest obstacle for the
advance of the Theology of Integral Mission was “a religious phenomenon with
huge popular appeal, neo-Pentecostalism” (p. 135).
12
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
The poor prefer the Theology of Prosperity, but the rich (professional theologians
and ministers) prefer Liberation Theology, making it as elitist as the Marxism that
helped to create it.
The 1994 TV show “Pare & Pense” brought the misled Valnice Milhomens
together with Fábio to jointly present Lula as a candidate, not because the neo-
Pentecostal leader represented neo-Pentecostal political objectives, but because
her presence was fundamental for the “dialogue” strategy to break anti-socialism
barriers among neo-Pentecostals.
Fábio represented historical Protestant churches, which had already been seduced
by the Theology of Mission Integral and were largely ready to support Lula, the
most important socialist messiah in Brazil. With his Theology of Integral Mission
whose name he dare not pronounce, Fábio was a personality no leadership of the
Presbyterian Church of Brazil and other historical churches questioned.
Milhomens represented neo-Pentecostal churches, which needed to be deceived,
as she herself had been. It was the “dialogue” bridge visualized years earlier by
Shaull.
13
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Both were of different generations. While Shaull taught theology at the Southern
Presbyterian Seminar in Campinas (1952-959), Fábio was ordained a minister of
the Presbyterian Church of Brazil in 1977, when he was 22 years old. He had, by
his confession, many friends who were ministers that had been students under
Shaull. Fábio also read the books by the spiritual father of Liberation Theology. If
Shaull was the “prophet” of ideas and visions of that theology, Fábio was the
“prophet” of dialogue, entrusted with the mission of creating among Pentecostals
and neo-Pentecostals an opening for that theology that was under the control of
traditional churches.
For the first time in the history of Brazil, the subject of abortion and
homosexuality directly influenced a presidential election. Having never been a
Rousseff or Serra supporter, I was celebrating. LifeSiteNews, whose articles I
translated into Portuguese, was celebrating and writing international articles to
show to the world the conservative advance in Brazil. Pro-life Catholic and
evangelical leaders around the world, including the Vatican, were equally
celebrating. However, Ramos and Silva, with the worldwide Left, were unhappy
and indignant. The indignant attitude of both demonstrates how the Integral
Mission movement and the pro-life movement tread very different paths.
In the 25 years in which I have been with pro-life leaders in Brazil, I never saw so
much antiabortion and anti-sodomy feeling in a presidential election. It was a
miracle! The hard pro-life work had not been in vain. After all, although the
socialist government in Brazil advocates those evils, the feelings of most of the
Brazilian population, demonstrated in polls, are against homosexual aberrations
and the murder of the unborn.
14
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
The example of Genizah created a wave of “apologetic” tabloids that use the
demonization of neo-Pentecostalism as a smoke screen to protect and promote
Liberation Theology. They condemn neo-Pentecostalism as a “heresy,” but they
praise the Theology of Integral Mission and its “prophets,” including Fábio and
Cavalcanti. In Púlpito Cristão, one of the tabloids that imitate Genizah, I found,
among more than 400 mentions of Fábio, just a few negatives. The remaining was
praise to the man that, as Ricardo Gondim, is a prominent leader of the Theology
of Integral Mission. Genizah and Púlpito Cristão, which inflexibly fight the
Theology of Prosperity, also persistently promote the Theology of Integral
Mission. The profile common to the biggest enemies of neo-Pentecostals in Brazil
is the flattery to progressivism and its leaders.
15
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Rev. Caio Fábio welcoming presidential candidate Lula in his Christian TV show in 1994: the most important Presbyterian minister in
Brazil propagandizing the most important socialist in Brazil
While Caio Fábio and Cavalcanti worked to “undemonize” the Workers’ Party,
they and their leftist Protestant comrades were working to demonize neo-
Pentecostalism for its resistance to the Theology of Integral Mission. (Brazilian
Pentecostal, especially neo-Pentecostal, churches usually saw socialism as
demonic.) In order to inoculate their congregations against the so called
contaminations from neo-Pentecostal churches, Presbyterian ministers and leaders
of other historical denominations induced mass signature of the progressive
magazine Ultimato by their churches, especially leaders, in the 1980s and 1990s. So
they drank directly from the pages of this magazine leftist texts by Robinson
Cavalcanti, Ricardo Gondim and Paul Freston, who were official members in the
Workers’ Party and prominent columnists in the Presbyterian magazine. Caio
Fábio, a former Ultimato columnist, had no official membership in the party of
Lula, but met him often, and was “discreetly” supporting him.
Today, when attacking the Theology of Prosperity, the “masters” of the Theology
of Integral Mission exempt countless ministers following that leftist theology from
all criticism. After all, Brazil is having an open hunting season on neo-Pentecostal
churches. By the decision of a minority of liberal ministers and by the silence of
the majority, any criticism of the Theology of Integral Mission is apparently
prohibited.
16
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
The demonizing, mocking character of the Brazilian evangelical Left has been
oscillating between Ultimato (with its diplomatic, anti-conservative bashing), and
Genizah (with its anti-conservative mockery and hateful bashing). This then
popularizes the Left and, in its place, demonizes neo-Pentecostals. The mostly
Calvinist leftist character has remained free of criticism by non-liberal Calvinists,
who often prefer silence because of their doctrinal affinity with cessationism,
which denies the Holy Spirit granting supernatural gifts for today.
Calvinist Danilo Fernandes, owner of pro-Theology of Integral Mission sensationalistic tabloid Genizah, with his friend Caio Fábio
Apparently, for the sake of this doctrine, non-liberal Calvinists who heavily
criticize Silas Malafaia and other neo-Pentecostal leaders never denounce the
Calvinist writers of Genizah and Ultimato.
17
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
To provide for human needs is a promise which secular and evangelical socialists
claim will be fulfilled by the socialist State and that neo-Pentecostal preachers
attribute only to God. And it is very easy to see the liars in that story, because only
God has the exclusive power to provide for all human needs.
I totally disagree with the way a lot of neo-Pentecostal churches collect money.
But, even with all their exaggeration, there is a colossal difference: however much
they may apply psychological pressure for you to give, you are never forced to. If
you don’t give anything, the minister cannot fine, charge or arrest you.
In contrast, when the government “asks” through taxes, you have no choice. If
you don’t give, you end up in serious legal troubles. In Brazil, you are forced to
give 40% of your wage today through taxes, and that abusive collection is justified
by secular, Protestant and Catholic socialists as necessary for the government to
provide for all human needs — a promise evidently impossible to fulfill by
humans.
18
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Except for this church, whose founder and boss follows the abortion ideology, all
the other neo-Pentecostal churches are opposed to abortion and homosexuality.
R. R. Soares, for instance, speaks clearly against abortion and homosexuality in his
TV shows. Silas Malafaia is equally energetic.
But why would the Workers’ Party see those neo-Pentecostal churches involved in
TV shows as the only threat to the absolute control by the Workers’ Party on the
society?
The Workers’ Party notices that when those churches support it, they do so based
solely on convenience, not ideology.
The leaders of those churches only show support for the Workers’ Party in
election times for opportunistic reasons. They are apparently motivated by sheer
opportunistic interest, and the reason is because the ruling government has the
power to grant radio and television licenses, determined yearly by the State, which
are extremely important issues to neo-Pentecostal churches.
On the other hand, other Protestant groups, mostly outside the neo-Pentecostal
camp, have much more than interests, using their magazines and other
publications to promote socialism, with all its load of abortion and homosexuality.
Major Protestant magazines in Brazil frequently indoctrinate the public to see in
socialism the solution for societal problems. The ruling Workers’ Party, with all its
frenzied race to institutionalize wickedness, is disguised and even praised by them.
Those Protestants are moved by ideology.
The Workers’ Party is not concerned about Protestant leaders who are moved by
ideology, because atheists or evangelicals who follow the Workers’ Party by
conviction are faithful and devoted servants. Their support is guaranteed —
whether for the party or for the socialist ideology, which in the end is the same
thing.
19
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
But a support that comes by interest is never guaranteed. This is why the Workers’
Party has so much distrust of neo-Pentecostal leaders: Because they are not moved
by the socialist ideology, those leaders can openly criticize pro-abortion and pro-
homosexuality policies of the Workers’ Party, or even to jump the boat at any
moment.
That is a great sign. What is not a good sign is that we have lost the priority in our
criticism.
Many ministers who criticize Silas Malafaia for the Theology of Prosperity — not
for his political opportunism — shut their eyes to other serious sins. They criticize
him, while embracing the Theology of Integral Mission and other theologies that
facilitate the acceptance of socialism as a social salvation.
What is not surprising is that, for the Workers’ Party, the Genizah tabloid and
similar Protestant media don’t represent any threat to the advance of the socialist
institutionalization of wickedness. The threat is neo-Pentecostal churches, which
are frequently the target of mockeries by Genizah.
Malafaia is not perfect, but he has been doing an amazing work of mobilizing the
population against anti-“homophobia” bills in Brazil. In contrast, Genizah has
never supported such mobilization and even implies that Christians doing it are
“extremist.” Gay activists have acclaimed the liberalism of the Calvinist tabloid.
Therefore, there are two kinds of Protestants (and by extension other Christians)
supporting the Workers’ Party.
1. There are evangelicals following the Workers’ Party by interests. They do not want to
lose their radio and television licenses. Most of them are neo-Pentecostal leaders.
2. There are Protestants following the Workers’ Party because, blatantly or not, they are
socialist by ideological motivation. Most of them are not neo-Pentecostal, and the
Workers’ Party is not concerned about any of them.
20
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Can such a declaration reflect the spirit of a prophet? Elijah never had his name
registered in a poster of political support for King Ahab. In contrast, Malafaia
didn’t just vote for pro-abortion and pro-sodomy politicians. That alone would
already have been a sufficiently disturbing mistake for a Christian leader. He did
much more than that: he gave his name for pamphlets supporting those
politicians. He led, by his wicked example, crowds to vote for the most pro-
abortion and pro-sodomy politicians in Brazil and Rio de Janeiro. It was, for
instance, what happened in 2002, when he, with many other evangelical leaders,
signed a public document supporting Lula, with all of the consequences that today
we know very well and that a genuine prophet would have seen from a distance.
In that time, I denounced the evangelical pro-Lula alliance involving the union of
traditional churches (Baptist Nilson Fanini, Presbyterian Guilhermino Cunha,
Anglican Robinson Cavalcanti, etc.), Pentecostal churches (Jabes Alencar, Silas
Malafaia, etc. [both Assembly of God]) and neo-Pentecostal churches (Marcelo
Crivella [Kingdom of God Universal Church], Estevam Hernandes [Reborn in
Christ], Robson Rodovalho [Heal Our Land], etc.).
While the most powerful evangelical leaders in Brazil were supporting Lula and
the future administration of the Workers’ Party, I was crying out in the wilderness.
(In 2002, the president of an evangelical denomination asked me not send him
anymore e-mails “attacking” Lula and his ideological record, making clear that he,
as member of the Workers’ Party, was very offended by my warnings.)
Even after seeing all the anti-family attacks by the Lula administration in his first
term, Malafaia supported his reelection, showing an obstinate and blind side of his
evangelical character. In that point, in 2006, Lula’s pro-homosexuality obsession
was patent, domestically and internationally. If he were trying to be a modern King
Ahab, he achieved it. Nevertheless, instead of delivering reproofs to Lula, Malafaia
preferred, consciously, giving him political support. If he were trying to be a
prophet, he did not achieve it.
So, Malafaia was limited in his public declaration, when he said, “I have already
voted for [Brazilian socialist politicians] Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and
José Serra.” He forgot mentioning that he voted and promoted Sérgio Cabral, the
most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality governor of Rio de Janeiro.
21
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
The declaration of Malafaia should have included what he really did, “I have voted
for, I have supported and I have promoted, with my signature, all of those socialist
men, including Lula, the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality president in
the history of Brazil.” He should also have stated, “I encouraged crowds to vote
for the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians in the history of
Brazil and of Rio de Janeiro.” This truth is unpleasant, as well as it would have
been unpleasant for Elijah to say, “As a prophet of the Lord, I have voted for, I
have supported and I have promoted, with my signature, Ahab, the most pro-
abortion and pro-homosexuality king in the history of Israel, and I encouraged the
whole people of Israel to vote for him.”
Malafaia also said, “I vote for people and not for parties.” Does this justify voting
for, supporting and promoting systematically people who have an ideological
history in opposition to the family and against Christianity? Does this justify
encouraging crowds of evangelicals to vote for people who have an ideological
history against family and against Christianity?
Elijah was a man who fought the great fires of the social wickedness without
throwing gas in the fire. But Brazil doesn’t have that kind of man.
However, because Brazil has no Elijah or John the Baptist, we are left with the
imperfect option of supporting Christian leaders who at least open their mouths.
That is the case of Malafaia. Although he has thrown a lot of gas on the fires that
he is fighting, at least he is not like many others who equally threw a lot of gas on
the fires and today remain silent or minimize the dangers of the fires.
22
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Actually, Brazil needs a man to speak out without throwing gas on the fire. That is
God’s ideal. A man who denounces sin and says to the “kings” of Brazil, “Thus
says the Lord.” A man who, even running the risk of losing his radio and TV
license, would proclaim his messages in the street corners or in the corners of the
internet.
In the absence of a prophet like Elijah or a John the Baptist in Brazil, let us do
what Jesus taught us:
“So practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they
do. For they preach, but do not practice.” (Matthew 23:3 ESV)
“So practice and follow whatever they tell you in defense of family.
But don’t imitate their actions of voting, supporting and promoting
anti-family politicians, because they don’t practice what preach.”
Some consent only by their actions; others by their words and actions. Therefore,
let us know how to discern what to do in the presence of total or partial
omissions.
When they teach us against abortion and homosexuality, let us hear and practice.
But let us not imitate their actions. When they vote for anti-family politicians, let
us not imitate them.
When they support and promote anti-family politicians, let us not imitate them.
Let us remember their words and messages in defense of family, but let us not
imitate what they practice in election times, throwing gas on the fire. Let us ignore
completely their irresponsible political recommendations when they don’t practice
what they preach. After all, such was Jesus’ command: to follow their good
teachings and not to imitate their hypocrisy.
Therefore, in obedience to Jesus’ words, let us follow everything that Malafaia and
others teach on abortion and homosexuality, but let us not imitate their actions.
Let us defend everything that Malafaia teaches in defense of family, but let us not
imitate him when he throws gas on the fire. On the contrary, let us throw water on
the fire, rejecting irresponsible political recommendations.
23
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
1) It leaves, in the hard-working citizen’s pocket, less of his own resources to take care
of his family.
2) Its final destiny is, a lot of times, the pockets of greedy politicians.
People are free to attend neo-Pentecostal churches, and after you enter such a
church, you only give what you want. Nobody is forced to give anything. With the
government this is vastly different. No one is exempt. Everybody is a victim of the
voracious State and its insatiable tax-collection. Socialists cover up, justify and
excuse that omnipresent mega-robbery committed by a welfare State. Yet, they do
not forgive neo-Pentecostal churches which collect tithes and offerings without
the use of law and of the State.
But secular, Protestant and Catholic socialists are not worried about the state
wonder-working politicians that remove freedom and natural rights from citizens.
They are worried about wonder-working Christians, who ask too much from
citizens voluntarily attending their churches. They are troubled about wonder-
working Christians, who point to God, not the State, as solution for all needs of
the society.
Even with all their power, secular socialist leaders still are troubled about neo-
Pentecostals.
24
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Even so, they are listed as lecturers for Christian conferences, as if their ideas were
honest or sensible.
Prominent adherents of a selective Christian apologetics attack at the least sign any
lapse on the part of neo-Pentecostal leaders, but they close their eyes to the blatant
heresies by the untouchable priests of the Theology of Integral Mission.
What would happen, for instance, if Malafaia or R. R. Soares had made the
following declaration,
25
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
“For me, this universe is sacred… Sacredness inhabits the whole world… If I
do not have a vision making the cosmos and the whole creation sacred,
I need at the least to make one more reflection…”
This declaration, patently pantheistic, would have overthrown Malafaia and Soares,
if they had made it. Yet, its real author has never faced opposition for it. It was
made on August 12, 2004 in the workshop “The Church and Federal Welfare
Programs and the Church and Bioethics.” The workshop was held in the Brazilian
Congress, sponsored by the Progressive Evangelical Movement and the
evangelical caucus of the ruling Workers’ Party. Since 2004, when the pantheistic
declarations were made, they never subjected its author, Caio Fábio, to any
accusation, denunciation or inconvenience from the eternally angry “defenders of
faith” in the gossip world. Gossip means the habit of transmitting scandalous,
sensationalist and often inaccurate private information. By this serious issue, you
see that their objective is neither to defend sound doctrine nor to fight heresies,
but to aim at neo-Pentecostals. Caio Fábio and his pantheistic heresy went
unpunished by the “defenders of faith” in the gossip world just because he is not
neo-Pentecostal. If he was neo-Pentecostal, he would have been denounced for
much less.
Stupid Alliances
Traditionalistic Protestants don’t attack the Theology of Integral Mission
mentioning Ariovaldo Ramos, Robinson Cavalcanti and other progressive big
guys. In turn, progressive Protestants return the favor, never condemning by name
traditionalistic Protestants.
From their big houses and cars, many traditionalistic and progressive Protestants
condemn the bigger houses and cars of neo-Pentecostal leaders.
They condemn the Theology of Prosperity, but they live an ecclesiastical luxury
that would leave Jesus and his apostles with an appearance of mere illiterate
beggars.
26
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
lead services on an almost daily basis, while ministers of Calvinist churches receive
a lot more to lead just one or two services a week.
They condemn the Theology of Prosperity, but they never give up their own
prosperity. Do both groups have a prosperity reflecting Jesus’ humility?
The motivation of the criticism, of course, involves much more than just “defense
of faith.” It involves envy and other non-Christian feelings masked as theological
concerns.
Others, such as the sensationalist tabloid Genizah, grow rich by bashing neo-
Pentecostals, and moreover they assume a pose of “defenders of the faith” and
“apologetics.” The owner of Genizah is an entrepreneur with a bad reputation for
financial scandals. Even so, he continues with his suspicious businesses, in terms
of Christian ethics, while gaining a lot of money through mockery and deceit.
Those “defenders of the faith,” with their hidden greed, greatly promote
progressive and liberal big names like Caio Fábio, Ariovaldo Ramos and Robinson
Cavalcanti, but they are not themselves labeled progressive by traditionalistic big
guys.
hatred and financial envy. I support Silas Malafaia, with restrictions. I support
everything he does to defend life and family. I support him also in the conviction
that spiritual gifts are for today. But I disapprove all of his alliances and interests
with anti-family and anti-life politicians.
It is not just from the progressive and traditionalistic Protestants that neo-
Pentecostals in Brazil suffer attacks. Some Pentecostals, eager to win the favor of
everything and everybody, close their eyes to progressive aberrations and the
traditionalistic stance of rejecting prophecies and visions as current manifestations
of God, but they join progressive and traditionalistic Protestants in condemning
neo-Pentecostals. Each one following carnal ambitions camouflaged as theological
concerns.
José Dirceu, another sinister leader in the Workers’ Party, demonstrated the same
disturbance. After all, the Workers’ Party and other socialist parties are determined
to impose abortion and homosexuality in Brazil. The only impediment that they
see are neo-Pentecostals televangelists.
While Jean Wyllys (the most prominent Brazilian gay congressman) declares that
Calvinists are his allies, the Workers’ Party says that its main enemy is neo-
Pentecostalism, and traditionalistic Calvinists, wanting to or not, end up
confirming the declaration of the homosexual congressman, when they join
progressive theologians of Genizah and their partners — who exalt the leftist
ideology — in defaming neo-Pentecostalism, which has revealed itself today as the
only Christian force in Brazil able to expel or at least confront the demons of the
socialist messianism possessing the Brazilian government.
Unfortunately, they very poorly use the vast “biblical” knowledge that they have.
Traditionalistic and progressive leaders — mostly theologically educated — are
experts in confronting God in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and show those gifts
fully when attacking neo-Pentecostals, comprised mostly of simple individuals,
with only a basic grasp of the Portuguese language, though they are very bold in
28
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
their public witness! Partly, that picture reminds me of the angry Jewish
theologians after two apostles of Jesus had performed a healing miracle:
“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived
that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished.
And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13 ESV)
With an appropriate support (not hostility moved by envy and theological hatred),
neo-Pentecostal churches could do much more to dethrone socialism in other
spheres of the Brazilian society, helping to rescue families, children and churches
from malicious state intrusions. Without support, those churches run the risk of
entering also, as did the Kingdom of God Universal Church, into the socialist
orbit, leaving the way open for the Theology the Integral Mission to reoccupy its
throne.
Living humbly, all of them would have more passion to preach God as the
supreme provider for all of the needs of all people.
29
T H E O L O G Y O F L I B E R A T I O N V E R S U S T H E O L O G Y O F P R O S P E R I T Y —
J U L I O S E V E R O
Through living humbly, all of them would have more passion to do the prophetic
will of God, condemning openly, as John the Baptist did, immoral politicians and
the robberies of the wonder-working State, which promises everything and steals
everything.
How long will we tolerate abusive loads of taxes in exchange for worn out
wonder-working promises of housing, health, education and job? How long will
we tolerate the lie that invasive socialist policies that enslave the pocket, the soul,
the morality and the heart of citizens mirror the Kingdom of God?
If even Tiradentes, who was not even a prophet, rebelled against an abusive
collection of 20% of taxes, why cannot Christian leaders imitate John the Baptist
and condemn the current bigger abusive collection of 40% of taxes, a blatant
violation by the Brazilian government against the people and against the divine
commandment banning everyone, including the State, from stealing?
For international readers: Tiradentes, the nickname of Joaquim José da Silva Xavier
(August 16, 1746—April 21, 1792), was a leading member of the Brazilian revolutionary
movement whose aim was full independence from the Portuguese colonial power and to create a
Brazilian republic. Tiradentes and his companions were inspired by the American independence.
As some of their American counterparts, they were Masonic, but lacked the strong Christian
foundations which made possible the extraordinary victory of George Washington and other
Americans. The tragic irony is that Tiradentes fought against a tax of 20%, and today the
Brazilian State levies a tax of 40% from the Brazilian people!
30