Recommended Reading: Methodists Respond to Political Violence in Brazil

As many readers will be aware, last weekend, on January 8, supporters of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro stormed federal government offices in Brasilia, Brazil. Rioters attacked the offices of the president, congress, and supreme court. Government forces were able to regain control of the buildings by the end of the day.

The attacks in Brazil were widely condemned within and beyond the country. Many drew parallels with the January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Even Bolsonaro himself denounced the violence.

Among those condemning the attacks and affirming the value of democracy were Methodist bodies, both in Brazil and abroad. The Methodist Church in Brazil issued a statement entitled, "Nota de Repúdio a atos de violência e vandalismo." According to a Google translation of the statement into English, the church said, "We recognize that opposition manifestations are part of democracy, but we do not accept the totalitarian practices that we saw in these acts that deny the values ​​of the Gospel of Jesus and the construction of peace in Brazilian society." The statement denounced violence, called for peacemaking, and affirmed that Methodists are in favor of the democratic process.

Methodists in neighboring Uruguay also released a statement entitled, "Declaración por la civilidad y el respeto a la democracia." This statement affirmed that of the Brazilian church, expressed solidarity with Brazilian brothers and sisters, denounced violence, and affirmed the importance of democratic institutions.

In neighboring Argentina, the Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina called attention to a statement from el Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias (CLAI; Latin America Council of Churches) that condemned violence, affirmed democracy, and called for peace and prayer.

Viviana Pinto: Methodism and Public Theology: A Critical Moment

Today's post is by Rev. Viviana Pinto. Rev. Pinto is a pastor of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina and Director of Training for the Centro Metodista de Estudios Wesleyanos (CMEW). It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) as part of a series organized by CMEW. It appears here in translation with the author's permission and with the assistance of CMEW.

Speaking loudly and clearly

Methodism, which seeks to incarnate itself in Latin America, is very silent in the face of the brutal advance of neoliberalism, disinformation, and lawfare as strategies for weakening democracies, as has been cited in previous articles.

One can observe an expansion of social inequality, which combines the naturalization of oppressions, the idea of meritocracy, and the illusion of individual opportunities. To this is added the subordination of democracy to the defense of property, which places the market in the center of the scene and hides those who manage it.

At the same time, in this realm of fictions and fallacies, the manipulation and installation of common sense hinder communication in the communities.

Before the pandemic, it was already observable that the majority of believers, without realizing it, lived locked up in their own “echo chambers.” Thus, they also sought to relate in church services and activities primarily with those with similar views. Then, with the isolation and the virtual realm into which the pandemic forced us, this phenomenon increased. Many people chose to stay in the virtual realm, thus magnifying the effect of their echo chambers, distancing themselves from contact with the surrounding world and dialogue with the most contrasting reality.

In these circumstances, it became much more difficult to generate community bonds capable of challenging the logic of common sense and the skills to dialogue with what is different, to “think and let think,” as Wesley put it.

At the same time, disrespectful, fanatical, violent, and disqualifying modes and models were fostered by the media and social networks. They seek to channel discontent through situations that will not be resolved through the discharge of these violent expressions. In social networks, they find a privileged space of impunity. From these spaces, people are motivated to imitate violence, while others end up withdrawing to avoid aggression or confrontation.

The installation of lawfare in many countries of the continent has been a strategy that grew with the use of legal instruments for the persecution of political and social leaders and activists. This has violated the fundamental rights of the people affected and seriously weakened the democratic system, creating conditions for the application of regressive public policies and even promoting coups. These practices have been unfolding on the continent, conditioning electoral processes, the political agenda, and public opinion. Recent examples of this scenario are the assassination attempt that has hit institutional life in Argentina and the serious acts of violence in Chile and Colombia, fostered by this dangerous and anti-democratic breeding ground.

Our silence...

While the continent is going through these attacks, our ecclesial communities are impoverished, exhausted, and with weakened bonds of communion. As the philosopher Byung-Chul Han well defined, each individual lives in situations of self-exploitation, often without deciphering the mechanisms that oppress her/him. S/he has a great fear of what is different, of hurting or being hurt.

In these circumstances, it becomes increasingly difficult to find spaces for dialogue, to recognize the mechanisms that impoverish and oppress us, and to generate networks that allow us to see beyond what we are shown and understand what is happening on a global level.

Trying to respond with a public word that allows communities to feel represented, or with a word of social, prophetic, and transforming testimony, becomes something perceived as a great risk.

At the same time, in the midst of the phenomenon of lawfare, the churches fear denouncing conditions and arbitrariness that work against democracy. They are afraid of being perceived as biased, of generating adverse reactions or schisms within the churches, of “losing people” or “generating violent reactions on social networks,” which leads to an anti-prophetic silence that is often hidden under the discourse of “we must take care of the Church from within”.

Is it time to retreat, take refuge, and seek a “neutral” position so as not to run risks and not to make waves?

Or will it be as Dante Alighieri says in The Divine Comedy, “The darkest reaches of hell are reserved for those who choose to remain neutral in times of moral crisis”?

The Gospel of Matthew says, “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth …”

These words always sound harsh to us, but did Jesus shy away from conflict? Did he seek to get along with the powerful? Sustain the status quo?

So, can we ignore him in the people that suffer? If we keep quiet, the stones will cry out. If we pass by the tables of the money changers in order to avoid conflict, we will become accomplices. It is difficult to talk about this Jesus who did not come to bring peace, but is it possible to have peace with the system that plunders, destroys, and annihilates?

Perhaps, if we prioritize “taking care of the church from within,” remaining “neutral,” in a prophetic paralysis in the midst of such a complex time, should we not accept our complicity? Should we not accept that we do not incarnate the body of Christ for this reality? That we are not recognizing Jesus the friend of the marginalized, Jesus the prophet, Jesus the healer, Jesus the liberator?

While the forces of robbery are unleashed on this continent, devastating life, as we have been saying, reliable voices must intertwine in defense of the dignity and autonomy of the Latin American and Caribbean peoples and of life as a whole. The church knows that raising your voice is a risk, yes, but one that must be taken.

Following Jesus is taking on the conflict as he did, confronting the forces of exclusion and death.

How not to be biased or partisan in the world of disinformation…?!

If we remember Wesley, we can see that, immersed in the reality of his time and afflicted by the poverty and scarcity to which the people were subjected, he thought and spoke about each area of the economic system that generated it.

He faced the conflicts of his time at the risk of his own security and his academic and ecclesiastical position. He remained like a pariah from the church and the official academy. But he was faithful to the gospel. He proposed immersing himself in reality to rediscover the path and the answers found in the image of God in the neighbor who suffers.

For example, for Wesley the fundamental cause of economic problems was the great inequality between rich and poor. With this understanding, he promoted laws and taxes on luxury products. He did not avoid the conflict. Likewise, in his fight against the slave trade, he did not limit himself only to writing condemnatory treaties, but until his last days he worked politically with abolitionist parliamentarians, such as Wilberforce, so that they would not cease their fight against the “execrable villainy.”

Here we have a first clue – the encounter with reality and with the image of God in the other, the analysis of situations and not of reports, but also actions of care and impact for transformation.

Another key for Methodism and its long history of broad ecumenism will be to seek collective and committed responses with those who share territories and those who contribute their perspectives from other places. Seek to broaden one’s view beyond the borders of what we know immediately. In this way, raise one’s voice with a powerful and fruitful prophetic testimony, without fear. Bring good news. Confront, transform, and humanize society in defense of all life.

God allow us, in a crucial time like the present, not to hide behind a cloak of neutrality, but to take on the conflicts that are necessary in following Jesus and reflect his transforming power in this reality.

Claudio Pose: The Pastoral Ministry in the Dynamics of Mission

Today's post is by Rev. Claudio Pose. Rev. Pose is a pastor of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina. It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) as part of a series organized by the Centro Metodista de Estudios Wesleyanos (CMEW). It appears here in translation with the author's permission and with the assistance of CMEW.

The Bible provides us with abundant material on the image of the shepherd. The context of a rural culture of antiquity, in which shepherding flocks was a common and well-known task, make this figure a pedagogical resource to explain, for example, God's love and care for God’s people. Since the Old Testament, God appears as a shepherd (Ez 34:31). In the New Testament, Jesus declares himself a shepherd (Jn 10:14). Shepherding implies caring for and guiding the flock (as in Ps 23). One can also note that references to the flock may include groups and persons not contained in the immediate group (see Jn 10:16).

The church took the figure of a shepherd from the Scriptures to refer to ministry in church communities, although the New Testament testifies to the use of other figures taken from the culture: elders, teachers, etc. Although some versions translate the word pastor on several occasions, only in Ephesians 4: 11 do we find an explicit mention of the figure of the pastor as a ministry in the congregational task.

The theological controversies of the first centuries within the Church strengthened the figure of the pastor as a doctrinal authority responsible for the administration of the sacraments, to guarantee that those people recognized by the community determined what was correct, amidst the disputes and interpretations that abounded.

The Middle Ages concentrated the regulation of “sacred matters” in the ordained ministry, producing a priesthood of mediation between the people and God. The Protestant Reformation confronted this idea by upholding the universal priesthood of all believers.

Methodism, as a movement that emerged within Anglicanism, maintained the criterion of the ordained ministry and the universal priesthood of believers. However, the plasticity with which Wesley responded to each new challenge led him to maintain the tension between respect and recognition for the ordained ministry of the Church of England and the need to provide answers to the enormous number of people who joined the ranks of Methodism.

In the colonies of America, the process was different, and the arrival of independence posed new challenges that included the ordination of ministers. Although the functions of the elder continued in accordance with Anglican precepts, new ministerial figures emerged for preaching, teaching, and spiritual guidance of communities.

From this background of the rich heritage of the universal church, Latin American Methodism was nurtured, particularly, from the model brought by the missionaries from the United States. Along with their theological training and Methodist identity, but the missionaries also brought their lifestyles and their cultural baggage, which were not always easy to differentiate from the contents of the gospel. I remember in my early adolescence during a congregational assembly, listening to a brother defend the idea that it was necessary to bring missionaries from the United States because together with the wisdom of their faith and their formation, they brought us a lifestyle that we needed. Theology, culture, and even ideological values seemed to be a single package.

The appearance of local seminaries in Latin America produced groups of pastors formed in the light of theological traditions, coming from the northern hemisphere, but now with an eye on the vernacular challenges. Starting in the sixties of the last century, this search for a dialogue between the problems of our continent and our communities became more evident. The nascent processes of autonomy simultaneously accompanied and enriched the process.

New times for mission and ministry

As has been stated in previous articles, the mission of the church in these times requires a review and rethinking. Pastoral ministry is an expression of the mission of the church. This is the order. In its Constitution, the Argentine Evangelical Methodist Church defines ordained ministry as follows:

“The Argentine Methodist Evangelical Church recognizes the universal priesthood of believers, as well as the need for an ordained representative ministry, called by God and authorized by the Church for specific functions of the same.” (Art. 7, sub. 3)

The ordained ministry is an expression of the universal priesthood and is representative of it, as well as of the connection of the church. It immediately clarifies that it is for specific functions, so that there is no way to confuse representation with substitution, a phenomenon that we will address below.

In the present, one may detect some tensions produced by the expectations that exist about ordained ministry in the framework of churches with difficulties in rethinking its mission and functioning. In addition, the ordained ministry has traditionally been formally trained in theological institutions and supported, partially or totally, to guarantee greater time dedicated to such tasks. All this appears up for debate in the present. The possibility of revising traditions and purposes is always something beneficial. The question to take into account is where we carry out the debate from.

Next, we present four descriptions of mission and pastoral ministry.

The pastoral ministry as a substitute figure. As stated above, there is an idea rooted in the communities that the pastor concentrates the responsibility for the mission of the church, transferring the universal priesthood from all the believers to one person. The enthronement of the pastor as a kind of “ideal believer” is an underhanded demand that no person, minister or layman, can bear. In some cases, this phenomenon has reached the pastoral family, causing an unbearable burden on spouses and children.

The characteristic of the pastoral task. The General Regulations of the Argentine Methodist Church define the pastoral task as follows: “The elder is an ordained minister for the proclamation of the Word, the direction of worship, and the administration of the sacraments, and to train, guide, and serve the Church in the fulfillment of its mission in the world, through teaching, pastoral counseling, and leadership.” (Article 701)

Ordination encompasses the task of proclamation, direction of worship, and administration of the sacraments. It then indicates that it enables, guides, and serves the church in the fulfillment of its mission in the world. It is important to highlight these last two elements: it is the whole church that must fulfill the mission, and it has the world as its objective.

Pastoring in a continent torn by inequality. In the situation of Latin America, where millions of people are condemned to possess the image and likeness of God disfigured by the conditions in which they are forced to live, it is necessary to ask: What is the shepherd’s flock? What are the limits of pastoral action? Do we limit the pastoral task to the administration of sacred matters, when human life, the most sacred thing, is at risk? These questions touch not only on the scope of the pastoral role, but the entire mission of the church.

The need for a trained pastoral ministry. To the extent that we can understand that the diversity of gifts and services in the church also allows us to discover the diversity of ministries, this will not blur the function of the ordained ministry. David Bosch investigates the relevance of the ordained ministry in the mission of the church and states about the pastoral role, “the guardian who helps the community remain faithful to the teachings and practices of apostolic Christianity. … The priesthood of the ordained ministry exists to facilitate, not to remove, the priesthood of the entire church.”

These times require spiritual, social, political, and cultural discernment. That is why there is a need for an ordered ministry prepared with the tools that make adequate accompaniment of communities possible. Jesus demanded that trained religious leaders be able to discern the times because the church's agenda is in the world and not inside church buildings.

“The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.’” (Mt 16:1-3)

Questions for reflection

• If the mission of your congregation has already been discussed, you could now discuss what pastoral ministry would be appropriate for that mission.
• What other ministries does the community have? Discuss how to train and support them. Why is pastoral work important in these ministries?
• What challenges does the neighborhood or city in which the community is located pose?

Recommended Viewing: Panel on the Challenges of Methodism in Latin America

Over the past several weeks, UM & Global has been running a series of posts about mission and evangelism in Latin American Methodism originally published by the Centro Metodista de Estudios Wesleyanos (CMEW) of the Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (IEMA, Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina). The posts were originally published in Spanish and have appeared here in translation through the permission and support of CMEW. Two more translations remain to be published on UM & Global, but the Spanish-language versions are now all available.

As a follow-up to that series of posts, CMEW and IEMA are hosting a free online panel (in Spanish) on the topic of "The Challenges of Methodism in Latin America." The panel will be hosted by Revs. Claudio Pose and Viviana Pinto (both of whose essays in the series will appear on this site soon). It features as panelists Rev. Dr. Daniel Bruno of CMEW along with Rev. Dr. Miguel Ulloa Moscoso of Chile, Director of the Methodist Seminary of Chile, and Dr. Nancy Cardoso of Brazil, Professors of the Study of Religion and Theology at the Methodist University of Angola. The conversation should be excellent.

The panel will be at 7:30pm CST this Friday, September 30. Free online registration can be found here.

Frank de Nully Brown: The Methodist Church: Institution for Mission or Mission for Institution?

Today's post is by retired Bishop Frank de Nully Brown. Bishop de Nully Brown is a retired bishop of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina. It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) as part of a series organized by the Centro Metodista de Estudios Wesleyanos (CMEW). It appears here in translation with the author's permission and with the assistance of CMEW.

The Methodist Church began as a movement based on an incipient network of local societies with the mission of proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ for all, with a spiritual and social commitment that challenged the personal transformation and the social reality of its time.

From its origins, the interpersonal connection and the connection with the social environment was something fundamental in the entire Methodist movement. That connection involved mutual support and growth in ministry. This connection was, through time, the foundation that constituted one of the largest and most well-organized denominations in its wide and diverse connections. This organization and structure were understood as a support that allowed the mission to expand throughout the world.

The Methodist churches in our Latin American continent are heirs to the mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which later became part of the current United Methodist Church.

The autonomy processes did not mean disconnection from the Methodist family, but a greater commitment at the local level. It occurred at the end of the '60s and beginning of the '70s and affirmed this missionary change in Latin American Methodism. For this reason, it generated the organization CIEMAL (Council of Evangelical Methodist Churches of Latin America and the Caribbean) as a space for connection and meaning for our evangelical mission.

Autonomy wanted to affirm our commitment to live and proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God in a different cultural and social context, in which we were challenged to give a Christian witness.

Autonomy confronted us with a reality where self-support was presented as a difficult path to follow, taking into account the very ambivalent socioeconomic trajectory in our Latin American countries.

We inherited an organizational structure with its virtues and defects. The organizational aspect always had an important weight for our churches because it had to do with our new way of being a connectional church.

The institutional presence was made concrete in the construction of churches and other buildings in the big cities and in places that were considered strategic, and many times autonomy showed that they could not be sustained or that mission with the people passed through other spaces that were not church buildings but were a symbol of a recognized and established church.

I share the goals of the organization of CIEMAL, written in its regulations, that reflect the dreams of being autonomous churches.

1. Participate in the Mission of God, giving a testimony of solidarity in preaching, education, and service through the member churches to the Latin American and Caribbean peoples, giving priority to the poor and excluded.
2. Stimulate the process of maintaining and perfecting the unity of the Church.
3. Maintain and proclaim Methodist connectionality among its members, cultivating brotherhood and mutual support.
4. Develop cooperative relationships with world Methodism and the ecumenical movement.
5. Stimulate and promote awareness and practice of biblical theology in the Latin American and Caribbean context.
6. Ensure a permanent analysis and evaluation of the political, economic, and religious reality of each country and of each member church at a continental level.
7. Develop different programs through studies, consultations, seminars, offices, and other means that favor the fulfillment of mission.

Autonomy had its costs for each national church because it meant taking charge of a structure that showed difficulties in being sustained not only financially but also in leadership for the ministry.

So, the churches went along doing what they could, sometimes with great successes and mistakes too. On more than one occasion, autonomy was not seen as an achievement, especially when resources and gifts were limited. Sometimes, even on many occasions, the organization weighed down a congregation when it was associated with a building with a determined structure.

All this led to the dilemma of thinking about the mission of the extended parish, which is always an invitation to look at the surrounding community, our neighborhood, or to support an organization in a pre-determined way: it was difficult to recover the sense of a spiritual and social movement.

Today, there are debates about possible fractures in United Methodism, from which we recognize our origins, fractures that not only affect the church in the United States but throughout the world through the mode of our relations. These fractures are related to differing visions of our pastoral action based on certain biblical and theological interpretations.

Being an autonomous church allows us an exercise in being different and creative, making our own missional decision, building new and old networks of support and growth. We need to reconvert ourselves based on our mission and not just to make our institutional life last a while longer.

I believe that autonomy, throughout our Methodist history in our continent, has a positive balance that we have to refresh in these times of searching for paths of unity, not only with the Methodist family but with the body of Christ as a broader and more ecumenical concept.

It is a constant challenge to recover a concept of community and connectional evangelism in the society in which we have to bear witness. A community evangelism that generates congregations of faith in solidarity that seek the Kingdom of God and its justice, remembering that what is connectional is not to isolate ourselves but to connect ourselves. From there comes an ecumenical attitude in the search for justice and peace for all. We must not recognize ecumenism only as something celebratory and eventually linked to institutional hierarchy, but to adapt the essence of ecumenism, which is to weave networks for transformative mission in the world.

We need to remember that the church is only one instrument for God's mission. It can never be a burden but a tool that facilitates and speeds up the mission of God in the world.

I share some lines to rethink the life of our local congregations, recalling two concepts that appear in the previous writings about the need to rethink the mission from the margins of society and a gospel embodied in reality as Jesus did.

• Be loving, supportive, inclusive and healing congregations.
• Be congregations that make new disciples.
• Be congregations open to the changes and movements that occur in the extended parish where we are inserted.
• Be prophetic congregations, which join with other social spaces in the search for a more just and egalitarian society.

Pablo Bordenave: Evangelization in Context: The Great Commission or the Great Omission?

Today's post is by Lic. Pablo Bordenave. Lic. Bordenave is Chaplain at Colegio Ward in Buenos Aires. It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) as part of a series organized by the Centro Metodista de Estudios Wesleyanos (CMEW). It appears here in translation with the author's permission and with the assistance of CMEW.

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” These words from the Gospel of Matthew that carry the title of “the Great Commission” point to one of the most discussed tasks within the Christian churches throughout the centuries. This topic is discussed so much that some have called those words “the great omission,” implying that it is the task that the church has forgotten.

David Bosch, author of the book Transforming Mission, says about this text of Matthew:

“It is inadmissible to lift these words out of Matthew’s Gospel, as it were, allow them a life of their own, and understand them without reference to the context in which they first appeared. Where this happens, the ‘Great Commission’ is easily degraded to a mere slogan, or used as a pretext for what we have in advance decided, perhaps unconsciously, it should mean. … One thing contemporary scholars are agreed upon, is that Matthew 28:18–20 has to be interpreted against the backdrop of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole and unless we keep this in mind we shall fail to understand it. No exegesis of the ‘Great Commission’ divorced from its moorings in this gospel can be valid.” (p. 57)

How good it would be if our ideas of evangelism/mission of the church had as a backdrop, that is, as a general context, the message of the gospel that became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth!

Juan Stam, a Latin American theologian, began an article on theology of evangelism entitled “God as a starting point for a theology of evangelism.” He said, “Where should evangelism start from? From heaven to arrive at the earth? That is what the title would seem to indicate. From the church to go out into the world? That would be another approach. Or from the world to then bring it to the gospel?”

Stam was looking to point out these perspectives, problematizing a little and showing the complexity of the theme of evangelization. These questions are enough to show at least that there is not a single “correct” way to evangelize, that this task can be assumed from different places or perspectives and that each of these different places have their own risks of distorting that message we are looking to transmit.

As you can see, the theme is fundamental.

If Jesus is our example both in works and in his humanity, the first thing we would have to say is that much of our failure to communicate the gospel in our Latin American contexts is largely due to our lack of dialogue with the culture, to our ignorance of it or worse still to the rejection of many historical and cultural traditions.

Jesus not only dialogued with the culture of his time, but he incarnated himself in full humanity to be able to establish that dialogue and that it may be fruitful. Not knowing our Latin American culture and intending to have a discourse more typical of other latitudes or past centuries is not having the person of Jesus as a backdrop.

Imitation of North American models

Stam says in his article, “It is necessary to highlight, in the nineteenth century, due to its projection in Latin America, the gigantic movement of ‘religious revivals’ with its emphasis on repentance and conversion and which was also characterized by its emotionalism and the mobilization of masses around a great evangelist. This is how names like James McGready, Charles Finney, Dwight L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and today Billy Graham are remembered. It is not surprising that Latin American evangelicalism, born largely in the heat and thanks to the pioneering effort of the North American Church, has always fallen to the temptation of copying the same patterns, reducing ‘evangelism’ to a function that can be called mimetic: of imitation.”

Without a doubt, if those preachers did their job well in those times, it was surely because they understood their cultures and knew how to enter into dialogue with them. We do them little favor when we only seek to imitate them in form and content.

The good news that we have to communicate must be incarnated in the culture of our time and our land in order to bear the fruit of justice. For this reason, as Latin Americans we are called to our own path of incarnation with our cultures. Evangelism is proclamation, but it is also incarnation. For this, our participation in the life of our cultures is indispensable.

On the contrary, the fundamentalist theology that has spread throughout Latin America has managed to live and practice the evangelistic task in fundamental terms of separation between faith and culture.

In Wesley we find a deep link between good news and culture. His concept of good news, deep and radical, led him to fight against the “execrable villainy of slavery,” and also to venture into the economy, health, and medicine, and to criticize those who transformed these tools given by God for the well-being of God’s children into personal gain. For Wesley, just as the Roman Terence mentioned, “nothing human was alien to him,” and we can add, neither was the non-human: for Wesley, animals and the entire creation enter in dialogue with the Good News of salvation. For Wesley, evangelism (although he never used that term) was to open the space for an enriching and salvific dialogue between God and all of his creation. He never thought of the good news as something to be imposed, on the contrary, “Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love.” (Sermon 37, “The Nature of Enthusiasm).

The Uruguayan pastor Emilio Castro said, “The biggest obstacle to evangelism is the Church worried about its own existence. It would be amusing, if it were not pathetic, to see entire denominations preoccupied with completely secondary questions of form or doctrine…while revolutionary ferment rages in the streets and fields of Latin America.”

The good news of Jesus always seeks the horizons, not confinements. It is an encounter, not a hunt for candidates to be “converted.” And if the church remains self-absorbed and silent on this, “the stones will cry out.” It is time to find new questions to answer. That would be a promising start for a new church in Latin America.

Questions for reflection

1. If to evangelize you have to enter into dialogue with culture as Jesus did, what keys do you think the text of Phil 2: 5-11 gives us to understand Jesus' relationship with human culture?
2. How do you organize an evangelistic journey in light of these words of Wesley: “Beware you are not a fiery, persecuting enthusiast. Do not imagine that God has called you (just contrary to the spirit of Him you style your Master) to destroy men's lives, and not to save them. Never dream of forcing men into the ways of God. Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love” (Sermon 37)?
3. If the context of the Great Commission should be the rest of the gospel of Matthew, look for characteristics to carry this good news today in the following three passages:
   Matt. 5: 1-12
   Matt 12: 1-8
   Matt 15: 21-28

Bishops Etchegoyen and Nacpil on Autonomy and Connectionalism

Given current separations from the denomination and questions about the future for those who stay, The United Methodist Church is in a time of reconsidering what it means to be connected as a church. Therefore, past reflections by two former Methodist Bishops - Aldo Etchegoyen of the Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina and Emerito Nacpil of the UMC in the Philippines - on the relationship between connectionalism and autonomy struck me (David) as once again relevant, especially for the question of how remaining United Methodists should relate across national and continental boundaries.

Bishop Etchegoyen, writing in 1997 in "Connectionality and Autonomy" in The Ecumenical Implications of the Discussions of "The Global Nature of The United Methodist Church" rooted the concept of connectionalism not in Methodist history but in theological principles: "We believe in a connectional God who has moved outside himself to create all things. God's creation is a connectional phenomenon in which earth, sun and water serve the plants, the flowers and the fruits, as also the animals and humanity." "The opposite of connectionalism," he continued, "is separation." (p. 163)

Therefore, Etchegoyen wrote, "We cannot speak of connectionality and autonomy in the same breath. Each of these terms excludes the other. I believe this contradiction has done us much harm." (p. 164)

In contrast, he proposed, "I am defending a connectionality with responsibility in which each church may take account of its own identity, may be able to perform its own government but at the same time may show clearly its historical, theological and ecclesial unity, which we already have. On the opposite side of this conception is the dangerous possibility of falling into an irresponsible autonomy of which we have several examples. ...

"We must come to a moment when we will not be autonomous churches seeking to express our connectionality, but connectional churches on an equal footing. This, by no means signifies a leap backward into the past, but rather a leap forward in search of a new situation in which we can truly express our genuine connectionality in service of life, in maturity and in coherence with the Gospel. A connectionality that surges up from our national roots and is enriched by the diversity of world Methodism in the setting of the great ecumenical family." (p. 165)

Bishop Nacpil, in a 1994 Episcopal Address entitled "Developing a Truly Global Church," contained in The Secularity of the Word, Vol. III of A Spirituality that Secularizes, took up similar themes:

"The vision of a global church relates or links autonomy and connectionality organically and essentially. In a global church one cannot have the one without the other. They mutually entail each other in a global vision." (p. 440)

Speaking in the context of Filipino debates over voting to become autonomous, he continued:

"Connectionalism connects the local and the global. Connectionalism does not stop connecting one local church with another church within a nation which is what a purely autonomous structure will do! It goes on connecting with all the local churches of the one global United Methodist Church which is what globalization seeks to do. Moreover, it does not only connect one local church to another local church, but the local to the global and the global to the local. That is to say: between parts and whole and between the whole and its parts! Connectionalism entails globalization. And there cannot be globalization without some form of connectionalism which is expressed locally with autonomy. But autonomy alone restricted by national boundary cannot and can never be global and connectional!" (p. 450)

After commenting on a then-current plan for restructuring the UMC along lines similar to those proposed in the present-day Christmas Covenant, he concludes, "One can see that connectionality starts from the charge conference and moves vertically and horizontally through annual, regional, and general conference levels. Autonomy also is exercised from the local, annual, regional, and general levels within the framework of global connectionality."

While the two use the term autonomy differently, what both bishops argue for is an understanding of Methodism that entails local and national decision-making alongside international connection. One is making that argument from within the UMC and one from outside its formal structures, but both believe such a balance of local freedom and international connection is essential to Methodism.

Such a vision is relevant both as The United Methodist Church considers how to structure itself going forward and as it considers how to relate to historically-connected churches, such as those Methodist churches in Latin America and parts of Asia.

What I've learned about Methodism and democracy from Argentina and the Philippines

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

The past two weeks, Juan Gattinoni of Argentina and Norma Dollaga of the Philippines have written two excellent pieces on the relationship between Methodism and democracy. I am grateful for their wisdom and generosity in sharing their insights on this topic. As a show of appreciation, I wanted to reflect publicly on what I have learned about the topic from them.

The connection between democracy, civil rights, and economic justice
Living in the United States, I have tended to think of democracy as a self-evident good—of course democracy is important for its own sake! Both authors showed me, though, that democracy is not just a good in its own right. Democracy is important because it is part of a broader framework that emphasizes human rights and economic justice, both of which are connected to God’s justice.

Gattinoni quoted the Southern American Annual Conference saying, “We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all.” He added in his own words, “It is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people.”

Throughout her piece, Dollaga emphasized human rights and care for the poor. She noted the connection between the two, writing, “The violation of human rights … began when the powerful few accumulated, stock-piled and privatized the resources, wealth and property of the people and calcified their strength through social-economic-political order.”

I have been reminded that Christianity has survived under many political systems, but the emphasis on just treatment of the poor and the oppressed is an essential thread of the faith in all contexts and under all political systems.

The connection between democracy and the law
I have tended to think of democracy and the rule of law going hand in hand. Dollaga and Gattinoni reminded me that the law can be perverted by injustice and end up subverting democracy.

Dollaga wrote of the Philippines, “The weaponization of the law has exacerbated the narrowing of democratic spaces.” In a similar vein, Gattinoni said of Argentina, “The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.”

When I taught college students, they struggled with the distinction between legal and moral. Surely, they thought, if something is legal, it must be okay? Dollaga and Gattinoni emphasized that legal does not always mean just. We must pay attention to the effect of laws: How do they impact the poor and marginalized? Do they increase or decrease people’s ability to shape their own government?

Methodism as model of and advocate for democracy, even in undemocratic situations
I was struck in both of their pieces by the ways in which Methodism in Argentina and the Philippines has historically and today served as a model of democracy in its own structure and an advocate for democracy within wider society.

Gattinoni noted that Methodist polity “is conceptually democratic,” relying upon a system of elections and representation.

Both authors shared stories of Methodists engaged in advocacy for democracy on behalf of the rights of the poor and marginalized, even in the face of repressive and undemocratic regimes. Indeed, the Methodist witness was that much more dramatic in the face of government injustice. Often, that witness required a great deal of courage.

Gattinoni related the story of an Argentine Methodist church that was bombed in 1975 for its work with refugees fleeing from dictatorship in Chile. Dollaga wrote of current work in the Phillipines, “Red-tagging, maligning and persecution of prophetic voices in the Philippines continue. The democratic space and the mission and ministries of the Church with poor and marginalized communities are endangered.” She added, “Doing relief work used to be a ‘safe’ ministry. You would not get into trouble if you give soup to the hungry. Today, you become a suspect, and you can even be jailed.”

I can only be impressed and humbled by such courageous witnesses to God’s justice and wonder whether I would be similarly courageous if need be.

Biblical grounding for justice work
I noticed that both Dollaga and Gattinoni included scripture near the close of both of their pieces. Gattinoni quoted Psalm 85:10-13, and Dollaga quoted Amos 5:24. I took this as a sign that for both of them, this work is rooted not merely in abstract reflections on concepts of justice, but in justice as a quality of God, as revealed in the Bible.

That pushed me to do a bit of biblical study of my own on government and justice. I observed that the Bible repeatedly makes the connection between good government and treatment of the poor, as Dollaga and Gattinoni did.

In Psalm 72, King Solomon prays about himself, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.” In Isaiah 3:13-15, God judges the “elders and princes” because of their treatment of the poor. Proverbs 29 asserts in v. 2, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan,” and then clarifies a few verses later that “the righteous know the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding.”

Conclusion
One of the fundamental convictions of this blog is the importance of learning across cultures and contexts. There has been a lot of recent conversation about democracy within my country (the United States). Reading Gattinoni’s and Dollaga’s pieces about the relationship between Methodism and democracy in their contexts has deepened my understanding of the topic and has helped shape how I think about the connection between Methodism and democracy in my context.

Juan Gattinoni: Methodism and Democracy

Today's post is written by Rev. Juan Gattanoni, pastor of la Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (the Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina).

The themes of Methodism and democracy have sailed together in harmony since ancient times. I belong to a family with a long history of Methodism in Argentina. In fact, hymns and the Wesleyan spirit accompanied me from the cradle. For more than 180 years, the Evangelical Methodist Church has been accompanying the history of Argentina with its presence, being one of the first Protestant Churches to develop a missionary task.

My intention is to speak from a testimonial perspective and from the facts that show the commitment of the Methodists in Argentina to democracy.

I would like to make a preliminary distinction. We talk about "politics" and "the political." Politics is the set of activities that people associated with a group (political party) do to accumulate power that allows them to govern, make decisions, and direct the destinies of a society. The political is what "happens in the polis" and therefore is of concern, interest, or need to the people in their daily lives. I understand that the church is not called to govern and get into the tug-of-war of politics. But she is called to get into the political, that is, with what happens to the people.

We speak of democracy when we say that the populace (demos), the people, have participation in the decisions that govern them. Elect and be elected. Delegate authority to exercise on your behalf.

The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (Argentine Evangelical Methodist Church) (as well as others in the world) is conceptually democratic and it has been since its inception. We would say that we value democracy as a system of government "in its own flesh."

The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (IEMA), already autonomous since 1969, takes for its own government a broadly democratic system, where its representatives (bishops, superintendents, work commissions, etc.) are elected by the representatives of the churches gathered in General Assembly.

Argentina since 1816 (its Independence) has had different governments, some with "a certain level" of democracy (only in 1950 was the female vote and its participation approved), and a large number of coups d'état, softer or harsher dictatorships, but nothing democratic. Probably the most ferocious dictatorship in Argentina was during the years 1976 to 1983, with more than 30,000 people kidnapped and disappeared, and that came to an end involving us in war with Great Britain for the recovery of our Malvinas Islands, which, as was supposed, was lost, leaving a balance of 650 Argentine troops dead.

That said, it is worth affirming that democracy in Argentina really begins in December 1983. And uninterruptedly since that date, not without various crises, we have lived under a democratic government regime for 39 years! This means that democracy as a way of life, for Argentines, is something very desired, valued, and necessary.

I keep a clipping from the conference journal of 1938, where the Methodist Episcopal Church South America Conference, gathered in the 46th annual conference, tells us through its Bishop Juan E. Gattinoni (my grandfather): "The Methodist Church must fight to maintain democracy and therefore will resist dictatorships, as they decapitate the opposition. On the contrary, the former dignifies the latter. Creative minds are destroyed by dictatorships, and the entire nation marches under such regimes to the most absolute mental sterility. On the contrary, in democracy, the creative mind is protected and preserved, because it wants freedom, equality and fraternity to be a fact of life consciously enjoyed by all." ... "We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all" ... "The Methodist Episcopal Church does not endorse, sustain, or participate in war. Its components are convinced that good understanding and goodwill can bear better fruit and can save precious lives." It is worth mentioning that this statement of the MEC arose in a context in which, in Europe, Communism and Nazism were firmly and violently questioning democracy as a system of government.

Each Assembly of the IEMA since autonomy has spoken in favor of democracy, the participation of the people, and the inclusion of those most in need in the objectives of government in the country.

But it is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people. It is in this sense that the Missionary Strategy outlined and approved in the General Assembly in 1973 by the IEMA pointed out that it is the state that must meet the needs of its people and that the church is called to cover in a supplementary way what the state would not be able to attend to, that is, education, health, social problems, etc.

The coup d'état and dictatorship of March 1976 in Argentina was one of the many that spread throughout Latin America. In Argentina, it was really tragic as we mentioned above. The IEMA not only did not support that dictatorship (it is worth mentioning that other churches did, including the official Roman Catholic Church), but also committed several of its leaders in the struggle for human rights, as a form of struggle for the restitution of the democratic system.

The coup d'état in Chile in September 1973, which ended democratic life, was also bloody and immediately generated thousands of refugees fleeing for their lives. Most found their way out more accessible in Argentina, mainly in Mendoza, but also other cities in Argentina.

The IEMA was inevitably compelled to get involved in the political and risk organizing refugee care committees together with other churches (not many). Bishop Federico J. Pagura (elected in 1977) tells us what that experience was, being a pastor in the city of Mendoza. "In view of the reality of thousands of Chilean refugees who crossed the mountain range claiming refuge in our country, with the risks involved[1] at that time to receive, accompany, and defend them against the dictatorship that was already beginning to show its teeth and claws, I asked my Bishop Carlos Gattinoni (first bishop of the autonomous IM) for an urgent visit to Mendoza, and in a more than secret conversation, I asked him if he and our Methodist Church would be willing to support us and accompany us in this dangerous adventure to which we were challenged. And he answered me, 'Go ahead Frederick, with those who are willing to commit out of love for Christ and the people. We will accompany them to the end, whatever the consequences.'"

The IEMA, with the firm decision of its bishop, not only understood that the cause of human rights and political refuge has to do with the democratic conception of life, but also encouraged the formation of different human rights organizations that played a very important role in politics in our country. The church understood it this way, in her fidelity to the Lord and other Protestant churches accompanied this position as well. Resonating behind this firm decision is that "the world is my parish." This was the way to get involved in "the political." Other evangelical churches did NOT understand it that way and continued to worry about "heavenly things."

One of the things that distinguish Argentina from other countries that went through oppressive dictatorships is that, once democracy returned, the genocide perpetrated by the dictatorship was judged in national courts (76-83). The genocidal dictators were found guilty and convicted under Argentine law. The Methodist Church also has something to do with this process. It happened that, with the advent of the new democratic government, on December 10, 1983, President Alfonsín made an important decision just 5 days after his inauguration (December 15, 1983). By Decree of Necessity and Urgency, he created the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP), whose objective was to investigate the issue of disappeared persons and violations of human rights that occurred in the period 1976-1983.

It was composed of a group of 10 people, known for their honesty, among whom were three religious leaders: a rabbi, a Catholic bishop, and Methodist Bishop Carlos Gattinoni. CONADEP was based in Buenos Aires, but several subcommissions were created in different cities of the country, in which there were Methodist pastors serving as well. The importance of CONADEP's investigative work lies in the fact that its report was a fundamental input for the Civil Court that tried the dictators months later.

The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.[2] With the advent of the "low fare” widely practiced in judicial venues and the power of media corporations that shamelessly practice "fake news," confusing and manipulating the thinking of the people, the role of the judicial branch (one of the three branches of the democratic system) has effectively taken preeminence over the other two powers. This shakes the democratic system in our country. If justice is not there to protect the right of the weak, it is not justice.

As Psalm 85:10-13 says:

"Mercy and truth meet; justice and peace kiss. Truth will spring from the earth and justice will look out from the heavens. Jehovah will also give good and our land will bear its fruit. Justice will go before him, and his steps will set us on the road."

---

[1] On September 5, 1975, at 3 am, a bomb was placed in the Methodist Temple of Espejo 423, in the heart of Mendoza, destroying five doors and all the glass in front of the building.

[2] When the military dictatorship was established (1976-83), all the judges were forced to sign fidelity to the "Acts of the National Reorganization Process," led by the military junta, and that was the way they made sure to commit all the abuses they wanted.

Juan Gattinoni: Metodismo y Democracia

La publicación de blog de hoy está escrita por Juan Gattanoni, pastor de la Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina.

La temática Metodismo y Democracia navega en armonía desde tiempos lejanos. Pertenezco a una familia de larga trayectoria en el Metodismo en Argentina. De hecho, himnos y espíritu wesleyano, me acompañan desde la cuna. Hace más de 180 años la Iglesia Evangélica Metodista viene acompañando la historia de Argentina con su presencia, siendo de las primeras Iglesias protestantes que desarrolla una tarea misionera.

Mi intención es hablar desde una perspectiva testimonial, y a partir de los hechos que muestran el compromiso de los metodistas en Argentina con la Democracia.

Quisiera hacer una distinción previa. Hablamos de “LA política” y de “LO político”. La política es el conjunto de actividades que hacen las personas asociadas en grupo (partidos políticos), para acumular poder que les permita gobernar, tomar decisiones e ir dirigiendo los destinos de una sociedad. LO político es aquello que “sucede en la polis” y por ello resulta lo que es de preocupación, interés o necesidad de la gente en su diario vivir. Entiendo que la Iglesia no está llamada a gobernar y meterse en los tires y aflojes de LA política. Pero sí es llamada a meterse en LO político, o sea con lo que le sucede a la gente.

Hablamos de Democracia, cuando decimos que el pueblo (demos), la gente, tiene participación en las decisiones que le gobiernan. Elegir y ser elegido. Delegar autoridad para ejercicio en su representación.

La Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (así como otras en el mundo) es conceptualmente democrática. Diríamos que valoramos la democracia como sistema de gobierno “en carne propia” Y así lo ha sido desde sus inicios.

La Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (IEMA), ya autónoma desde 1969, toma para su propio gobierno un sistema ampliamente democrático, en donde sus representantes (obispos, superintendentes, comisiones de trabajo, etc.) son elegidos por los representantes de las iglesias reunidos en Asamblea General.

La Argentina desde 1816 (su Independencia) hasta la fecha ha tenido distintos gobiernos, alguno que otro con “cierto nivel” de democracia (recién en 1950 se aprobó el voto femenino y su participación), y una gran cantidad de golpes de Estado, dictaduras más blandas o más duras, pero nada democráticas. Probablemente la más feroz dictadura en Argentina fue durante los años 1976 a 1983, con más de 30,000 personas secuestradas y desaparecidas, y que llega a su fin involucrándonos en Guerra con Gran Bretaña por la recuperación de nuestras Islas Malvinas, la cual, como era de presuponer, se perdió dejando un saldo de 650 fallecidos de las fuerzas argentinas.

Dicho esto vale afirmar que la Democracia en la Argentina en rigor de verdad comienza en Diciembre de 1983. Y hasta la fecha ininterrumpidamente, no sin diversas crisis, hemos vivido bajo un régimen de gobierno democrático por 39 años! Esto quiere decir que la Democracia como forma de vida, para los argentinos, es algo muy deseado, valorado y necesario.

Conservamos un recorte del Diario Crítica del año 1938, donde la Iglesia Metodista Episcopal del Este de Sud América, reunida en la 46va. Conferencia Anual, nos dice a través de su Obispo Juan E. Gattinoni (mi abuelo): “La Iglesia Metodista debe luchar para mantener la democracia y por lo tanto, resistirá a las dictaduras, pues éstas decapitan a la oposición. En cambio aquella, dignifica la última. Las mentes creadoras son destruidas por las dictaduras y la nación entera marcha bajo tales regímenes a la más absoluta esterilidad mental. Por el contrario, en la democracia, la mente creadora es protegida y conservada, porque ella quiere que sea un hecho en la vida, la libertad, la igualdad y fraternidad conscientemente gozadas por todos.” … “Debemos luchar por la democracia, a fin de que dentro de dicho régimen de convivencia, los hombres puedan usar su libertad para obtener justicia económica para todos” … “La Iglesia Metodista Episcopal no endosa, no sostiene ni participa en la guerra. Sus componentes estamos convencidos que el buen entendimiento y la buena voluntad pueden dar mejores frutos y pueden ahorrar vidas preciosas”. Vale mencionar que esta afirmación de la IME, surge en el contexto en que en Europa, Comunismo y Nazismo estaban cuestionando firme y violentamente la Democracia como sistema de gobierno.

La Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (IEMA), ya autónoma desde 1969, toma para su propio gobierno un sistema ampliamente democrático, en donde sus representantes (obispos, superintendentes, comisiones de trabajo, etc.) son elegidos por los representantes de las iglesias reunidos en Asamblea General.

Cada Asamblea de la IEMA desde la autónoma ha pronunciado a favor de la democracia, de la participación del pueblo y de la inclusión de los más necesitados en los objetivos de gobierno del país. Pero no se trata sólo de pronunciarse a favor de la democracia, sino de tener una acción/misión que tenga que ver con las necesidades del pueblo. Es en ese sentido que la Estrategia Misionera delineada y aprobada en Asamblea General en 1973 por la IEMA apuntaba a que es el Estado que debe atender las necesidades de su pueblo y que la Iglesia está llamada a cubrir de manera supletoria lo que el Estado no estuviera pudiendo atender, esto es educación, salud, problemáticas sociales, etc.

El golpe de Estado y Dictadura de marzo de 1976 en Argentina, fue uno de los tantos que se esparcieron por toda Latinoamérica. En Argentina, fue realmente trágica como mencionáramos más arriba. La IEMA no sólo no apoyó esa Dictadura (vale mencionar que otras Iglesias sí lo hicieron, incluyendo la Iglesia Oficial, Católica Romana), sino que comprometió a varios de sus dirigentes en la lucha por los Derechos Humanos, como forma de lucha para la restitución del sistema democrático.

El golpe de Estado en Chile, en septiembre de 1973, que acabó con la vida democrática, fue sangriento también y generó de inmediato miles de refugiados que huían para salvar sus vidas. La mayoría encontraban su salida más accesible en Argentina, principalmente en Mendoza, pero también otras ciudades de Argentina.

La IEMA se vio inevitablemente compelida a involucrarse en LO político, y arriesgarse a organizar junto con otras Iglesias (no muchas) Comités de Atención a Refugiados. El Obispo Federico J. Pagura (elegido en 1977) nos relata lo que fue esa experiencia, siendo él pastor en la ciudad de Mendoza. “Ante la realidad de miles de refugiados chilenos que cruzaban la cordillera clamando refugio en nuestro país, con los riesgos[1] que entrañaba en ese tiempo el recibirlos, acompañarlos y defenderlos ante la dictadura que ya empezaba a mostrar sus dientes y garras, yo le pedí a mi Obispo Carlos Gattinoni (primer obispo de la IM autónoma), una urgente visita a Mendoza, y en una conversación más que secreta le pregunté si él y nuestra Iglesia Metodista estarían dispuestos a respaldarnos y acompañarnos en esa peligrosa aventura a que se nos desafiaba. Y él me respondió: “sigan adelante Federico, con los que estén dispuestos a comprometerse por amor a Cristo y al pueblo. Nosotros les acompañaremos hasta el fin, cualesquiera sean las consecuencias”.

La IEMA, con la decisión firme de su obispo, no sólo entendió que la causa de los Derechos Humanos y el refugio político tiene que ver con la concepción democrática de la vida, sino que además animó la formación de distintos Organismos de Derechos Humanos que jugaron un rol muy importante en lo político en nuestro país. La Iglesia lo entendió así, en su fidelidad al Señor y otras iglesias protestantes acompañaron esta posición también. Resuena por detrás de esta firme decisión aquello de que “el mundo es mi parroquia”. Esta fue la manera de involucrarse en “lo político”. Otras iglesias evangélicas NO lo entendieron así y siguieron preocupándose por las “cosas celestiales”.

Una de las cosas que distinguen a Argentina en cuanto a otros países que pasaron por dictaduras opresivas es que, una vez vuelta la Democracia, se juzgó en tribunales nacionales el genocidio perpetrado por la Dictadura (76-83). Los dictadores genocidas fueron encontrados culpables y condenados según la ley Argentina. También la Iglesia Metodista tiene algo que ver con este proceso. Sucede que, con el advenimiento del nuevo gobierno democrático, el 10 de diciembre de 1983, el Presidente Alfonsín toma una decisión trascendente a solo 5 días de su asunción (15 de diciembre de 1983). Por Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia crea la Comisión Nacional sobre Desaparición de Personas (CONADEP) cuyo objetivo fue investigar el tema desaparecidos y violaciones a los DDHH acaecidas en el período 1976-1983. Estaba compuesta por un grupo de 10 personas, conocidas por su honestidad, entre los que había tres religiosos: un rabino, un obispo Católico y el Obispo Metodista Carlos Gattinoni. La CONADEP tenía su sede en Buenos Aires, pero se crearon varias subcomisiones en distintas ciudades del país, en las cuales hubo pastores metodistas sirviendo también. La importancia del trabajo de investigación de la CONADEP radica en que su informe fue un insumo fundamental para el Tribunal Civil que juzgó a los dictadores meses más tarde.

La preocupación por el decrecimiento de la democracia en estos últimos tiempos fundamentalmente pasa por el Poder Judicial[2]. Con el advenimiento del “Low Fare” ampliamente practicado en sedes judiciales y el poder de las corporaciones de medios de comunicación que practican sin pudor las “fake news”, confundiendo y manipulando el pensamiento de la gente, el rol del Poder Judicial (uno de los tres poderes del sistema democrático) ha tomado en la práctica preeminencia sobre los otros dos poderes. Esto hace tambalear el sistema democrático en nuestro país. Si la justicia no está para proteger el derecho del débil, no es justicia.

Como bien dice el Salmo 85: 10-13

"La misericordia y la verdad se encontraron; la justicia y la paz se besaron. La verdad brotará de la tierra y la justicia mirará desde los cielos. Jehová dará también el bien y nuestra tierra dará su fruto. La justicia irá delante de él y sus pasos nos pondrá por camino."

---

[1] El 5 de septiembre de 1975 a las 3 am, una bomba fue puesta en el Templo Metodista de Espejo 423, en pleno centro de Mendoza, destruyendo cinco puertas y todos los vidrios del frente del edificio.

[2] Cuando se instaura la Dictadura Militar (1976-83), todos los jueces fueron obligados a firmar fidelidad a las “Actas del Proceso de Reorganización Nacional” liderado por la Junta Militar y esa fue la manera que se aseguraron cometer todos los atropellos que quisieron.

Lectura recomendada: Néstor Miguez y el ecumenismo argentino

La Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina ha compartido algunas reflexiones sobre la práctica del ecumenismo. Estas reflexiones vienen de la obra de Néstor Míguez como presidente de la Federación Argentina de Iglesias Evangélicas (FAIE). Estos pensamientos comparten otra perspectiva de la conexión entre la misión y el ecumenismo desde una perspec Metodista

Lectura recomendada: "El Metodismo como alternativa al fundamentalismo evangelico en Argentina."

La Iglesia Metodista Evangélica Argentina ha publicado un reciente artículo académico titulado "El Metodismo como Alternativa al Fundamentalismo Evangélico en Argentina" por Lautaro L. García Alonso. En él, Alonso analiza el Metodismo argentino como "una alternativa evangélica al fundamentalismo" que prioriza "la ampliación de derechos y con posturas sociopolíticas de carácter progresista" en contraste con la tendencia de los fundamentalistas hacia "posicionamientos sociales y políticos alineados a sectores ideológicamente conservadores, y por acompañar el avance de la "nueva derecha" en la región ". El artículo será de interés para aquellos lectores que deseen obtener más información sobre la historia de América metodismo americano, su misión, y su ubicación social.

Daniel Bruno: Fifty years after the autonomy and the birth of the Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (IEMA)

Today's post is by Rev. Lic. Daniel A. Bruno. Rev. Bruno is a pastor of the Argentina Methodist Church and Professor of Church History. It originally appeared (in Spanish) on the website of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina (IEMA) and appears here with the author's permission and in the author's translation.

"We retired, declaring that our holy aspirations are still standing ... maybe tomorrow we will return to the battle through new paths, according to the designs that God has prepared for us, since we have not been given to realize our ideals along the paths we have traveled so far" ... (1919)

With these words which expressed at the same time hope and frustration, one of the most conflicting and least known processes in the history of Rio de la Plata Methodism was closing. Between 1916 and 1918, a strong movement led by lay people and pastors had generated a public debate about achieving autonomy from the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The certainty of that movement was that “as long as our peoples reach the opinion that the Gospel we preach is an exotic doctrine, a religion of foreigners… the seed of the gospel will not develop, nor take root or bear fruit as we expect … ”

That nationalizing movement was a minority and was defeated at the beginning of 1919. But, as the proclamation that opens the article said, God had prepared other ways, although that old story`s leaders were no longer there to see them.

The sixties in the "south cone" of America 
Brazil and Mexico were the first Methodist churches to obtain autonomy in Latin America. For fifty years, both countries had the presence of two different Methodist churches in each country (northern and southern Methodism). Towards the end of the 1920s, American Methodism began a process of unification to overcome that division.

The merging of both missions made it necessary now to clarify which of the two mother churches would keep the relationship with local churches. For that reason, the best solution was to declare the new reunified missions to be autonomous churches. After a long process with their respective institutions, both missions achieved their autonomy in 1930.

The history and process in Latin America`s southern cone was different. The churches that came up from the first Methodist mission of the Southern Cone (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Peru) had to wait until the 1960s to reach that goal. Certainly, the emancipatory atmosphere of the ‘50 and ‘60 in political, religious and social fields had some similarities with the one that lived in 1916. However, the success of the process which culminated in the autonomies of those churches cannot be explained only by its own will and vision. The new shape that Methodism in the US was taking, its context and decisions, also should be taken into account in order to explain the process of autonomy in their missions abroad.

In the mid-sixties, two factors that facilitated the autonomy process came together. On the one hand, there was a progressive need of the missions of the southern cone to adapt the structure of churches to their contexts. They also needed their own space for political decisions out of the control of central interests. Many of their leaders, in clear harmony with that which had been expressed in 1917, claimed that "the effectiveness of their testimony could be annulled because of their historical and organic relationship with American Methodism." Which was true.

But, on the other hand, the structural needs that affected the US Church demanded a redefinition of its objectives and especially its budgets for missions. Since post war time, missions in Africa and Asia began to raise special interest. These were missions which had always been subject to greater attention and budget than that given to those in Latin America, and in this circumstance would be even more.

So, in this context the action of the Commission on the Structure of the Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) began to mobilize the idea about the need for missions in Latin America to separate from the mother church. That would be decisive for the realization of the autonomy process. COSMOS began its work in 1964 and officially concluded it in 1972; however, by 1968 its task was almost totally completed.

In that year, COSMOS sent a recommendation to the General Assembly of the Methodist Church to grant the request for autonomy that the churches in Chile, Peru, Argentina and Uruguay had been asking for.

So, in order to finalize the autonomy processes, these would need to be legitimized in local assemblies, which should create the new national churches. And so it happened: Chile, February 1969, Argentina and Uruguay, October 1969, and Peru, January 1970.

The Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina is born
The preamble of the IEMA Constitution declares:

"In Rosario de Santa Fe, on October 5th of the year of the Lord of nineteen sixty-nine, one hundred thirty-three years after the establishment of the Methodist Church in Argentina,
 •  "Grateful to God our Lord, whose Spirit`s work, through our parents in the faith, made us be born to the truth of the Gospel in the ranks of this Church, ……
 •  "Convinced that the present times demand all the fearlessness and creative capacity of a people rooted in the evangelical faith and energized by the power of the Holy Spirit for the fulfillment of the mission that Christ has entrusted to his Church
 •  "Wanting to give a more native and authentic character to our testimony for its greater effectiveness, and feeling the need to be endowed with more autonomy and freedom to give us legislation adapted to the needs and circumstances of our immediate situation,

We declare our willingness to establish autonomously, the ARGENTINE METHODIST EVANGELICAL CHURCH, whose life and action will be governed by the Constitution and General Regulations."

Autonomy with connexionality
It is important to note that because of this process of autonomy of the Methodist churches, the Council of Methodist Churches of Latin America (CIEMAL) was born in February 1969. In its first plenary, it declared:

"The time has come for Latin Americans to demonstrate greater responsibility, consolidating the unity of Methodism in Latin America, to avoid fragmentation, through the autonomy of the Churches of the continent."

The main objective of this entity was to prevent national autonomies from provoking the atomization of Methodism in Latin America. For this reason, the new council would try "to develop a structure that would allow Latin American Methodism to maintain its unity in the mission in a continent as vast and differentiated as ours" without implying that it would interfere with the legislation and politics of each autonomous church.

In the closing sermon of the Constitutive Assembly of the IEMA held in Rosario on October 5-7, 1969, Bishop Carlos Gattinoni said:

"We do not always see the way, but we see Jesus going forward with the great promise, 'just as the Father sent me, I send you.' There was great despair in the work of Methodism in the 30s, when they told me the Methodist church is about to be extinguished ... but it was reconstituted in the 40s and 50s, and it was proposed to extend ... There were new senses of march, new theological concepts, and new social awareness being displayed. But we are sure that we must move forward with more boldness through fields and cities. Our program will be given to us by Christ, because he is the right hand of God."

And that is still our prayer, after fifty years. Throughout this time new questions continue to open, such as those that unveiled the precursors of the beginning of the century. Surely, that process of questions will not stop and probably that is a good thing, for it lets us know that we are still a church in the process of autonomy.

This process manages to shape a church laid out and sustained based on an open mission tailored to the needs of the people, because "our program is given to us by Christ, because he is the right hand of God."