Luís Wesley de Souza, Ph.D., a Luso-Brazilian born in Sao Paulo, is Arthur J. Moore associate professor of Evangelism at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology, Atlanta, Georgia. He is also a founder of and visiting professor at South American Theological Seminary in Londrina, Brazil, and is the founding director of the Jethro Institute, a ministry that focuses on research, ministry management, and leadership training for pastors and leaders serving in local churches and Christian organizations. In addition, he was president of the board of directors of the Paul Pierson Center for Global Mission, which works with mission agencies from Latin and North America seeking the development of common actions and resources. Dr. de Souza is an ordained elder of the North Georgia Conference of The United Methodist Church. His research and writing focus on contextualization of the Gospel, revitalization of the Church, and Wesleyan theology of mission.

“God is doing something intriguing, surprising, and wonderful in the Latin American Church right now,” notes Brazilian theologian and missiologist, Dr. Luís Wesley de Souza. A writer and researcher on Church revitalization, de Souza explores here the elements contributing to, and important for, South America’s Church renewal.

What do you most wish people understood about what’s happening in the Church in Latin America today?
We are experiencing a huge harvest time. By that, I mean the Church seems to be reaping now what has been sown for so many decades by missionaries, native Christian leaders and “lay” people, who worked hard and faced many personal difficulties and made societal sacrifices. Now new things are happening; we are seeing the harvest. Some would even say revival is taking place. And in many cases, I would agree with that. But I would call this harvest time.

God is doing something intriguing, surprising, and wonderful right now. There is a clear process of revitalization of the Church throughout Latin America. Part of that process is that major groups within the Church are becoming much more approximated to the Latin American cultural forms [rituals, practices] and meanings. The Gospel in Latin America is spreading throughout the poor by the poor.

When you say this is harvest time, what do you suppose makes this time different from maybe 20 years ago in the Latin American Church?
Cultural Catholicism has historically been very strong in Latin America. This “cultural Catholicism” is not really about experiencing the Gospel, but simply declaring that you are a believer in God and probably attached to a very few Roman Catholic symbols, nothing more than that.

So what is happening differently in the Latin American Church now (than in the past) is that Protestantism, particularly Pentecostalism, is bringing a faith that is highly committed to living out the Gospel and highly identified with the struggles of life.

There are three forms of Pentecostalism: Classical, Deuteron-Classical, and Neo-Classical. And one of Classical Pentecostalism’s main contributions is that it became indigenous [native] immediately (which did not happen with the Catholic Church and with the mainline Protestant Church, both of which still struggle to be fully indigenous). The reasons I think Pentecostals so quickly became indigenous are because: first, Pentecostalism did not have to cross language barriers, and its methodologies are native by nature; second, it was able to become socially, culturally, spiritually, and emotionally relevant to the Latin American Church; third, it connected with the poor, and has never detached from them; and fourth, Pentecostalism has given an answer to those who struggle economically and socially.

The Catholic Church has also sought to reach out to the poor, hasn’t it? In fact, Catholics created the phrase, “An option for the poor.”
One has to ask, “who ‘opted’ for whom and why?” It is known that non-Pentecostal Brazilian theologians and observers sometimes say, “The Roman Catholic Church and some mainline Protestant churches have made an option for the poor, but the poor have opted for the Pentecostals.” The next question is, “Why?”

The most important fact here is that poor people opted first for Classical Pentecostalism because first, it was born among them; second, it does not seem to be a church that approaches poor people as strangers in the nest, as used to happen within mainline Protestant churches; and third, Pentecostalism is a true home for the poor. At one time, Protestants were persecuted in Latin America. Although those days are mostly gone now, Pentecostals (and, to some extent, mainline Protestants) have learned not only to survive under persecution, but also to grow. They even speak about that. They say, “You keep persecuting. You beat us. And we grow. Just go on, and we will grow even more.” This is a message very relevant to the poor, who know what it is to be constantly working to overcome obstacles. So I think a Church that has suffered, which the Pentecostal Church has, is very attractive to people who suffer.

The Catholic Church has seen the growth of the Pentecostal Church in Latin America, and also that it (the Catholic Church) was losing people, not just to Protestant churches, but also to other religions. So when Pope John Paul II came to Latin America, he decided to allow the charismatic movement within the Catholic Church to “take over” in terms of the Catholic experience in reaching out people through its worship, literature, personal testimony, etc. That is why the Catholic Church now has begun to grow again.

So there is renewal going on also within the Catholic Church in Latin America?
Yes. There are many signs of renewal and revitalization.

Most of us don’t realize that. Most of us think that the real growth is only among Pentecostals.
Pentecostalism, some mainline Protestant churches and the charismatic movement within the Catholic Church are growing. And what is a common denominator between Pentecostalism and the Catholic Church’s charismatic movement? It is the strong belief that the Holy Spirit can enable lay people to do the work. So that’s the phenomenon.

You mentioned earlier that the Pentecostal Church has been able to connect with the poor. What is it specifically about Pentecostalism that makes it so successful in reaching the poor?
Part of it is a matter of trajectory. Imagine a circle, with the border of the circle being extreme poverty, and the center of the circle being middle and upper class society. Mainline Protestants, and even Catholics, entered Latin America in the center of this circle. So the trajectory has been for them from the center outward toward the border. Mainline Protestants have never really arrived there where extreme poverty is. So what makes the difference for the Pentecostal Church? Pentecostals arrived on this border. They are already there. The Pentecostal Church is the church of the poor.

So mainline Protestants in Latin America struggle, because we have an upper and middle-class mentality. We have many in universities, but only the privileged people, mostly white, middle and upper class people go to our universities. Pentecostals don’t have universities. But they do provide micro-community. They do provide the community that rebuilds dignity. They do provide informal education. So that’s a main difference.

So you’re seeing that the mainline Protestant Church is in danger of becoming the church of the middle class or wealthy, and until it becomes the Church among the poor [like is true in Pentecostalism], it will decline?
Absolutely. That shows how important it is for us to be “incarnational” in ministry.

I don’t believe a church has to be a church only of the poor in order to reach the poor and to be catalytic for social transformation. The church is for everybody. As I said earlier, one of the reasons why Pentecostalism is effective is because Pentecostals have a sincere and practical belief that the Holy Spirit can enable lay people to do the work. I believe the emphasis on lay people is one of the reasons we are seeing revitalization in the Church.

In the mainline churches, we do not give plenty of room for lay people to take over; “clergy mentality” is strong. But we can learn from Pentecostalism that lay people are the most important thing in the Church. Lay voices. Lay work. Lay ministries. (Really living this out would shake some clergy structure, and there is fear there. This is not easy for any of us.)

Let me say something else here. Pentecostals are not primarily concerned about church buildings. They are mostly concerned about people. They know their names; they know their stories; they know where they live, and how they live. Pentecostals may have structures and church facilities, but the building is not their first concern. They meet anywhere – old factories, schools, anywhere.

Here in North America, if someone comes to a church committee with a very good idea, what is the first question we ask? We ask, “Do we have money for that?” That is not the first question in Latin America, especially for Pentecostals. That’s the last question. The first question is, “Are we willing to do that?” “Do we have available people to do that?” If we have people, everything else will be in place. And the people bring their resources, even the resources they don’t have. And because of that, things happen.

This past January, I was invited to speak at the 10:00 service at a Methodist church of Santiago, a mainline Protestant church in Chile. With my students – a group of 11 or 12 – there were about 40 people in church that morning.

That same day, I was also invited to speak in another church – the Pentecostal Methodist Church in Santiago. It was an evening service. Guess how many people I found there? Fifteen thousand people in just that one worship service (and the church has more than one worship every Sunday)!

This is what you find all over South America. Am I talking about numbers? Not exactly. I’m talking about relevance. Other churches beside Pentecostal ones are growing if they are relevant, if they are realizing that the people in their need for justice and solidarity – not buildings or the institutions, are the most important thing; if they are providing answers and are responding to the needs of the people. So a church might say that its calling is not to grow numerically. That’s valid. But a church of any size that is making a difference in people’s lives will somehow also be transformative in society.

What do you think are some of the distinct contributions the Latin American Church is making to the global Church’s understanding of the Gospel?
Where it is at its best, the Latin American Church – and the Church in other parts of the world that struggle with poverty – is a reminder of the relevance of the Gospel for those who suffer. And it is a reminder of the simplicity of the Gospel. By that I mean that to be a follower of Christ, there is no concern about anything else but to lead – by the grace of God – a life that is consistent with Jesus’ life.

The churches that make a difference in Latin America are also teaching us that essential to the formation of an indigenous Church is a radical confidence that, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance and empowerment, “lay” people are capable of carrying out the work. Strong leadership is also needed in order to facilitate the ministry of the church, but, most importantly, “lay” initiatives must be encouraged, welcomed, and supported.

Also, the Church in Latin America has demonstrated that it is not enough for the proclamations of the Gospel and the ministry of the church to be socially relevant. Message and ministry have also to be culturally, spiritually, and emotionally adapted.

We also learn from the Latin American Church that poverty is not to be ignored or neglected. Instead, the Church is the very community that lives together with the poor. Unless the Church has compassion for the poor, upon whom the community must be built, it will never reflect God’s love and mercy.