1

Driven Agents in the Grassroots Revolution: American

Evangelical Missionaries in Cold War Central America

An Undergraduate Thesis by Zachary Meyer ​

2

For years, the seven small republics that made up Central America rarely made international headlines, and were considered part of the larger Latin American legacy of Spanish

Imperialism. This changed with the advent of the Cold War, where the ideals of socialism, the fear of Communism, U.S. intervention and national revolutions suddenly rocked the region. For a 50-year period the region gained international headlines; usually for all the wrong reasons, as the violence continued to spread. In this frame arose developments along social, populist, military, and religious lines.

Evangelical Protestantism was something few considered applicable with Central

America. As part of Latin America, the region was long considered the domain of Catholicism.

Under the rule of the Spanish Empire, the church helped define the structures of life for Central

Americans. Liberal leaders tried to change this distinction, especially president Barrios of

1 2 Guatemala, but most considered Catholicism a crucial part of Latin American identity. The result of this mentality was a series of failed attempts to develop Protestantism in the region,

3 with countries like El Salvador highlighting a ministry that simply did not connect to the people.

All this would change however, in the Post-World War II period. A new type of Protestantism was developing; this new form, called evangelical Protestantism, connected with locals in a way

Catholicism no longer was. As the structures which used to define previous lives collapsed, namely the Catholic Church and the loss of rural communities to urbanization converts turned to this seemingly once foreign faith, which suddenly became the rock of their salvation.

1 Wilton Nelson, Protestantism in Central America (W.B. Erdmens Publishing, 1984), 30. ​ ​ 2 Ibid., 11. 3 Everett A. Wilson, “Sanguine Saints: Pentecostalism in El Salvador” Church History 52, 2, (1983), 188, Wilson, ​ ​ Everett A. “Sanguine Saints: Pentecostalism in El Salvador” Church History 52, no. 2 (June 1983): 186-198, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3166951.pdf. 3

While this force developed gradually over the course of the Cold War, it was not recognized by a majority of researchers until the 1990s. Sociologist David Martin and anthropologist David Stoll each composed large studies observing the faith from different angles;

4 Martin’s looked more exclusively as the dynamics of Latin American Pentecostalism while

5 Stoll’s focused on missionary developments and the dangers of the Religious Right. Both came to the conclusion that Protestantism had the power to generate large scale social change. Peter

Berger, in his forward to Martin’s book, even argued that that faith could produce “the emergence of a solid bourgeoisie, with virtues conductive to the development of a democratic

6 capitalism.” These studies opened the door for a flood of research to poor in, exploring this

7 sudden new development. Some argued it empowered women in patriarchal systems; others

8 thought it redefined indigenous orality lost in the modern age. Researchers were astounded at

9 how it reoriented communities when governments failed, while others showed how it gave a

10 voice to the oppressed masses. This evangelicalism, they thought, held the secret answer the problems of Central America, even as the region recovered from various wars and mass violence.

4 David Martin, Tongues on Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America (Wiley-Blackwell, 1993). ​ ​ 5David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelic Growth (University of California Press, ​ ​ 1991). 6 Peter Berger, Forward in David Martin, Tongues on Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America ​ (Wiley-Blackwell, 1993), ix. 7 David A Smilde, “Gender Relations and Social Change in Latin American Evangelicalism,” in Daniel R Miller, Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994) 39-53. ​ 8Quentin J. Schutlze, “Orality and Power in Latin American Pentecostalism,” in Daniel R Miller, Coming of Age: ​ Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994), 76-78. ​ 9 Gomez et. All, “Religious and Social Persecution in War-Torn Areas of El Salvador,” Journal of Interamerican ​ Studies and World Affairs 41, 4 (1999), 63, Gomez, Ileana et. all. “Religious and Social Participation in War-Torn ​ Areas of El Salvador.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 41, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 53-71, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/166191.pdf. 10 Manuel A. Vasquez, “Pentecostalism, Collective identity, and Transnationalism among Salvadorans and Peruvians in the U.S.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67, 3 (1999), 629, Vasquez, Manuel A. “Pentecostalism, ​ ​ Collective identity, and Transnationalism among Salvadorans and Peruvians in the U.S.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67, no. 3 (September 1999): 617-636, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1466210.pdf. 4

While the changes and potentials evangelical Protestantism brought to the region were impactful on their own, what stood out the most about the faith was that most researchers argued that it was purely a homegrown development. They stated that the faith was centered and

11 propagated by locals, who were often free of support from the U.S. Resources and missionaries

12 from North America had poured into the region; however, they had little to no effect on a faith that was growing as a purely grassroots development, researchers argued. With the rise of the ultra-conservative Religious Right and the association between American evangelicals, the

Republican party, the CIA and authoritarian regimes, evangelicals fell under the scrutiny of anthropologists, concerned liberal Christians and theologians. At best, they were presented as separate from the grassroots change taking place in Central America or barely acknowledging it; at worst, they were against the development as tools of the Religious Right.

It was in this frame that the evangelical missionaries to Central America entered the picture. No researcher outright decried all missionaries as servants of far right politics or foreign dictators. However, the missionaries were largely excluded from the grassroots evangelical change in Central America; their ministry, researchers argued, did not support the homegrown development. The reasoning for this appears to be twofold; the already mentioned influence of the conservative American evangelicals, government and Religious Right, and the largely failed history of Central American missionaries up until World War II. When mentioned, the

11 Virginia Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 133. ​ ​ 12 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 10. ​ ​ 5

13 missionaries were denounced for being unknowing tools of the Religious Right or for their

14 connection with the American Republican Party and loyalty to the U.S.

Conservative American evangelical missionaries were unlike the missionaries of the

1800s and early 1900s. They were a product of the renowned fervor of the reinvigorated

American fundamental and evangelical movement, and sought to evangelize the world. Their presence is largely overlooked because their time of arrival in Central America, by irony or destiny, compounded with the beginning of the Cold War and the homegrown evangelical

15 “boom” in Central America. Local evangelicals were first thought to have been tools of U.S. ideals and dictatorships, but this “invasion of the sects” mentality died as quickly as it began.

Researchers, as previously stated, declared that this evangelicalism was distinctly homegrown, defying traditional evangelicalism as witnessed in the U.S. and Europe. Foreign missions, on the other hand, had their ministry listed as a different development, and one that had little bearing on the groundbreaking change of local evangelicalism. Furthermore, when foreign ministry was studied, only the leaders of North American evangelicalism were inspected. Men like Bill Bright and Pat Robertson were used the standard by which all foreign evangelicals were judged, including missionaries.

Foreign missionaries rode into Central America on the backs of the revival of American evangelicalism. Before they entered Central America they agreed with the mentality of

13 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 327. ​ ​ 14 James K. Wellman and Matthew Keyes, “Portable Politics and Durable Religion: The Moral Worldviews of American Evangelical Missionaries.” Sociology of Religion 68, 4 (2007), 385-386, accessed May 10, 2017, ​ ​ https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20453182.pdf. 15 The word “boom” is the most fitting term for the sudden appearance of evangelicals in Central America. Some researchers have used the term development, while others, like David Martin, have referred to it as an “explosion.” The term is used here because evangelical presence, out of nowhere, suddenly was present everywhere throughout Central America. It signifies their influence and widening range. 6 mainstream American evangelicalism; however, no researchers have purely studied how the missionaries’ views were affected by time abroad. None have specifically ventured to unearth their individual ministries and view their effect on and relation to Central American evangelicalism. Did their experience in Central America change and shift their pre-disposed views instilled by American evangelicalism? Were these missionaries more of a player in the development of local grassroots evangelicalism that they have been given credit for?

This mindset was what drove this research into development. It sought to answer the question: were the American missionaries truly part of the grassroots change of Central

American evangelicalism, or were they separate from it, as tools of the Religious Right in North

America? Did their time in Central America change their outlook on ministry, theology and faith; if so, how? Did they adopt the struggles of Central Americans with a new mentality, or were their American-taught views only strengthened by their time abroad? The Billy Graham

Center Archives in Wheaton Illinois hold a plethora of documents from U.S. missionaries in

Central America. This project inspects documents from every republic but Belize, spanning from the early 50s to the peace of Nicaragua in the early 90s. The findings revealed surprising and insightful new information about just how these missionaries reacted to the Central American situation in their ministry.

The research suggests that many U.S. evangelical missionaries during the Cold War were greatly changed by their time abroad. It suggests that while the main goal instilled in them by

U.S. evangelicalism-the salvation of all souls-was strengthened by their experience, their method of achieving it contrasted from that of U.S. evangelicals. Their new method of ministry differed from the U.S. ministry in four distinct ways: They argued for a greater ecumenism, a unity 7 amongst all believers that meant association with liberals, Catholics, and secular forces. They suggested that a social-minded ministry needed to be adapted that did not merely proclaim

Christ, but sought social justice as well. They decried U.S. foreign policy in Central America, and noted it not as the solution to the problem but a part of it. Finally, they implemented a

“contextualized” gospel, which recognized problems in North American missions and culture while giving ministries to locals. These new methods to ministry were in stark opposition to the ideals of conservative U.S. Evangelicals and the Religious Right; they aligned nearly perfectly with the goals and structure of the homegrown evangelical movement.

Background: Explaining Existing Definitions of the Evangelical Movement

“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.” [Acts 2:17]

The Fall of Catholicism and the Opened Door

As part of the lager region of Latin America, researchers and locals alike have always described Central America as one of the bastions of Catholicism. In a world of increasing

Protestant presence, it was seen as one of the last major strongholds of the faith. Drawling its

16 connection to the “cultural and national identifications” of the people, it established itself amongst the various identities of the multitude of Central America. This identification strengthened the connection of Catholicism to authority structures in Central America. David

17 Stoll called Catholicism “a candidate for the oldest bureaucracy in the world.” With the support

18 of Spain, a nation amongst “the most militant defenders of Roman Catholicism,” it established

16 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 58. ​ ​ 17 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 25. ​ ​ 18 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 1. ​ ​ 8 a powerful hierarchy that was tied to early colonialism in Central America. “Catholic

19 missionaries . . . arrived with the conquerors,” and worked to established a system to indoctrinate the people. Some Central Americans figured that Catholicism was to Latin

Americans what Judaism was in early Israel; anyone who pledged their faith elsewhere “was a

20 traitor to his race and culture.” The character of the Church was involved in every facet of life;

21 some researchers suspect that Catholicism seeks “to Christianize institutions in human society.”

With this link to the nationality of the peoples of Latin America, and their ties to the governmental systems of the region’s nations, they helped set forth the rules and identities through which Central Americans structured their lives.

Once critical to defining Latin American identity, Catholicism’s stronghold on Central

America began to weaken in the twentieth century. David Stoll suggested this change was related to the “status quo” of the region, where constant revolutions post-World War II were splitting

22 Catholics over if reform could stop the uprisings. Some Catholic leaders tried to press measures

23 preserving Church power, but that mentality lost ground as local clergy in areas like Guatemala

24 “demanded the Church valorize indigenous culture.” Within time many Catholics also

25 advocated that the Church needed to take more social action. At the Medellin Conference of

1968 several Catholics advocated that the word “liberation” guide the future of the movement, as

19 Judith M. Noone, “Guatemala: Mission in Situations of Violence” in Guillermo Cook, New Face of the Church in ​ Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994) 168. ​ 20 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 24. ​ ​ 21 Norman A Horner quoted in Samuel J. Escobar, “The Church in Latin America After 500 Years,” in Guillermo Cook, ed., New Face of the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 25. ​ ​ 22 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 27-29. ​ ​ 23 Renee Padilla, “New Actors on the Political Scene in Latin America” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the ​ Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 86. ​ 24 Virginia Garrard-Burnett, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 121. ​ ​ 25 Ibid., 118. 9

26 a direct care “for the poor” took over Catholic thinking. This led to Catholics challenging

27 authoritarianism in Cold War Latin America. Even the Pope called for the need to stand beside

28 the poor on a trip to the region. These ideals became the mentality of Liberation Theology, which sought to advocate for grassroots Catholic change in Latin America. Accepting several

“secular philosophies, including Marxism” and challenging “authority as traditionally understood in the Catholic structure” this new Catholicism was unlike any seen before. The goal of

Christianity, these Catholics argued, was finding God with the oppressed, not in the Church of

29 the West, which lacked God’s presence.

This new Catholic thinking held a great deal of sway in Central America, but it did not always relate well to various peoples in the region. Liberation Theology came from a

30 “knowledge class” trying to speak overtly-complicated idealisms to simple people. Its ideals offered the “risk of failing to speak to the actual needs of the poor,” and overlooked the

31 traditional connections Catholicism had to local communities. In a land where people were displaced by war and sick of fighting, liberation offered unimaginable rewards, but often at a great risk. Liberation Theology itself did not advocate for armed revolution; nevertheless, the gun-toting armies of dictators thought it did. When even imagined association to rebels meant death, it made sense that plenty of locals avoided a distinction that could lead to their downfall.

This new Catholic thinking failed to fill a void left in Central Americans who needed something

26 Jose Miguez Bonino, “The Condition and Prospects of Christianity in Latin America,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New ​ Face of the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 263. ​ 27 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 58. ​ ​ 28 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 129-130. ​ ​ 29 Pablo Richard and Team, “Challenges to Liberation Theology in the Decade of the Nineties” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 247 ​ ​ 30 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 266 ​ ​ 31 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 312-314 ​ ​ 10 to cling to in the midst of terror. The once foreign evangelicalism, however, suddenly filled that gap at a rapid rate.

The Evangelistic “Boom” in Central America

Evangelicalism in Central America developed after World War II, and grew to define a large constituency of Central Americans. Considered by some to be the possible tool for enacting

32 large scale democratic change, the sudden “boom” of evangelicals shocked researchers; leftist political thinkers called it an invasion of foreign beliefs. While the movement did not have a specific beginning date, it did quickly disperse across Central America. In Guatemala,

Evangelical Protestant Efrain Rios Montt lead a coup that named him as the head of “La Nueva

33 34 Guatemala.” “Under the benign sovereignty of God” he lead a movement many local and

35 foreign evangelicals considered prophetic. In El Salvador, the end of the civil war saw

36 Pentecostal congregations “for each seven square miles.” A recent research study found that

Honduran protestant communities recorded increases in local congregation sizes; Catholicism by

37 contrast, recording shrinking congregation sizes. In Nicaragua the evangelical movement developed into CEPAD (Council of Evangelical Churches of Nicaragua). Locals hailed the

38 organization as the awakening of evangelism that recognized the need for widespread unity.

32 Samuel J. Escobar, The Promise and Precariousness of Latin American Protestantism, in Daniel R Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994), 5 ​ 33 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 59. ​ ​ 34 Ibid., 59. 35 Ibid., 75. 36 Wilson, “Sanguine Saints,” 197-198. 37 Pew Research, Chapter 1, Religious Swinging in Religion in Latin America (November 13, 2010). Accessed May 15, 2017, http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-1-religious-switching/ 38 Adolfo Miranda Saenz, “Nicaragua: Political Metamorphosis of Evangelicals” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of ​ the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 197. ​ 11

This “evangelicalism” was a new sensation to Central America when it surfaced after

World War II. For locals, it offered a new, empowering and lively look at faith. The doctrine of evangelicalism had been established before its Central American inception however. By definition, an evangelical protestant is a Christian who emphasizes the Great Commission,

39 stresses “a personal relation with Jesus,” and believes in the “final authority of the Bible.” In

Central America, the distinction of evangelicalism was separated into many different subsections. Pentecostalism, born in the U.S.’s Azusa Street Revival, granted “enthusiastic

40 worship” and “egalitarian” participation in its incarnations all over the world. Believers lead

41 lively worship, with talks in tongues and encounters with the Holy Spirit. The Charismatic movement advocated for the Pentecostal style of worship to enter into denominational

42 Protestantism and Catholicism. Fundamentalism stressed the “divine authority” of scripture and

43 a complete disregard of any “liberal” policy. While fundamentalism was generally less

44 common in the region it was still present, especially in El Salvador. Together, these group fitted under the banner of evangelical or “evangêlico.” These were evangelical Protestants with a ​ ​ fundamental belief of scripture, who propagated conservative ideals and were linked to support

for military regimes. They sought the moral restoration of the heart and​ used the saving power of ​ 45 Christ to set apart converts from their old lives as new agents of moral change.

39 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 3. ​ ​ 40 Joel Robbins “The Globalization of Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity,” Annual Review of Anthropology ​ 33, (2004), 120. accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25064848?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. 41 Juan Sepulveda, “The Pentecostal Mission Movement in Latin America,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the ​ Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 72. ​ 42 Robbins, “Globalization of Pentecostalism,” 121. 43 Jeffery Marishane, “Prayer, profit and Power: US Religious Right and Foreign Policy” Review of African Political ​ Economy 52 (1991), 74, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4005958.pdf. ​ 44Stanley Slade, “Popular Spirituality as Oppressive Reality,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin ​ America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 135-146. ​ 45 Robbins, “Globalization of Pentecostalism,” 128. 12

This mentality allowed the movement to work incredibly well, particularly in its ability to

46 work “with the poor” on a profoundly deep level. Through the doctrine of premillennialism, evangelicals were able to take the current real-world problems of the locals of and apply their

47 suffering to a larger cosmic battle. These evangelicals recognized oppression in their world, yet chose to separate from it, and justified the power of their faith by showing that it was greater

48 than local ones, through a process called “power encounters.” Evangelicals accepted worldly problems as necessary sufferings before the end times; men like Montt used this mentality to

49 justify ignoring the crimes of military regimes. It successfully reached into the mindset of broken people in the wake of Central America’s political situation. As historian Virginia

Garrard-Burnette notes, the rhetoric of evangelicals like Rios Montt was “offering nothing less

50 than redemption” to people who longed to hear it. The movement rejected rebels and revolutions, and focused on reforming lives more so than nations. At its inception evangelicalism’s changes reflected its conservative and moralistic background, and sought to drive people away from revolution and into Christ’s arms.

Recognition of this new development in Central America came slowly, and initially with

51 surprise. Some had once scoffed at the movement achieving notable gain. David Martin argued the worlds of North America and Latin America had been engaged in a fight for centuries; suddenly, however, a very real fusion developed between the two worlds in the form of

52 evangelicalism. Researcher Sheldon Annis was among the first to notice these changes, noting

46 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 53. ​ ​ 47 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 134. ​ ​ 48 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 112-117. ​ ​ 49 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 175. ​ ​ 50 Garrard-Burnett, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 178. ​ ​ 51 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 308. ​ ​ 52 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 3. ​ ​ 13 the importance of the faith in the lives of Guatemalans on a trip to the country to originally study

53 the effects of tourism on the people. This initial shock wore off as thousands of secular and

Christian thinkers poured into the study of the topic. What they soon found however, was shocking in and of itself. While the faith still had strong roots to its conservative moralism, and similarities to evangelical churches in the United Sates, the movement was developing along local terms, and fostering radical groundbreaking change.

Central American evangelicalism never lost its conservative heritage and kept the goal of traditional evangelism. However, it structured that goal in a radically new way. While larger

Evangelical groups such as CLAI (Latin American Council of Churches) and CONELA (Latin

American Evangelical Federation) tied themselves to conservative and liberal thinkers, local evangelicals were displeased with the polarization of the faith as it destroyed the work “of

54 churches at the grassroots.” Larger evangelical conferences in Latin America began to argue

55 that Christians needed to “practice evangelizacion integral [holistic evangelization].” That ​ ​ mentality required evangelicals to adopt evangelization that went beyond simple moralism and avocation solely for the Holy Spirit. They showed interest in “social and political involvement,”

56 57 realizing “the need for structural changes” and “the urgency of the political task.” This was evident especially in CEPAD, where evangelicals worked with the Sandinista government, and in the Protestant association with Catholic Base Communities. Small communities of Protestants

53 Miller, Introduction in, Daniel Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: ​ ​ University Press of America, 1994), xiii. 54 Escobar, “Promise and Precariousness,” 10. 55 Guillermo Cook, “Protestant Mission and Evangelization in Latin America,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of ​ the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 42. ​ 56 Ibid., 47. 57 Padilla, “New Actors on the Political Scene,” 84. 14 engaged in the grassroots movements their Catholic neighbors started, and supported unity while

58 trying to discuss ways to solve the region’s problems.

This evangelical mentality shocked researchers, because it meant that a faith once

59 considered foreign to Central America and steeped in North American influences, was being used in a homegrown grassroots movement. It was not only developing locally among the people, but was loosening its conservative grip to fill the needs of its converts. Martin argued the

60 faith was a homegrown movement, propagated by the peoples of Latin America. Guillermo

Cook argued that the influence of North America had little effect on the movements of Latin

61 America, as “the voice of homegrown Pentecostal evangelists” had expanded. Garrard-Burnette noted that the evangelicalism that arose around the time of Rios Montt was from small, and

62 homegrown communities without “direct ties to foreign missionary organizations.” By the

63 1940s, foreigners saw the Salvadoran evangelicals as “model[s] of an “indigenous church””

64 most known for “its reliance on grassroots cadres.” Samuel Escobar wrote that Pentecostal churches stood out as “the most indigenous in ministry and lifestyle.” Historian Everett A.

Wilson took that idea even further, arguing that in its pure form Pentecostalism “represents a

65 truly popular” and local change. ​ The researchers argued that this movement was localized, ​

58 Guillermo Cook, “The Genesis and Practice of Protestant Base Communities in Latin America,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 151-153. ​ ​ 59 The background of the U.S.’s link to evangelical faith can be seen in pages 36-42 of Tongues on Fire. Martin, in his book, notes how this character is different from the Iberian heritage of Latin America. 60 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 3. ​ ​ 61 Cook, “Protestant Mission and Evangelization in Latin America,” 46. 62 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 132-134. ​ ​ 63 Melvin Hodges, The Indigenous Church (Springfield MO, 1953) quoted in Everett A. Wilson, “Sanguine Saints: ​ ​ Pentecostalism in El Salvador” Church History 52, 2, (1983), 194. ​ ​ 64 Wilson, “Sanguine Saints,” 187. 65 Everett A. Wilson, “The Dynamics of Latin American Pentecostalism,” in Daniel R. Miller, ed. Coming of Age: ​ Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994), 90. ​ 15 radicalized and a pure homegrown development. This idea was shocking considering the evangelistic zeal of North America, its expanding missionary presence in Central America and

66 the fact that it “was the primary supplier of tools” of the movement.

American Missionaries in Central America and American Evangelicalism

The development of U.S. missionary work towards Central America existed as a failed venture before the 1900s. Missionary work prior to the 1900s is called “Foreign Protestantism”

67 as the missionaries prior to that time focused solely on evangelizing foreigners. The region was largely ignored; however, this completely shifted in the 1900s, when a new zeal for Central

America developed. This movement, which Escobar called “missionary Protestantism” came

68 from mainstream denominations and propagated a social aspect to ministry. Their ministry was diverse, appealing to “the physical and social, as well as the spiritual” sides of the lives of the

69 locals. They also pleaded for a full unity among Christians, evidenced in the 1916 Panama

70 Conference, which outlined the “guidelines for cooperation” amongst all involved missions.

These missions reflected the beliefs of the “modernists” thinkers of the twentieth century, who

71 believed in a “social gospel,” that aligned with liberal politics in contrast to fundamentalist conservatives. Stoll, reflecting upon these churches as a whole, called these missions “a

66 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 14. ​ ​ 67 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 20. ​ ​ 68 Escobar, “Promise and Precariousness,” 6-8. 69 Monterroso and Johnson, 1969 referenced in Roger S. Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” in Daniel R. Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of ​ ​ America, 1994), 182. 70 Hubert W. Brown, Latin America: The Pagans, the Papists, the Patriots, the Protestants and the Current Problem ​ (New York: Fleming H. Revell) referenced in Roger S. Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” in Daniel R. Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of ​ ​ America, 1994), 186. 71 Stoll, Is Latin American Turning Protestant, 44. ​ ​ 16

72 bureaucracy without a constituency.” These missions were devoted to changing Central

American society, seeking to bring the gospel to the locals while adapting their ideals to an ever changing situation.

Though the Panama Congress was influential, the action number of converts following

73 the congress were low: with only 125 in Costa Rica, and 378 in Panama. In Honduras only 250

74 converts existed, and the conditions in El Salvador were considered to be among the worst in

75 Central America, with little hope for evangelicalism to grow within the nation. Part of the reason for these low numbers may very well have been the economic advance that select converts enjoyed, propelling them up the economic level but separating them from “Latin

76 America’s masses.” The movement started out with conviction and passion to empower a wide

77 conversion, but they “did not reap so large a harvest.”

The end of the mainstream liberal missionaries signaled the advanced of a new North

American theology. The turn of the century saw confrontations between Christians who advocated for fundamental values and those who argued for a larger worldview and social unity

78 in their gospel. That idea detracted from the whole point of Christianity-winning souls for

79 Christ-conservative thinkers argued. For many conservative evangelical thinkers, this also

80 downplayed the role of the U.S. in world evangelism. Fundamentalist Christians, who

72 Ibid., 46. 73 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 45. ​ ​ 74 Ibid., 44. 75 Wilson, “Sanguine Saints,” 188. 76 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 187. 77 Paul Pretiz Workshop, referenced in in Roger S. Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” in Daniel R. Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham: University Press of ​ ​ America, 1994), 187. 78 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 44. ​ ​ 79 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 44. ​ ​ 80 Ibid., 45. 17

81 compromised the bulk of the evangelical movement, argued the United States was a “chosen

82 nation” with a special goal to save the world for God. These groups held strong convictions on

83 “family values” such as “sexual morality” and “hard work.” This ideology drove the idea that the future evangelization and excitement for Christianity lay not with the failing Protestant

84 missions, but with the fundamentalist revivalists in U.S. Evangelicalism.

This fundamentalist revival grew even stronger in the 1970s, with the development of the

U.S. Religious Right. Following the presidency of Jimmy Carter, conservative Christian

Americans formed a political platform that served the foundation “for a revitalized U.S.

85 Republican party.” The Rockefeller Commission of 1969 revealed that Catholicism in Latin

86 America was no longer an ally of U.S. interests. In order to counteract this, conservatives began suggesting a fusion between U.S. evangelicals and conservative politics; in practice, this allowed

87 for the CIA to enter into evangelical groups. These developments correlated with a new worldview among U.S. evangelicals: “their destiny was, not the end of the world, but Christian

88 dominion over it.” As evangelicalism and conservative Republicans mixed to “espouse a

89 profoundly conservative political agenda,” a new mentality developed among everyday North

Americans. The U.S. was a blessed nation, U.S. evangelicals figured, and a Biblically-praised

81 Jeffery Marishane, “Prayer, Profit and Power: US Religious Right and Foreign Policy,” Review of African Political ​ Economy 52, (1991), 73. ​ 82 Ibid., 74. 83 James K. Wellman and Matthew Keyes, “Portable Politics and Durable Religion: The Moral Worldviews of American Evangelical Missionaries,” Sociology of Religion 68, 4, (2007), 391. ​ ​ 84 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 45. ​ ​ 85 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 159. ​ ​ 86 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 75. 87 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 75-76. 88 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 43. ​ ​ 89 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 160. ​ ​ 18

90 91 sample of perfect capitalism; it was their duty to bring God to the world. In the scope of the

92 Cold War, the movement was firmly anti-communist, and gave U.S. evangelicals a clear-cut mission to save the world with their resources and faith. In turn, American evangelicalism became linked to support for dictatorial regimes in Central America and the terror those regimes caused.

This new U.S. evangelical theology drove a new set of missionaries to Central America.

They were firmly against uniting the denominations at first, preferring that every church “do

93 their own thing.” These new evangelical groups were not tied to the mainstream denominations

94 95 and promoted a fully “evangelical” ministry to the lives of the locals. They felt that past missionaries had “turned their backs on the gospel,” and they rejected social-based ministries

96 the mainstream missions established. Their missionary terminology used war terms such as

97 “campaigns” and “advances” to mark the war on evil they believed they were about to wage.

98 Their ideology was tied to the traditional white southern roots of early U.S. fundamentalists, and in these missions old conservative leaders stressed the need to return the “evangelistic

99 fervor” to mission work. They were noted for their zeal, conservative ideals and adherence to fundamentalist faith.

90 Frances Swaggart, Conditioned for Communism, The Evangelist, November 11, 2015. ​ ​ 91 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 66. ​ ​ 92 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 160. ​ ​ 93 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 60-61. ​ ​ 94 Ibid., 59. 95 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 188. 96 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 72. ​ ​ 97 Ibid., 71. 98 Wellman and Keyes, “Portable Politics,” 386. 99 Mike Berg and Paul Pretiz, “Five Waves of Protestant Evangelization,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the ​ Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 60. ​ 19

This was the framework through which researchers came to define the U.S. evangelical missionaries. By focusing on the natives and local converts, they argued that the faith was a homegrown awakening with potential to reshape the country. It had taken the faith of its

Northern neighbor and used to it fuel a grassroots system of change that was excluded from

North American involvement. When they were studied, U.S. evangelical missionaries were often judged by the larger theology of the Religious Right and Conservative evangelicals. While much was made of the mentality many missions set off with towards Central America, few have looked upon their individual ministries within the region. From this framework arises the study of this subject. The zeal for the goal they shared with their North American counterparts grew as the missionaries ventured into Central America; it shaped every move they made. Their method of achieving that goal however, fell in line with the homegrown movement, as agents of grassroots change. The Great Commission “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” [Gospel of Matthew 28:19-20] At the center of fundamentalist and conservative U.S. evangelicalism was a call to fulfill

th the Great Commission. Taken from the 28 ​ chapter of the Book of Matthew, it recounts Jesus ​ Christ giving his disciples a commandment to make followers of all nations. Within the wide

100 frame of evangelism, this gave the missionaries a duty to share the gospel with the world.

While this mentality had always been a part of mission ideology towards Central America, it

100 David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 3-4. ​ ​ 20

101 found new vigor as “direct evangelism” became the center of post-World War II missions. The importance U.S. evangelicals placed on fulfilling this Commission was in direct response to the

102 ministry of liberal Christians. The U.S. missionaries shared this conviction, citing it as the reason they pursued mission work in the first place.

The call to fulfil this Great Commission was generally, if not universally, the factor which called North Americans to mission. Missionary Raymond Lee Elliot, who worked with the

Ixil tribe in Guatemala, recalled asking himself at an early age if the fulfillment of the

103 Commission involved someone as simple as him. He ran into an old and ailing missionary years later who was praying for someone to take over his Guatemalan ministry, and Elliot

104 answered the call. Deborah J Seymour’s path to mission work occurred in a different and more comical way, but was centered in the same goal. During a time of prayer she recalled hearing a

105 voice, telling her to serve in Latin America; to preach for God there. Convinced it was a hallucination, she tried to sleep it off, only to feel compelled to look at Isiah 42 the next day and

106 read the call to be a light to Gentiles. For missionary Wayne Bragg, a desire to seek greater evangelism led him to Wheaton college, where a fleshed out experience led to a long history of

107 mission work. This call to fulfil the Commission was the very doctrine that took these missionaries to various regions in Central America, eager to save souls for Christ.

101 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 188-189. 102 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 43-44. ​ ​ 103 Interview of Raymond Lee Elliot, April 28 and May 5, 1980 (hereafter cited as Interview, Elliot). Collection 115, Interview with Raymond Lee Elliot. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois. 104 Ibid. 105 Interview of Deborah J. Seymour, October 4, 1985 and August 4, 1986 (hereafter cited as Interview, Seymour). Collection 316, Interview with Deborah J. Seymour. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois. 106 Ibid. 107 Interview of Wayne Bragg, February 15 and May 9, 1980 (hereafter cited as Interview, Bragg). Collection 96, Interview with Wayne G. Bragg. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois. 21

While the conviction to save souls in Central America propelled the missionaries to the region, it was not guaranteed that this mentality would last. In a region ripe with political violence and social anomie, missionaries were surrounded by mentalities that had the power to shift their inner theology and goals. However, the records of their missions suggest that their time abroad did not weaken their conviction to achieve the Commission; rather, it strengthened it. Looking back on his time in Guatemala, Elliot stated in an interview that in areas where the

Bible was not present: “we take it as our responsibility to do what we can to have the Word

108 provided for them.” Another missionary wrote of a growing conviction to see evangelical

109 revival itself sweep the entire continent. Missions involved with larger programs found results

110 exceeding their expectations; they marveled at programs that turned hearts towards Christ and

111 evangelism. Others felt their conviction to reach the youth of Central America only intensified after working there; some openly lamented the lack of ministry present for the young people of

112 the region. Trying to find ways to address these needs, several missionaries felt a call to

113 expand their ministry in new ways to greater populations. Despite grim situations and a lack of resources in their field, these missionaries found their conviction was only strengthened the longer they served in the region.

108 Elliot, Interview. 109 Letter to Ann M. Swenson, April 11, 1973. Folder 1, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois. 110 Article from Herbert F. Stephenson, “Guiding Light from Latin America,” February 8, 1968 (hereafter cited as Stephenson, “Guiding Light from Latin America”). Folder 13, Box 46, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 111 Memo “Evangelism-In-Depth and the Local Churches in Latin America.” Folder 4, Box 6, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 112 Memo “A Plan for Youth Work in Costa Rica,” 1965. Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 113 Letter to Beverly and Marion, 1970 (hereafter cited as Letter, Beverly and Marion). Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 22

The resilience of the missionaries to complete the Commission was visible across their

114 ministry; it was especially evident, however, in their goal to reach “lost peoples.” Making

115 believers amongst the “lost people” had always generated support for missionary expeditions.

This mentality proved essential in Central America, where missionaries believed thousands of

Indian tribes had been unreached by the Gospel. In actuality, many of these regions had been breached by Christianity; however, their Christianity was not one the missions recognized or accepted. Christian media outlets expressed an exceptional joy in groups that “penetrated

116 inaccessible parts of the country with laymen.” The Guatemalan evangelistic campaign reported of evangelical groups bravely tackling remote populations, spreading the Gospel of

117 Christ. Similar occurred in Panama with the polygamist Valiente peoples, where missionaries

118 hoped: “one day the kernel will crack and the Gospel will win.” Reflecting on his time with the

Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF) in Honduras, missionary Donald Berry saw “unlimited

119 opportunity” in a place full of “little scattered villages.” Missionary Carl Armerding stated in an interview how happy he was to witness people from his own organization translating Bibles

114 “Lost Peoples” are a term David Stoll uses to refer to people who evangelicals considered unreached by the Gospel. Different terms for “unreached” groups existed, but all evangelical considered it critical to minister to them. 115 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 81. ​ ​ 116 Article from Sunday School Times, “Things You Should Know About: Nationwide Evangelism in Honduras,” June 27, 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 117 Campaign Report, Guatemala, September 1962. Folder 5, Box 53, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 118 Diary Entry “The Valiente Mission.” Folder 3, Box 26, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 119 Interview with Donald Wesley Berry, February 14, 1986 (hereafter cited as Interview, Berry). Collection 235, Interview with Donald Wesley Berry. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 23

120 into languages that only remote villages spoke. Reaching the “lost people” of Central America drove hundreds of missionaries to expand their ministry.

While a majority of missions believed of the “lost people” of Central America came from remote villages and peoples, they also believed that other groups were just as “lost” to the

Gospel of Christ. The Latin American Mission’s (LAM) 1958 Panama report highlighted the

121 diversity of “lost people,” noting that the Ladinos within the country were the largest untapped

122 ministry, below even the West Indians. At times even Catholic believers were seen as “lost” people to be reached. Reports from a mission team in Costa Rica stressed joy when people

123 “converted” to God from Catholicism. Converting Catholics may have sounded strange to some researchers, but as Seymour witnessed in Honduras, the “Folk Catholicism” of the locals

124 seemed heretical by U.S. evangelical standards. The presence of so many non-evangelical

Christians also explained the speed at which the missionaries worked. “They want to get the job well done as rapidly as possible,” Elliot explained of his mission in Guatemala, “so that people . .

125 . will be free to accept assignment elsewhere.” With so many “lost peoples” present, ministry in Central America, according to the missionaries, demanded zealous and time-efficient mission work.

120 Interviews of Carl Armerding, June 16, 1981 (hereafter cited as Interview, Armerding). T1, Collection 180, Papers of Carl Armerding. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 121 Ladino is a term generally used to refer to people of mixed indigenous and European ancestry in Latin America. ​ ​ Their skin color and heritage is often contrasted from that of the traditional peoples of Central America. 122 1958 Panama Report (hereafter cited as 1958 Panama Report). Folder 13, Box 25, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 123 Letter to Brian. Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 124 Interview, Seymour. 125 Interview, Elliot. 24

The vigor of the missionaries to fulfil the Commission exceeded that of nominal North

American evangelicals, proving time abroad only strengthened the goal U.S. Evangelicals proclaimed. The missionaries were not the only ones to notice the increased vigor their ministries expressed; indeed, the work of these missionaries was praised worldwide, particularly the Latin

American Mission’s (LAM) Evangelism-in-Depth (EID). Missionary John Kenyon remarked

126 that the movement had the true blue print to evangelize the world, while one observer boasted

127 of its power to strike at the evil of the Devil. Missions worldwide even sought to adapt the

128 program’s impassioned ministry to their own fields. G. Christian Weiss, of The Good New ​ Broadcaster, used the success of the mission to fight off pessimistic claims that God’s work was ​ 129 “losing ground” based off of statistics. The passionate drive of EID generated respect years later from researchers such as Wilton M. Nelson and David Stoll. As EID and similar programs achieved popular success throughout Central America, the world took notice that the experience in Central America was strengthening the desires of the missionaries to “win the world” for

Christ.

The U.S. evangelical missionaries set out from their homeland with a common and singular goal in sight. This goal was to reach all people in all places, making believers out of entire populations. For every struggle they encountered along the way, they never lost sight of that goal. The increased zeal of these missionaries matches a study done by James Wellman and

Matthew Keyes on modern missionaries, which inspected if time abroad changed the mindset of

126 John Kenyon, “What is Evangelism-in-Depth” LAM Booklet. Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 127 Letter to Bill “They Shook the Country,” (hereafter cited as “They Shook the Country”). Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 128 Stephenson, “Guiding Light from Latin America.” 129 G. Christian Weiss, “Central American Evangelism,” January 1970. Folder 13, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 25 conservative evangelicals. Their findings suggested determination to fulfil the Commission was

130 strengthened when evangelicals went abroad. Their argument suggested it was impossible for a view held to be fundamental by Christians to be weakened by time abroad. If their argument is true, then perhaps researchers had some justification in fearing the implementation of American ideals under these missionaries. These missionaries obviously held the goal they shared with

American evangelicals to heart. Were critics right to assume than that they would also implement larger conservative political and Pro-United States ideals in Central America?

Despite such a claim, the argument of Wellman and Keyes begins to crumble when one explores how the missionaries sought to achieve the Great Commission. As their experience ​ ​ opened them to the reality of the terrorized state of Central America, they began to adapt their mission structure in a way that opposed U.S. evangelicalism. Through ecumenism, a social and moral gospel, a staunch opposition to U.S. foreign policy, and a contextualized ministry, their method of saving souls differed greatly from any ministry American evangelicals fathomed. Ecumenism “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same st judgment.” [1 ​ Corinthians 1:10] ​ ​ The missionaries’ dedication to completing the Commission expanded over the course of their ministry; their method of achieving that mission began to shift in a different direction as time passed however. The first among the major changes they enacted was the adoption of ecumenism into the field. The term, evangelical, or evangélico in Spanish, was the term used to ​ ​ describe both the conservative U.S. missionaries and the converts they made among the locals.

130 Wellman and Keyes, “Portable Politics,” 403-404. 26

Prior to the evangelical boom and the massive influx of missionaries to Central America, labeling one person as an evangelical excluded them for another label: ecumenical. For an extended period of time, ecumenicals and evangelicals represented two separate groups: the liberal mainstream Protestants vs. the conservative evangelicals. Local evangelicals said it was

131 impossible for one to be the other. In time, however, the evangelical missionaries restructured this belief; ecumenism became a word not antagonistic towards evangelicalism, but synonymous with it.

The definition of what the bounds of ecumenism are have been questioned widely by evangelicals even to this day. By definition, however, ecumenism was the practice of uniting every body of Christ, regardless of denominational differences. It has also justified cooperation between church and secular forces, including governments or private sectors, to achieve the

Gospel. Many researchers attached this term to the 1900s mainstream missionaries; the distinction was so common that it earned the liberal mainstream churches the name

“ecumenicals” rather than “evangelicals.”

Ecumenism was preached by the “ecumenical” churches ever since the late 1800s; their activity culminated at the Congress on Christian Work in Latin America in Panama in 1916.

Uniting several mainstream groups, the conference assigned different sectors of Central America

132 to different missions, giving everyone a role in the larger picture. This meeting “set forth the

133 guidelines for cooperation that . . . would follow for decades ahead.” Certain branches of the

Catholic Church embraced ecumenism as well. Viewing “ecumenism as a “comity” agreement

131 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 31. ​ ​ 132 Wilton M. Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 42-44. ​ ​ 133 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 186. 27

134 between two missions,” they sought to advance all Christians towards one goal. Ecumenism was the core ideology of both the Catholics and mainstream Protestants prior to the evangelical boom, and their ecumenical tendencies increased as the situation in Central America worsened.

North American evangelicalism, arising from the mentality of World War II however, took a vastly different view of ecumenism as it rallied people to send to Central America.

Mainstream U.S. evangelicalism never looked favorably on ecumenism; they associated

135 it with the liberal church organizations like the World Council of Churches (WCC). Though many churches in Central America at the beginning of the boom were evangelical, their missions

136 were separated because North American Protestantism was an extremely differentiated faith.

As a result of this, the evangelical missionaries arriving in Central America following the war

137 had a “strongly negative view of ecumenism” and brought with them divisions of churches

138 from the States. Their activity culminated, perhaps ironically, with an ecumenically-minded conference in 1941, marking the time when anti-ecumenical denominations began to pour into

139 140 Guatemala. To be sure, there was a general sense among evangelicals of “a basic unity,” but they did not agree with combining churches together into larger groups. These early evangelical

141 forces formed a “constituency without a bureaucracy.” They believed in the call of the Great

Commission but rejected any association with ecumenism.

134 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 31. ​ ​ 135 George Hastie to Wade Coggins, October 10, 1963 (hereafter cited as Letter, Hastie to Coggins). Collection 165. Records of the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies (EFMA). Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 136 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 60. ​ ​ 137 Samuel Escobar, “The Promise and Precariousness of Latin American Protestantism,” 9. 138 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 189. 139 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 61. ​ ​ 140 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 60. ​ ​ 141 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 47. ​ ​ 28

U.S. evangelical views of ecumenism were not solely regulated to liberals; indeed, they especially decried ecumenism when mentioned by Catholics. Missionaries to Costa Rica in the

1960’s displayed a strong sense of caution towards Catholics; they made sure to highlight the

142 differences between Protestants and Catholics to the youth they worked with. They were

143 thrilled when students tried to make evangelical advances in their Catholic faith. Early evangelical missionaries viewed Catholics as people who needed to be converted, not worked

144 with. Any attempt to blur those lines was impossible, and as one evangelical leader said

145 “you’re either Protestant or Catholic”; there did not exist anything in-between. This distaste of

Catholicism can be drawn back to early persecution of the Protestant church by Catholic leaders in Central America, leaving a “martyr complex and ghetto mentality” among missionaries in the

146 region. Others tied the distaste for Catholicism to its link to what researchers called “folk

Catholicism.” Both Seymour and Elliot recalled a common association between the faith and spiritualism in indigenous communities, resulting in Catholics who were never true Catholics in

147 their eyes. Whatever the reason for the distrust of Catholicism, it led evangelicals to think that

148 “reuniting Christians into one institutional body . . . was preposterous.”

This mentality was visible in the earliest evangelical missionaries to enter Central

America, particularly with the Central American Mission (CAM) and LAM. CAM missionaries, after hearing a report from missionary Wade Coggins on the WCC, responded with distaste to

142 Letter, Beverly and Marion. 143 Ibid. 144 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 31. ​ ​ 145 Ibid. 146 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 55. ​ ​ 147 Interview, Elliot and Interview, Seymour. 148 Stoll, Is Latin America turning Protestant, 31. ​ ​ 29

149 Coggins’ apparent praise for the ecumenically-minded organization. One missionary expressed

150 anger at Coggins for not labeling the WCC “as false apostles trying to destroy the faith.”

151 Another noticed Coggins was not “fully committed to opposing the WCC.” Early missionaries

152 from LAM, a noted ecumenical organization, showed this tendency as well. The missionary leaders of Camp Roblealto in Costa Rica marked a strong contrast between Catholics and

153 Protestants, and noted their “apprehension” when around Catholics they found to be hostile.

Seymour mentioned that a “stigma” existed in the history of Honduras between the local

154 Catholics and the evangelic missionaries. Armerding suggested that evangelicalism gave the

155 locals something they could never achieve under Catholicism. These missionaries, in direct agreement with their North American counterparts, looked upon ecumenism negatively. This view however, began to shift as the situation worsened in Central America. Perhaps, missionaries pondered, to achieve the Commission, unity was not to be shunned, but upheld.

The first evangelical missionaries held ecumenism in a bad light, but that view began to shift in wake of a sobering reality: separating missions was yielding poor results. Amongst the first of the missionaries to realize this was Kenneth Strachan. Strachan, whose parents had founded LAM, was displeased with LAM’s ministry; it had failed to convert locals through mass

156 evangelism. In an EID brochure, Strachan urged the church to behave “not like an

149 Letter, Hastie to Coggins. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 58. ​ ​ 153 Gwen Young, “Costa Rica’s Summer Evangelists.” Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 154 Interview, Seymour. 155 Interview, Armerding. 156 Stephenson, “Guiding Light from Latin America.” 30

157 uncoordinated victim of cerebral palsy” but to “witness together what we believe together.”

Strachan’s view was not uniquely his, and it was not long before others began to suggest the same idea.

Strachan was amongst the first to prose the ecumenical idea to evangelicals, yet he was far from the last. Strachan’s colleague Dayton Roberts proposed: “the outside world shows little

158 interest in a Gospel that . . . divides.” He argued that relationships within Christ were “not

159 optional” but “obligatory.” In a letter to a pastor concerned about ecumenism, Roberts provided a fierce defense of the philosophy in order to achieve the Gospel. With the evangelical responsibility to bring Christ to all, Roberts noted, there simply was no time for “hairsplitting in

160 defense of the truth.” Referring to the words and ideas of American evangelical, Dr. George

Peters, he wrote that, “isolation and fragmentation” would only slow the progress of fulfilling the

161 Commission. Wayne Bragg expressed that cooperation was needed amongst missionaries; the

162 missions didn’t belong to one group or person, but to God. Bragg and Roberts were just a few of the many voices crying for unity amongst the body of Christ. The first step of this new ecumenism was uniting the various evangelicals already in Central America.

The ecumenism of the evangelical missionaries started among those who had the most in common: different North American evangelical missions. Many evangelicals argued they needed

157 Kenneth Strachan, “Eye of the Hurricane.” Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 158 Dayton Roberts, “New Dimension in Evangelism.” (hereafter cites as Roberts, “New Dimension in Evangelism”) Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 159 Ibid. 160 Dayton Roberts to Rev. Murray Marshall, December 12, 1965 (hereafter cited as Letter, Roberts to Marshall). Folder 4, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 161 Ibid. 162 Interview, Bragg. 31

163 no great sense of unity, and figured the term “evangêlico,” offered all the unity they needed ​ ​ The evangelical missionaries, however, began to argue for a greater unity than what was present.

LAM’s Charles Troutman stressed his desire to assist existing evangelical groups in spreading

164 the Gospel. Elliot recalled his rewarding work with the different missions in Guatemala,

165 because they were all strongly conservative and evangelistic. In a letter to a colleague, one observer of EID mentioned how “divided evangelical forces have been uniting in . . . outreach”

166 through the program. When explaining the philosophy of EID, one missionary said that the

167 Christian denominations provided “the strategic headquarters for [the] advance” of the faith.

168 Another observer rejoiced in former evangelicals uniting to evangelize everyone they could.

Working with evangelicals was simple, Roberts argued, as many missions united on larger

169 outreaches while ignoring marginal differences. ​ This unity expanded among evangelicals who, in time, began to see the need to unify with their former “enemies” as well.

The “liberal” mainstream denominations had long angered the minds of U.S. evangelicals. As groups that evangelical figured had strayed from Biblical truth, liberal mainstream Christians offered nothing valuable to the faith in the eyes of evangelicals. That idea, however, was quickly contradicted by missionaries as they developed a fondness for their former

“enemies” in the field. Berry recalled that his mission, The Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF),

163 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 60. ​ ​ 164 Charles Troutman, “Purpose, Objectives, Relationships in Student Ministry.” Folder 29, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 165 Interview, Elliot. 166 Letter to Bill, “They Shook the Country.” 167 “Philosophy of EID” Document. Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 168 Letter to Bill, “They Shook the Country.” 169 Letter, Roberts to Marshall. 32

170 though very fundamental, opened its resources to assist non-evangelical Christian groups.

When questioned if they would fly for the Moravians, a noted mainstream liberal denomination,

171 Berry responded they would. From this ministry he helped groups to realize that former enemies were actually relatives in Christ; he himself said the Moravian views of Christ’s

172 holiness affected him deeply. It contrasted from his Wheaton upbringing, and the greatest joy

173 of his mission didn’t come from the group he worked for but from the liturgical Moravians.

His experience affected him so much that, later in his life, when paired with LCMS Lutherans in

174 the Philippines, he willingly allowed his ministry to be drastically shifted by their views.

Berry’s ecumenical ministry is a compelling example of an evangelicals uniting with liberal Christians; however, it is not the only one. Fellow MAF pilot Ray Haglund, visiting

Nicaragua years later, noted how he saw other MAF missionaries working with a local Moravian

175 church. His colleague David Howard described a similar ministry after witnessing local

176 evangelicals halt aggravation from the government of the Mennonite churches in Nicaragua.

177 Bragg suggested the WCC had a hard time accepting evangelicals, a shocking contrast when compared to the openness researchers suggested the WCC embodied. Bragg recalled telling

WCC officials that he wanted to work with them, only to be rejected for being “too

170 Interviews, Berry. 171 Ibid. 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 Ray Haglund to David Jones, November 23, 1988 (hereafter cited as Letter, Haglund to Jones). Folder 5, Box 164, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 176 Report from David M. Howard to WEF Executive Council, Staff and Corporation Board, January 7, 1983 (hereafter cited as Report, Howard). Folder 3, Box 174, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 177 Interview, Bragg. 33

178 conservative.” In response, Bragg created his own group that linked evangelicals to liberal and

179 ecumenical churches. Wade Coggins viewed the WCC in a more favorable light; he suggested

180 a more open understanding of the liberal church branch. This association between liberal churches and conservative missionaries turned the once-opponents into allies. The ecumenically minded missionaries next turned their attention to uniting with another “old foe”: Catholicism.

Early missions to Central America viewed Catholics as peoples in need of conversion to

Protestantism. Many evangelical missionaries during the Cold War rejected this view, and argued for a more nuanced understanding of the faith. Catholicism was a faith in the midst of an

181 identity crises, they saw, split between old desires to maintain its dominance, the spreading of

Liberation Theology and charismatic movements. The faith was not simply one to be blacklisted, and while opinions on Catholics were never universal, they trended towards understanding the faith rather than trying to convert its adherents.

Although it came slowly, evangelical recognition of Catholics did come to Central

America. Armerding insisted that, while they were separate from his work, the Catholics were

182 civil to him. Seymour said that most Catholics in Honduras were nominal, but marveled at

183 how they purchased large quantities of Bibles. This initial begrudging acceptance began to smooth out over time into cohabitation and, even at times, friendship. Elliot stated that he actually had several friends who were Catholics, and that numbers of Catholics displayed

178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 Letter, Hastie to Coggins. 181 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 28 ​ ​ 182 Interview, Armerding. 183 Interview, Seymour. 34

184 evangelical tendencies in worship and ministry. Furthermore, he stated he did “not . . . oppose

185 any particular group.” Bragg mentioned that he never had any issues with Catholics; rather, many of his group members came from the Catholic Church, and he worked with noted liberal

186 Catholics. A 1973 correspondence between Troutman and colleague Jack Voelkel stressed

187 standing beside Catholic believers in the face of persecution. It also suggested that Catholic decisions on theology should be decided amongst Catholics, without influence from the

188 American organization Intervarsity. LAM’s Rueben Lores prayed that amidst their differences,

Catholics and evangelicals find some common ground:

“Help us to discern what you [God] are doing among our Roman Catholic brethren and give wisdom and courage to seek and to find concrete forms of relationship which will 189 contribute to the fulfillment of your purposes.” Catholics were no longer the source of evangelical antagonism; rather, they were seen as fellow brethren in Christ.

The ecumenical-minded ministry the missionaries developed spread across the different lines of Christianity. Somewhat surprisingly, their ecumenism gradually began to incorporate secular organizations as well. Bragg said that evangelicals needed to cooperate with local

190 development agencies, not work against them. He denounced evangelicals who created a

“church-related thing” while ignoring existing social and government groups trying to assist in

184 Interview, Elliot. 185 Interview, Bragg. 186 Ibid. 187 Charles Troutman to Jack Voelkel, “Relations with RCC,” September 7, 1973 (hereafter cited as Letter, Troutman to Voelkel). Folder 5, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 188 Ibid. 189 Rueben Lores, “Prayer for Unity,” Opening of CELA III. Folder 7, Box 3, Collection 646. Records of the Evangelical Committee on Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 190 Interview, Bragg. 35

191 relief effort. Missionaries in Costa Rica jumped at the opportunity to work with the country’s

192 “Minister of Education.” Other missionaries welcomed local businesses and government

193 employees to join in their secular and faith-based activities. By reaching out to secular groups, the missionaries showed they were uniting every possible source to bring souls to Christ.

During their time in Central America, many of the missionaries denied they were

194 ecumenical, as unity-minded evangelicals in the U.S. also did. Their missions adopted a firm ecumenical mindset however, and it showed in every part of their ministry. This ideology was completely different from that of their North American counterparts; to them, the missionaries

195 had taken an ideology against the truth of the Bible. Would this adoption of ecumenism cause them to adopt the tendencies of the “dreaded” liberal and ecumenical groups? Purely from that standpoint, the unity the missions shared with non-fundamental Christians and secular forces signaled a new development. With the adoption of ecumenism, also came the adoption of another

“liberal” tendency in ministries: a “socially-minded” gospel. The Social Gospel “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” [Psalm 82:3] As the ecumenical views of the missionaries began to shift during their time in Central

America, so did their once-held views on other methods of evangelism. If ecumenism, a critical ideology of liberal Christians, bore closer inspection in order to win more souls to God, then the

191 Ibid. 192 Letter, Beverly and Marion. 193 Plan from Joseph B. Pent (hereafter cited as Youth Ministry, Joseph B. Pent). Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 194 Letter, Dayton to Marshall. 195 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 74 36 need for social-aspect within ministry did as well. The topic of social justice and adding a social aspect to the mission of evangelicals was an ongoing debate with varied definitions. What exactly constituted a socially-minded ministry, and how far a mission was supposed to adopt it, were debated amongst evangelicals for decades. In spite of this, the ministry of the Central

American missionaries revealed a critical stance in favor of a new look upon social justice.

Despite the prevailing ideology in the United States, the missionaries shifted a seemingly

“outside” way of reaching their goal into one of the most-needed components of their ministry.

The social aspects of conservative evangelism, and by extension Christianity in general, were divided broadly amongst different denominations, peoples and cultures. However, adopting a social Gospel generally referred to evangelicals challenging oppressive social structures and glaring needs within social reform that other organizations and governments had failed to fix.

Pursuing a socially-minded ministry meant going beyond simple moral reforms of the mind and soul. It sought to bring Christ’s gospel to the physical world Christians inhabit, be it through education, medicine or economics. Including a social aspect to faith meant rejecting that only

196 one’s personal spiritual relationship with God mattered, a distinction held by U.S. evangelicals

197 and the dictators they supported in Central America.

Conservative American evangelicalism following World War II focused on the

198 reformation of the heart and sought to separate converts from the world, not draw them into it.

199 This view was a spirited response to the actions of the liberal mainstream churches. The 1900s

196 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 44-45. ​ ​ 197 Virginia Garrard-Burnett, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 143. ​ ​ 198 “True Revolutionaries” LAM poster (hereafter coted as Poster, “True Revolutionaries”). Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 199 Joel Robbins, “The Globalization of Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity,” Annual Review of ​ Anthropology, 33 (2004), 128. ​ 37 saw the rise of “modernists,” Christian thinkers who “came to feel that only the ““social gospel”

200 – education, social reform, and the like – really addressed human needs.” Mainstream

Christian churches believed it was critical to assist people not only spiritually, but in the physical

201 realm as well. Yet for all of these ideas, the effect of Protestant presence had been minimal in

202 countries like El Salvador, and if Protestant evangelical Christianity was to make a splash in

Central America, leading evangelicals figured, the worldliness of the missionaries had to be displaced.

To reform mission work to specifically save souls, the conservative theology of U.S. evangelicalism shifted away from the liberal support for social issues. U.S. evangelicalism was

203 built on Fundamentalism, which stressed “the bodily resurrection of Christ” as a critical pillar

204 205 of the faith, and delighted in spiritual revival. Attempts to make the gospel “social” would mean taking away the goal of the whole evangelic movement: personal relationships and

206 salvation with Christ. They firmly rejected the “conciliatory social gospel message” in

207 “defense of “pure” Biblical doctrine.” ​ Associating with a social gospel allowed Christians to

208 lose “a sense of being a distinct community with a distinct religious faith.” Adopting a social-minded ministry placed them back into the world their faith had just separated them from,

209 which was a major point of U.S. evangelical faith. This belief led U.S. evangelicals to reject

200 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 45. ​ ​ 201 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 182. 202 Everett A. Wilson, “Sanguine Saints,” 188. 203 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 1-3 and Robins, “Globalization of Pentecostalism,” 121. 204 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 74 205 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 53. ​ ​ 206 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 45. ​ ​ 207 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 74. 208 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 45. ​ ​ 209 Robbins, “Globalization of Pentecostalism,” 128. 38 social justice and by association revolutions, communism and socialism. This type of ideology fitted perfectly against the backdrop of Central America. Years of turmoil, confusion, and pain

210 had numbed the population into silence, causing people to look for a solution that they figured

211 offered the best protection and best future for their families and communities.

With this mentality the missionaries set out from the U.S.; however, as with ecumenism, their originally-held belief on a social Gospel did not last long in the field. The first step to adopting a social ministry was admitting that simply speaking the Word did not create the conversion they hoped. This was the foundation upon which LAM built its claim for EID.

Roberts, when explaining EID, argued that evangelism had to go “beyond the basic proclamation

212 of the Gospel” to achieve success. This allowed the Gospel to be spoken to “the social as well ​ ​ 213 as to the spiritual needs of the country.” Recognizing a difference in the youth of Latin

America, one observer acknowledged the importance of politics and social class in their lives

214 compared to North American children. Missionary Joe Coughlin wanted youth events

215 “separate from the church,” that would contribute to churches gaining new influence. Seymour described a process in which her Honduran community challenged a notion that only constant church participation had the power to achieve the Commission; they pondered about applying the

216 faith to others areas outside the church. This recognition of the need for a social Gospel

210 Garrard-Burnett, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 170-178. ​ ​ 211 Garrard-Burnett, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 178. ​ ​ 212 Roberts, “New Dimension in Evangelism.” 213 Ibid. 214 Letter to Bill, “Middle-Aged at Twenty.” (hereafter cited as Letter to Bill, “Middle Aged at Twenty”). Folder 4, Box 2, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 215 Joe Coughlin, “Report on Relation of Youth Work Development to Church Work,” 1953. Folder 6, Box 3, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 216 Interview, Seymour. 39 quickly became evident everywhere in the missions. However, it came with a sobering realization. With lamentation, the missions came to the grim realization that anything they propagated as “social Gospel” was quickly decried as evil by U.S. evangelicals and the governments in Central America they supported.

American missionaries showed a desire to adapt a social ministry; unfortunately, they also noted that their evangelical counterparts and “allies” in the governments foolishly rejected its indoctrination. Seymour admitted past missionaries created a stigma that someone “who rocks the boat a little bit is . . . socially deviant,” which was unfair in a society based off of “the social

217 structures.” Elliot, speaking of Guatemala, agreed: “if they [the locals] voice these complaints,

218 they’re automatically communists.” Bragg, after experiencing years of ministry between dictators and socialists stated: “anything that has to do with social action in the military regimes

219 is looked upon as being communist.” His following words were more profound, demonstrating a shame for the North American rejection of something so engrained in ministry:

Most governments in Latin America and around the world are not too afraid of people who are studying the Bible. I think that’s a mistake, because . . . the Bible . . . is liberating . . . They are afraid . . . of some wings of the protestant church today that are getting . . . more involved with politics and with social concerns. But we didn’t have a problem. And I say that in retrospect to my shame, because I think we could have done more in the 220 social field. These missionaries were reporting a truth Latin American Fraternity Theologian (FTL) Sidney

Rooy believed was inherent in the works of leading U.S. evangelical Donald McGavran. He stated that the church had far too often let justice slip under the door to solely pursue converting

217 Interview, Seymour. 218 Interview, Berry. 219 Interview, Bragg. 220 Ibid. 40

221 locals to Christ. This was a critical flaw in U.S. evangelism, the missions agreed, and needed to be acknowledged.

While the missionaries showed that a U.S. evangelical bias against social action existed across their ministry, it was especially highlighted in educational ministry. The letters of LAM missionary Charles Troutman, relate this bias the best. In defiance of the ideology of men like leading evangelical Bill Bright, his schools discussed the issues such as Liberation Theology,

222 which earned him the title of “liberal.” His dry response to those claims was that people within

223 his team were supernaturalists and of course still looked upon the Scripture. In one letter he described that after his theologian friends discussed issues “between justice and righteousness,”

224 they were “in constant hot water with [the] . . . North American constituency.” Troutman’s ministry sought to openly implement discussions of a social gospel; he saw that U.S. evangelicals were too quick to assail simple investigations into the matter.

Upon becoming aware of needing a social side for their ministry, many evangelical missions developed social programs to assist spiritual ones. One of the first social fields many missionaries turned to was medicine. Elliot recalls a story from his time in Guatemala in which a direct implementation of healing brought about interest in the work of the missionaries. After a fireworks incident in which two young boys, a Ladino and a child of indigenous heritage, were

221 Dr. Sidney Rooy, “The Concept of Man in the Missiology of Donald McGavran: A Model of Anglosaxon Missiology in Latin America” from the Theological Fraternity Bulletin, 1974 (hereafter cited as Rooy, on McGavran). Folder 3, Box 6, Collection 646, Records of the Evangelical Committee on Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 222 Troutman to Foreigners, December 2, 1976 (hereafter cited as Letter, Troutman to Foreigners). Folder 29, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 223 Ibid. 224 Troutman to Dr. and Mrs. Alan Friend, November 30, 1973 (hereafter cited as Letter, Troutman to Dr. and Mrs. Friend). Folder 1, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 41

225 injured, his wife took in both and cared for their injuries. Upon seeing a local native youth receive fair medical treatment, the local community poured onto his wife their medical demands,

226 opening the door for evangelism. Berry recalled a story where a Honduran told him that the nurses and dentist Berry brought with him on his mission encouraged him to inspect Christianity;

227 he was the first amongst his people to accept Christ because of their influence.

Of all the different medical ministries used by evangelicals, perhaps none were as famous

228 as the Goodwill Caravans. Praised heavily in their onset and by professor Wilton Nelson years

229 later, they were implemented in Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua. In one newspaper clipping, the caravans were praised as a team of “laymen and medical personnel” helping “body

230 as well as the soul.” Another piece, titled Wings of Praise and Prayer, noted how the caravans ​ ​ 231 “called for tending to physical toothaches during the day and to spiritual heartaches at night.”

Nelson, writing well after the downfall of the caravans, noted how they went “to regions remote

232 from medical, social and religious attention. He sadly admitted however that the caravans

233 “original character” had long since departed. The direct link of body and spirit that the caravans produced suggested a step away from a solely moralistic ideology, looking at people

234 “as a whole-body as much as spirit.”

225 Interview, Elliot. 226 Ibid. 227 Interview, Berry. 228 Interview with Bill Cook, April 13-19, 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center. 229 Nelson, Protestantism in Latin America, 66. ​ ​ 230 Sunday School Times, “Things You Should know About: Nationwide Evangelism in Honduras.” 231 “Wings of Praise and Prayer,” Newspaper Clipping, June 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 232 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 66. ​ ​ 233 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 66. ​ ​ 234 Rooy, on McGavran. 42

Medical missions were one of the logical steps to add a social aspect to the gospel; education, however, was just as obvious of a choice. As previously stated, Charles Troutman was one examples of this, as he allowed open discussions of Liberation Theology within a thoroughly

235 conservative group of theologians. One particular correspondence between him and Jack

Voelkel mentioned inviting more secular thinkers to the seminary to simply inform students of

236 Liberation Theology. This was far from outright support of Liberation Theology, but it did

237 validate talking about the issue.

Many missions, while open to a social gospel, rejected the “liberal” ideologies Troutman allowed into his seminary. Many took an admittedly broad stance on the subject, merely suggesting a “secular” ministry be developed. One missionary called for the “building up” of the

238 youth through different programs, including social activities. Another missionary, Joseph B.

Pent, argued that his Costa Rican youth ministry should adopt a “secular high school ministry,”

239 not taking on “the aspect of a Bible club” but offering “classes on secular subjects.” He lamented that previous youth ministries had merely preached to crowds, which alone did not

240 work. As the missionaries began to realize the importance of the socio-political structures in

241 the lives of those they ministered to, they came to a conclusion that a social-aspect needed to

235 Letter, Troutman to Foreigners. 236 Letter, Troutman to Voelkel. 237 Ibid. 238 “A Plan for the Youth in Costa Rica.” Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 239 Joseph B. Pent, Youth Ministry. 240 Ibid. 241 Letter to Bill, “Middle Aged at Twenty.” 43 added to the Gospel. These demands for a secular side to ministry were designated to achieve the

242 Commission, reaching people “through every means to Jesus Christ.”

One final aspect of the missionaries’ social ministry stood out in vivid nature compared to all others: women’s liberation. The idea of creating reforms for women in a culture that was beginning to devalue them was a result of missions adopting a socially-minded ministry, not a ​ ​ goal of it. U.S. evangelists were never vocal about forms of women’s liberation, but they gave women various roles in the faith. Women held major positions in many of the evangelical missions by the 70s, though mostly in child and educational ministries. Contemporary sources note the presence of both men and women within the evangelical movement. One notable woman is Frances Swaggart, who has a strong role in Swaggart Ministries but still works within the theology of American evangelicalism. These views were structured by conservative theology, but they still held great importance for the women in the field. The missionaries in Central

America, however, recognized something U.S. evangelicals missed when discussing Central

243 America: the real problem of machismo and the opportunities to truly empower women’s ​ liberation against it.

Recognition of machismo did not predominate the main concerns of the missions, but a ​ ​ few female missionaries did record the situation of local women in their ministry. Seymour, recalling stories from her students, lamented on stories of women whose fathers boasted sexual

244 prowess and courted many mistresses. As a result one girl claimed that God didn’t love her

242 Joseph B. Pent, Youth Ministry. 243 Machismo is a term used to refer to the overpowering essence of male strength in Latin American society. Men who display machismo link their brutal and sexual prowess to the “rape” of Latin America by the Spanish empire, in which colonialism has structured Latin American society to this day. 244 Interview, Seymour. 44

245 because her father wasn’t present; she considered her life to be equal to nothing. Seymour

246 made clear that these issues were “devastating” for Honduras. Seymour’s statements align with the claims of men like Rios Montt, who advocated for a family atmosphere and placed value on

247 each believer. However, the missionaries went beyond the mere recognition Montt gave to the roles of men and women and family values. Some missions offered new roles to women, seen in the records of Martha Mary and Alice Church, who worked in Honduras years before Seymour did. Both their accounts recall meetings with female pastors in different congregations; in both

248 cases the pastors were young women who were clearly passionate about their church. These female missionaries realized the deep-running scar of machismo on Honduran society, and ​ ​ upheld a ministry that not only drew them out of their situation but empowered them further through evangelical faith.

The process through which evangelical missionaries opened up to a “social ministry” was far from quick, and for many missionaries, it had to be implemented along strict lines. However, their recognition and devotion to create this “social gospel” proved their time in Central America swayed their views on social ministry. Along with this development came the recognition that

U.S. evangelicals were too quick to reject the social Gospel as “liberal” or “communist.” For some missionaries, that was as far as they criticized U.S. attitudes towards Central America. For many others however, it was only the beginning. While they still loved their country with pride, many became voices against U.S. action within Central America, advocating that the U.S. was

245 Ibid. 246 Ibid. 247 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 65. ​ ​ 248 Martha Mary to Dorothy Flory, December 4, 1963, and Impressions of Alice Church, April 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 45 not the solution to the problem. Rather, they shockingly argued, the United States might be a big part of the problem. ​ ​ Against American Foreign Policy “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” [Isaiah 1:17] ​ American missions in Central America had always displayed a bond between missionary

249 work and pro-U.S. ideals. The U.S. poured evangelical resources into the region particularly in

250 the area of media evangelism. U.S. evangelicals had always exerted a strong conviction to

251 conservative U.S. politics, particularly within the Republican Party. The application of

Republican ideals in the faith was widespread and U.S. evangelicals desired to spread democracy

252 and religious freedom all over the world. These ideas culminated not only in the moral

253 worldview of the North American missionaries overseas, but also the majority of evangelical

Christians back in the United States. Whether they acknowledged it or not, the missionaries held strongly pro-U.S. views.

The link between North American evangelicalism and U.S. interests, some researchers have argued, was established at the inception of the evangelical movement. Jeffery Marishane, a professor from Johannesburg, South Africa argued that from the inception of U.S.

254 fundamentalism in the 1900’s, the faith was open to “political manipulation” by the wealthy.

Even though the movement declared itself apolitical, it was always vocal about its support for

249 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 14. ​ ​ 250Guillermo Cook, “Protestant Mission and Evangelization in Latin America: An Interpretation,” in Guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 46. ​ ​ 251 Wellman and Keyes, “Portable Religion,” 385. 252 Ibid. 253 Ibid. 254 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 73. 46

255 U.S. imperialist values, he argued. While his views on the matter were certainly more scathing than most, researchers were not hesitant to note the often visible link between evangelicalism and Pro-U.S. imperial ideals. David Stoll admits evangelical missionaries, whether knowingly or

256 not, played into the hands of U.S. interests. Missionaries from the United States were also often close with business interests overseas, particularly with the UFCO fruit company in Central

257 America. Wellman and Keyes mentioned that the U.S. evangelicals’ goal to save souls was a mentality that sewed “together evangelicalism and the U.S. military, producing . . . the strong support of evangelicals for The United States’ military goals and the vision of the nation as a

258 “beacon of democracy.”

These convictions were inherent in the evangelicals, but they predominated even more with the rise of the Religious Right. Manifesting in the 1970s as a response to the Carter

259 presidency, this political party of conservative evangelical politicians peaked in the Reagan

260 years. Their establishment reflected a change in evangelical thinking in the wake of the crisis’ of the Cold War. Evangelicals were beginning to argue that “their destiny was, not the end of the

261 world, but Christian dominion over it.” As premillennialism gripped the U.S. mindset, U.S. evangelicals began to tie together the United States’ destiny with Christ’s. Leading evangelical thinker Dennis Peacock said of North Americans: “the Bible says we are to be corulers with him

255 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 74. 256 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 327-328. ​ ​ 257 E.S. Alphonse to Kenneth Strachan, Dayton Roberts, and Horace Fenton, May 14, 1954 (hereafter cited as Letter, Alphonse to Strachan, Roberts and Fenton). Folder 3, Box 26, Collection 236. Archives of the Latin American Mission, Wheaton Illinois. 258 Wellman and Keyes, “Portable Religion,” 386. 259 Garrard-Burnette, “Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit,” 159 260 Stoll, “Is Latin America Turning Protestant,” 43 261 Ibid. 47

262 [Jesus].” From this view Christ would only return once every nation fell before him on earth;

263 every government needed to turn to Christ they believed. Built on the values of fundamentalism, the Religious Right began to “assert that the US have a special place in God’s

264 265 ‘divine plan,’” as it became “the new base for a revitalized U.S. Republican party.” The

Religious Right took the establishment between evangelicalism and North Americanism and stretched it to the breaking point, uniting U.S. interests with God’s right hand.

The influence of the Religious Right convinced U.S. evangelicals to support the United

States foreign policy in the Cold War, especially in Central America. Evangelistic programs like

Open Doors with Brother Andrew marked a firm association between capitalist United States

266 and God’s grace. Evangelical leaders proclaimed North American interests equal those of God;

267 notable among them was Pat Robertson, who actively supported the Contras and hailed Rios

268 Montt as a solid man years after his ouster from the government. Reports about U.S. support for the Contras and spending on Montt’s armies in Guatemala, highlighted the connection established between evangelicals, the U.S. government and dictatorships. Evangelical programs highlighted the terror of rebels, but left out violence committed by groups they considered

269 heroes, like the Contras. Firmly anti-communist, they believed the U.S.-backed military regimes would enact God’s will in Central America.

262 Ibid., 65 263 Ibid., 64 264 Marishane, “US Religious Right,” 74. 265 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 160. ​ ​ 266 Stoll, Is Latin American Turning Protestant, 151 ​ ​ 267 Stoll, Is Latin American Turning Protestant, 157 ​ ​ 268 RWW Blog, “RWW News: Pat Robertson Hails Dictator Accused of Genocide Efraín Ríos Montt” (video) accessed May 15, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUyqvK7VIs. 269 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 247. ​ ​ 48

Considering how much this mindset dominated American thinking, it is not surprising that early missionaries held the same pro-U.S. convictions. Carl Armerding, whose missionary work in predates the worst violence of Guatemala’s Civil War, refused to answer any questions

270 on politics in relation to the Guatemala situation. Elliot, though aware of the violence, clearly had a predisposed picture of the rebels when he said that their desire was to remove “foreign

271 capitalist exploiting dogs” from Guatemala. An early LAM poster boasted a picture of five

272 Latin Church leaders amidst a red backdrop, declaring them “the true revolutionaries.” A letter

from one missionary to another described the value of an UFCO supported community, which​ ​ 273 would serve as a model camp for the Indians. The earlier years of mission work in Central

America demonstrated little political acknowledgement aside from occasionally calling out the rebels and denouncing violence on a large scale. They largely ignored government-supported violence in each country.

This view never left some of the missionaries in Central America during the Cold War.

However, many missionaries found that they couldn’t ignore the violence around them; it had to be noticed. Missionary Christine Thor, recalling her first few days in Honduras, reflected in a

274 letter how her timely arrival happened to coincide with a revolution. Her mornings were greeted to the sound of explosions, and her house was searched by armed soldiers; one even

275 pointed a mini-gun directly at her front door. Though Thor did not discuss the political ideals to the insurrection, she did try to give the soldiers Bibles and prayed for peace to return to the

270 Interview, Armerding. 271 Interview, Elliot. 272 Poster, “The True Revolutionaries.” 273 Letter, Alphonse to Strachan, Roberts and Fenton. 274 Christine Thor, “Report from Honduras,” October 6, 1963. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 275 Ibid. 49

276 country. Missionary Bill Cook sent out an urgent notice to his constituents following revolution in Honduras as well. Suggesting that while the violence was nothing new to his

277 hardened team, it did represent the urgency of their task in Honduras. Ray Haglund, part of a team sent to observe Nicaragua, found the entire economy in shambles, noting that people not

278 only despised the Contras but had problems with the Sandinistas as well. Recognizing the violence in general, however, was only the first step; once violence was recognized, many missionaries inspected what was causing it.

If evangelical media was to be believed, those responsible for the violence in Central

America were “godless” rebels and guerrillas. Soldiers of the government deserved praise for fighting God’s cause, many U.S. evangelists figured. Veteran missionaries begged to differ; time in Central America had made it clear to them the forces of authoritarian regimes were the problem, not solution. This was most evident in Nicaragua following the Sandinista revolution.

The Parajon’s and Cuellar families, of Nicaragua’s CEPAD, praised peace negotiations while

279 calling the Contras out for being vicious killers. An official letter from CEPAD to North

American evangelicals in 1982 highlighted a desperate cry for the violence to end, and a call to

280 stop the men who wanted to ruin Nicaragua’s government. David Howard, part of a team sent to Nicaragua, reported that the Somoza family was responsible for a great number of crimes;

276 Ibid. 277 Bill Cook, “Revolution in Honduras,” January 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 278 Ray Haglund to David Jones, November 1988. Folder 5, Box 164, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF). Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 279 The Parajon’s and Cuellar’s to Friends, November 8, 1989 (hereafter cited as Letter, Parajon’s and Cuellar’s). Folder 5, Box 164, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 280 General Assembly of CEPAD to Christian Churches of the United States, March 8, 1982. Folder 3, Box 174, Collection 136, Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 50

281 there was little doubt the country was better off under the Sandinistas than the Somoza’s. Ron

Sider, another member of the team, was adamant that the Sandinista government had not

282 sponsored state killings, and that the ex-guardsmen of Somoza were attacking the nation.

Nicaragua was the most prominent region where evangelicals decried the regimes of dictators, but it was not the only region where it happened. Elliot did not fault the locals for complaining in Guatemala, as the government did little to nothing to solve their constant

283 problems. He recalled a story told to him by people in his community, who remembered a

284 random government killing of seven locals in public, in retaliation for the killing of a soldier.

Bragg did not experience revolution in Central America; however, his Cuban experience draws earie similarities. He noted that Fidel Castro had not always been a communist and described

285 Cuba under Batista as “rotten” because the man “really sold out” his country. He recalled that

286 his work in Cuba was incredibly hard because the country was run by a dictator. To be certain, it was not as if the missionaries did not place blame on the rebels for the violence either. The

Reimer family, writing from Guatemala right before the rise of Rios Montt, spoke of the rebels

287 soldiers senselessly butchering a missionary friend of theirs. The larger realization, however, ​ was that that the once perceived solution to the problem was only making everything worse.

281 Report, Howard. 282 Ron Sider News Release on Nicaragua Trip, December 22, 1982 (hereafter cited as Report, Sider). Folder 3, Box 174, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 283 Interview, Elliot. 284 Ibid. 285 Interview, Bragg. 286 Ibid. 287 Richard Reimer to Friends Back Home, December 15, 1981. Folder 8, Box 172, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 51

Once the missionaries began objecting to local military regimes, it was only a matter of time until they decried the U.S. for supporting those regimes. As before, Nicaragua bared special mention as the region where the most missionaries objected to U.S. foreign action. Howard admitted that he couldn’t call Nicaragua another “Cuba,” but there was ample evidence the U.S

288 was trying to overthrow the government. His colleague Ron Sider asserted that the CIA funded the Contras and were suggesting that the regime was communist when evidence showed they

289 were not. He firmly suggested that the U.S. was going against its own policies of freedom with their actions in Nicaragua, and stated with conviction: “There is no doubt in my mind that the present Reagan administration intends to use whatever means it can get away with to destroy the

290 present government of Nicaragua.” The members of CEPAD were even more forceful in their statement to American churches, arguing that the U.S. government backed the Contra attacks and

291 constantly tried to ruin the country. The Parajon’s and Cuellar’s, in their letter to friends, wrote that the Bush administration delayed the destabilization of the Contras, halting the peace accords

292 in Nicaragua.

The Nicaraguan situation had U.S. missionaries lifting their voice against U.S. policy; they were far from alone however, as missionaries from across the entire region voiced their displeasure as well. Berry was put off by the North American rhetoric of Christians fighting in

293 wars, something the Religious Right pursued fiercely. He admitted that he was told by the U.S.

288 Report, Howard. 289 Report, Sider. 290 Ibid. 291 Statement from Board of Directors of CEPAD to Evangelical Churches in Nicaragua, February 4, 1982 (cited hereafter as Statement, CEPAD). Folder 3, Box 174, Collection 136, Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 292 Letter, the Parajon’s and Cuellar’s. 293 Interview, Berry. 52

294 embassy in Honduras to gather information on the locals and bring it back to them.

Missionaries in the Panama Canal Zone tried to get army officials to recognize the growing nationalism in Panama and the U.S.’s role in causing it, suggesting their occupation had a history

295 of failures. Bragg was fierce in calling out U.S. foreign policy, especially in Central America’s neighbor, the Caribbean:

Apparently our government sees Communism as a dictatorship as being oppressive, but it doesn’t see the quote democratic Haitian system as being oppressive. And yet it’s not 296 democratic, and it is oppressive. So I think that’s got to change.” His statement reflected the missionaries growing anger with U.S. foreign policy. Witnessing the

Nicaraguan situation, Sider displayed a similar feeling towards American foreign policy:

“If we become more involved in other Central American countries without visiting Nicaragua evangelicals to understand both their needs and their perception of Central American geo-politics, then we simply repeat the old mistake of unconsciously falling in 297 line with US foreign policy. As the missions challenged U.S. foreign policy in Central America, they began to take a different approach to a topic many North Americans took controversially: communism and socialism.

Even before the rise of the Religious Right, U.S. evangelicalism had taken a firm anti-communism stance, as part of its conservative ideology and link to the Republican party.

298 Leading figures like evangelist Brother Andrew’s fiercely called communism evil. A recent

299 publication by Swaggart ministries confirmed that this feeling has lingered into modern day.

294 Ibid. 295 W. Dayton Roberts to Kenneth Strachan, “Interview with Gov. Carter of the Canal Zone,” March 20, 1961. And Dayton Roberts to Will Are, February 19, 1961. Folder 4, Box 26, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 296 Interview, Bragg. 297 Report, Sider. 298 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 151. ​ ​ 299 Frances Swaggart, “Communism,” The Evangelist, November 8, 2013. ​ ​ 53

This view was also inherent in some missionaries. After spending time in Nicaragua, one missionary thought the nation was “demoralized by communism” and stated that his goal was

300 “not allowing socialism to creep into our [the U.S.’s] governmental system.” A 1967 report from the ELLA Mission Board’s Latin America trip highlighted a prominent Latin American

301 member leaving his former post as the influence of “social revolution” spread. Berry, while not speaking directly on communism, praised the peace in Honduras, a region without “political

302 religious biases,” open to “development from America.” LAM promotional materials, especially at the time of the founding of EID, took a clear anti-revolutionary stance, with

303 promotional writers calling their campaigns “a revolution from within.” With a sense of dry humor, one EID supporter noted that Castro and his men were far from the only group affecting

304 the youth of Central America. In the same letter, he praised one evangelical youth group for

305 attaining of a personal invitation to see President Somoza in Nicaragua.

Many U.S. evangelical missionaries looked upon leftist political movements with disgust; however, as the violence spread, they halted from antagonizing the movement, and like

Catholicism opted for a more nuanced approach. LAM’s Reuben Lores spoke of the problems of communism but also suggested that “present politics are geared to what has become almost a

306 myth, that communism . . . never will change.” FTL Theologian Andrew Kirk warned of the

300 Missionary interviews in Wellman and Keyes, “Portable Religion,” 396. 301 Report from Latin America Trip, February 10, 1967. Folder 6, Box 3, Collection 646, Records of the Evangelical Committee on Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 302 Interview, Berry. 303 Document “What I’ve Learned through Evangelism-in-Depth.” 304 Letter to Bill, “Middle Aged at Twenty.” 305 Ibid. 306 Rueben Lores, “Right Relations in a Changing Situation,” November 14, 1962 (hereafter cited as Lores, “Right Relations in a Changing Situation.”). Folder 6, Box 3, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 54

307 danger of dominant classes in society, as Capitalism alienated the “character of work.” Bragg, when recalling his Cuban ministry, contrasted the nation’s communism from Castro’s earlier

308 socialism, which he found far more favorable. This mindset allowed for missionary work in

“rebel” regions. Missionary Bill Cook, who assisted both in Central American and Caribbean ministries, recalled a story from the Dominican Republic in which an evangelical missionary

309 worked in a rebel zone evading rebel fire because they knew he was an evangelical Christian.

Within the seminaries of Costa Rica, Charles Troutman did not hide the fact that he had Marxists colleagues and proposed their concerns on missions towards leading U.S. evangelical Ralph

310 Winter. The missionaries still were weary of socialist developments, and feared communism; however, they expressed that aggravation of those who favored socialist tendencies offered nothing to evangelism.

American missionaries’ views of socialism varied across the regions of Central America.

It was Nicaragua however, following a socialist revolution, where the missionaries’ views on socialism became the most profound. The missionaries did not favor the government, and many

North Americans returned from Nicaragua having little faith in it. What they did suggest, however, was that U.S. action was not helping the problem. They did not like the type of government in Nicaragua, but it was not a communist government. It was an unfavorable

307 Andre Kirk, “The Meaning of Man in the Debate Between Christianity and Marxism,” in Fraternity Theological Bulletin, 1974. Folder 6, Box 3, Collection 646, Records of the Evangelical Committee of Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 308 Interview, Bragg. 309 John Goodwin, “Whose Afraid of Civil War?” in Window on the World. Folder 13, Box 46, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 310 Charles Troutman to Ralph Winter, November 19, 1973 (hereafter cited as Letter, Troutman to Winter). Folder 1, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 55 socialist government to be sure, they believed, but not the menace to the world the Religious

Right made it out to be.

This mindset was evident in many missionary forces in Nicaragua. The Parajon’s and

Cuellar families actively cooperated with the Sandinistas, including hosting a Christmas concert

311 at the request of president Ortega. A member of the families, following a visit from former

U.S. President Jimmy carter and his wife said: “We deeply appreciate their [Carter and his wife] spirit of love and reconciliation which they share with all, including Daniel Ortega. This is the

312 Gospel in action.” CEPAD addressed U.S. evangelicals with a letter reminding them that God would uplift the poor and punish the evil, with the evil being U.S. foreign policy and the Contras.

313 Howard concluded that the locals did not call the government Marxist, and he agreed they

314 were not. Sider expressed that while areas of concern with the Sandinistas did exist, there were

315 no signs that the government was Marxist. MAF member Neal Bachman, after visiting

Nicaragua, was doubtful of the guidance of the Sandinistas, but stated that his team received no

316 persecution from the military or police during their visit. Though some were skeptical to send

317 assistance to a country that was sharply dividing North American opinion, these U.S. evangelicals expressed a more relaxed view of the government. Perhaps it was not preferred they

311 Letter, Parajon’s and Ceullar’s. 312 Ibid. 313 Statement, CEPAD. 314 Report, Howard. 315 Report, Sider. 316 Neal Bachman to David Jones, 1989 (hereafter cited as Letter, Bachman to Jones). Folder 5, Box 164, Collection 136, Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 317 Robert W. Dingman to Max Meyers, July 18, 1989. Folder 5, Box 164, Collection 136, Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 56 argued, but what the situation called for was cooperation and work, not hatred to make the

Sandinistas turn towards something worse.

Unlike their U.S. counterparts, these evangelical missionaries did not join the praise of a situation they saw getting worse every day. The revolutionaries were to blame for many problems they thought, but the dictatorships and U.S. foreign policy were just as guilty.

Missionaries watched as their ministry was thwarted by the very system their government was supporting. U.S. intervention was not the answer to the problem, they believed. This view went beyond U.S. foreign policy however. As the missionaries realized the roles foreign policy and military regimes played in the picture, they began to challenge the history of the mission movement. What was the real reason it had not worked, they wondered? As they delved into this question, they began to challenge North American policies within mission and hand over their ministry solely the locals. The United States was indeed a blessed nation, they acknowledged, but the key to mission was realizing the U.S. had flaws; the United States needed to export some ideals, but it needed to import several as well. What the United States and the “failed” history of

Central American missions had lacked, they argued was “Contextualization.” Contextualization “Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” [Philippians 2:3-4] ​ Dating back to the birth of the Christian movement, the process of adapting the Gospel to different cultures and contexts has captivated but also frustrated Christians; in Central America it was no different. David Martin argued that North American Protestantism had always clashed with Latin American Iberianism, stating that Protestants in the early 1900s were “a tiny 57

318 minority” regarded as “alien invaders” by some Latin Americans. Samuel Purdie, the first

Protestant missionary to El Salvador, lamented that religion was too tied to the state for

319 Protestantism to make an impact. For decades, missionaries worked to spread Protestantism, only for it to grow through a few “Rice Christians” who merely used Christianity for economic

320 gain. Liberal minded leaders in times of revolution wanted missionaries in their countries to

321 improve image and industry, but for many Catholic Christians foreign Protestantism was too alien to connect to their lives.

The results of pre-World War II mission work led researchers to doubt the movement had

322 a chance of enacting change in the region. It was all the more startling then, when the sudden evangelic boom developed. Studying the global power of Charismatic Pentecostalism, Joel

Robbins argued the movement fused “Westernizing homogenization” and “indigenizing

323 differentiation.” Martin declared Pentecostalism as the triumph of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism

324 over the last bastion of Iberian Catholicism. He argued its timing correlated with the loss of identity among Latin Americans, in which the fall of the Catholic Church and political violence

325 shook the people, but did not create a secular culture. In a time when religion was still critical,

North American power was everywhere for all to see; the locals were exposed to North

326 America’s “cultural radiation.” This produced change “solely at the cultural level” that could

318 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 50. ​ ​ 319 Wilson, “Sanguine Saints,” 189. 320 Nelson, Protestantism in Central America, 31-32. ​ ​ 321 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 181. 322 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 308. ​ ​ 323 Robbins, “Globalization Pentecostalism,” 117. 324 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 271. ​ ​ 325 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 279. ​ ​ 326 Ibid, 278-280. 58

327 restore the hierarchy broken by the destruction around them. One study in El Salvador related the fall of old structures and “increasing secularization” to the rise of many churches’ ability to

328 build people to rebuild their world.

It was into this framework that the word contextualization was created and developed. ​ ​ 329 Broadly, contextualization referred to how the Gospel was applied to different cultures. North

American evangelicals wanted to apply this term to missions, but had mixed success in doing so.

The “middle class” and “free enterprise” North Americans associated with mission contrasted

330 those in Latin America, which were geared to “a community spirit.” U.S. evangelicals desired to use contextualization in their ministry, as evidence by the word’s association with the famed church-growth movement, but often failed to always apply this correctly. Men like Donald

McGavran advocated for adopting an approach of “scratching where it itches” and to “think

331 positive” on mission work. A majority of evangelicals missions criticized past missions on the

332 basis of them loosing evangelical zeal or being too liberal. In doing so, they failed to recognize major translation issues in the Gospel they proclaimed. The U.S. missionaries began to realize these mistakes in past and current missions, and strove to change them.

Missionaries who entered Central America following World War II found the region scarred by previous happenings. Eager to not repeat the past, they quickly acknowledged where

327 Ibid. 328 Gomez et. All, “Religious and Social Participation in War-Torn Areas of El Salvador,” 54. 329 Stephen Skywulka, Radio TGN Guatemala City, August 28, 1985 referenced in David Stoll, Is Latin America ​ Turning Protestant: The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkley: University of California Press, 1990), 173 ​ 330 William Taylor, “Contextualization: What Does It Really Mean?” CAM Bulletin, no. 3, 1983, 3, 12-13, referenced in David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant: The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkley: University of ​ ​ California Press, 1990), 173. 331 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 76. ​ ​ 332 Ibid, 72. 59 past missions had failed; it lay not in being liberal or ecumenical, but to holding back local culture. Seymour noted how older missionaries had seen the Hondurans festival-oriented nature

333 334 as sinful. She, however, found the “event-oriented” lifestyle of the locals “really beautiful.”

Debbie Hogan, a young SPEARHEAD missionary in Central America, was adamant that her view of missions fully shifted from what she had learned in United States after her missionary experience. Said Debbie of her experience:

I learned the “truth” about missions. My outdated image of an old grey-haired missionary out there in the jungle with the natives had to go when I arrived . . . Missionaries . . . are 335 just as human as you and I . . . Being a missionary isn’t a profession, it’s a lifestyle 336 LAM’s 1958 Panama Report recorded negative opinions of older, unchanging missions. They questioned if an old traditionalist congregation was even effective at all and suggested it be

337 turned over to younger leaders. These evangelical missionaries further asserted that many of these problems with old missions came from a reliance on U.S. structures and control.

The problems with “old” missions were vast and varied throughout Central America. For many evangelical missionaries, however, the majority of the problems stemmed from an overreliance on North American ideals and dominance in mission. Lores did not deny that “the

338 missionary movement has copied too much of the business corporations of the U.S.” One missionary in a 1965 letter to Strachan noted that North American mission had been called

“savior of foreign domination,” where “the culture of the Anglo-Saxon” was “forced upon

333 Interview, Seymour. 334 Ibid. 335 Harry Burke to Friends, December 1976. Folder 29, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 336 1958 Panama Report. 337 Ibid. 338 Lores, “Right Relations in a Changing Situation.” 60

339 340 natives.” He, unfortunately, believed that idea held plenty of merit. Troutman stated that

U.S. missions were too often linked to a fusion of corporate thinking and reinvigorated

341 colonialism. He was concerned that groups like Campus Crusades and the Southern Baptists were working as “branches of North American work” rather than as forces in a Costa Rica

342 university. Stephen R. Skywulka recorded the words of a prominent missionary telling Central

343 American locals not to “imitate existing structures” of U.S. missionary work. Berry’s time in

Honduras exposed him to ministers whom he called “indoctrinated, not educated,” as “their faith

344 was so enculturized and they didn’t realize it.” Bragg suggested that missionaries “needed to be more vulnerable” and that missionaries should be sent out with a “new spirit” that rejects the

345 “old mold.”

Whether it was by coincidence or fate, this recognition of a North American dominated mission coincided with a realization of the eagerness of the Central Americans to run their own ministry. ELLA missionaries called this the “delicate problem of adolescence” in which the

346 missionaries realized there existed a duty to turn ministry over to “children of faith.” A letter from Troutman to a colleague recalled a moment of some tension when the locals of Nicaragua

347 thought several missionaries overlooked their nationalism. The same missionary who wrote to

339 Letter to K. Strachan, 1956 (hereafter cited as Letter, to Kenneth Strachan). Folder 3, Box 6, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 340 Ibid. 341 Letter, Troutman to Winter. 342 Letter, Troutman to Dr. and Mrs. Friend. 343 Stephen R. Skywulka, “Guatemala: A Sending Country?” from The Latin America Pulse, November 3, 1981. Folder 8, Box 172, Collection 136. Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 344 Interview, Berry. 345 Ibid. 346 Virgil Gerber to ECLA Committee, Report on Latin American Trip, February 10, 1967. Folder 6, Box 3 Collection 646, Records of the Evangelical Committee on Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 347 Charles Troutman to Jack Voelkel, September 7, 1973. Folder 5, Box 15, Collection 111, papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 61

Strachan in 1956 had concerns of letting locals take over, but noted it was a critical issue because

348 the “upsurge of nationalism” was strong at the time. Elliot expressed a great sense of joy in seeing local congregations in Guatemala “put their foot down” and begin to run their own

349 ministry. LAM missionaries to the PC zone realized even outside of religion there was a

350 “tremendous . . . self-consciousness of the Latin American peoples,” recognizing that many

Central Americans wanted to run their own governments, religion and social structures. The missionaries had discovered an eager new source ready to reinvigorate mission. The future of the evangelical movement would not come from a North American system, but from determined and convicted locals.

351 In time, the missionaries realized the heart of mission lay within the local church. Elliot mentioned how his team “didn’t want to be pushy” with their beliefs on the locals; rather, they

352 wanted to be able to link the Gospel “to their [the locals] own life and culture.” Seymour mentioned that older missionary work was dictated by the missionary, who “called the shots”; her ministry however, acted only as “a resource organization” to the locals, hopeful that one day

353 everything would go “over to them [the locals].” Neal Bachman, upon returning from

Nicaragua, advocated to his superior that their ministry should generate “an emphases . . . made on the church/local church with its respective authorities,” not to non-local organization trying to

354 play middle-man. Armerding thought that Guatemala’s church was “developing along beautiful lines” now that his ministry was run by nationals “who were born on the field,” and

348 Letter, to K. Strachan. 349 Interviews, Elliot. 350 Letter, W. Dayton Roberts to Kenneth Strachan. 351 Roberts, “New Dimension in Evangelism.” 352 Interview, Elliot. 353 Interviews, Seymour. 354 Letter, Bachman to Jones. 62

355 were “Latin in their thinking.” These missionaries celebrated local eagerness for ministry, and demonstrated a mission designed to equipped nationals to empower the local populace.

While many missions implemented contextualization into their ministry, arguably none did it before, or more effectively, than LAM. EID, called evangelismo el fondo in Spanish, was ​ ​ the first major program to apply a contextualized ministry. British Observer Herbert F.

Stephenson noted that EID was not “a pattern to be exported here or there,” and that each

356 situation was dictated by leading locals in their own way. When explaining EID Strachan placed firm importance on the local church; the role of outsiders were “for the assistance” of that

357 church. Brochures for EID acknowledged the conviction of local believers who wanted more

358 out of their faith, and laid out for them training to spread evangelism locally. Other EID promotional materials highlighted how groups, like students, had “un Gran Impacto” in the ​ ​ 359 world around them. In the words of Dayton Roberts, EID’s goal was to “take the spotlight of

360 the pulpit and put it on the pew.”

The contextualization of EID made its impact quickly, flowing from publication to individual application by different evangelical missionaries. Christine Thor said that in a national campaign up to 5000 local believers attended training from missionaries, so they could go out

361 and personally evangelize their fellow countrymen. Another missionary spoke of her church’s

355 Interviews, Armerding. 356 Stephenson, “Guiding Light from Latin America.” 357 Kenneth Strachan, “Evangelism-in-Depth,” 1960. Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 358 “What is Evangelism-in-Depth?” LAM Promotional Brochure. Folder 3, Box 46, Collection 236. Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 359 LAM Poster. Folder 15, Box 11, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Bully Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 360 Dayton Roberts, “New Dimension in Evangelism.” 361 Interview with Miss Thor, April 13-19, 1964. Folder 6, Box 53, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 63 plan to turn the ministry over to the locals, and have them “become self-supporting at the end of

362 six years.” Troutman, in a letter to a friend, spoke proudly of how his ministry team adopted

363 working “in the “Latin Way.”” Bill Cook, working as part of a national campaign with EID, made it clear that the campaign was integrated in the local church; local pastors spoke just as

364 much as the major foreign evangelists did.” LAM and other evangelical missions realized an importance needed to be placed on local ministry. It was this embrace of local culture that, in time, caused them to seriously rethink their own.

Many evangelical missionaries displayed an altered North American mindset following their time in Central America. None rejected their North American upbringing or culture, but with an appreciation of a new culture came some admittance of faults with their own. Elliot said he thought North Americans “tend[ed] to be rather provincial and isolated;” he feared that countries like those in Central America could disappear in an instant, and that no North

365 Americans would “feel a ripple.” Seymour’s experience as the child of missionaries caused her

366 to see that “the North American way is not necessarily the best way.” She also acknowledged that many “unspoken presumptions” existed in her “ethnocentrically oriented North American

367 compatriots.” Berry spoke humbly about the effects of the MAF Honduran mission on his family, praising his kids devotion to God and commitment to service in their adult lives around

368 the world. Said Berry on his kids: “their appreciation and understanding of the Scripture . . . is

362 Letter to Miss Glaysher, March 29, 1947. Folder 6, Box 3, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 363 Letter, Troutman to Dr. and Mrs. Friend. 364 Interview, Cook. 365 Interview, Elliot. 366 Interview, Seymour. 367 Ibid. 368 Interview, Berry. 64

369 more that of . . . a world Christian than an American.” In a letter to a friend, Troutman emphasized his dependency on a friend to understand any U.S. viewpoint, as after seven years of

370 being away Troutman wondered if he had lost his touch with the U.S. In another letter, he mentioned how confusion had befuddled his ministry team, but it was “a healthy confusion” because it came out of “a complete break with the Anglo-Saxon tradition” that used to be

371 apparent in ministry.

While some missions expressed joy in opening up their North American attitudes to the world, other missions called out flaws within North Americans. Harry Burke, of the

SPEARHEAD mission team, stressed that his team was free of the “vain, snobbish, spoiled and

372 frivolous” nature of American “tourists” in Central America. The same missionary who warned Strachan of the history of U.S. mission dominance predicated his warning by

373 mentioning: “Christianity does not mean to be a good American.” Bragg admitted that his years spent in Latin America left him feeling “much more Latin,” and concluded that North

American culture had much to change:

We’ve got to do a Philippians 2 act, coming down the success ladder . . . And it’s getting increasingly hard for North Americans in our affluent society to come down to this. And I think our very possession of wealth and goods and . . . makes us, almost . . . we’re too 374 self-contained.

369 Ibid. 370 Charles Troutman to James F. Nyquist, September 5, 1973 (hereafter referred to as Letter, Troutman to Nyquist). Folder 5, Box 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Latin American Mission, Wheaton Illinois. 371 Letter, Troutman to Dr. and Mrs. Friend. 372 Harry Burke to Christian Friends, 1975. Box 29, Folder 15, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Latin American Mission, Wheaton Illinois. 373 Letter, to K. Strachan. 374 Interview, Bragg. 65

Statements like these should not be mistaken for missionaries forsaking their North American

375 heritage, as missionaries like Berry were still proud to be from their homeland What they make clear however, is that they did not ascribe to the idea of the Religious Right that the U.S.’s attitude and culture needed to be distributed to the world. Rather, they argued, the U.S. had something to learn from local missions; bringing the best of both worlds was the only way for each culture to fix the flaws of the other or rather, for God to fix both.

Time in Central America usually increased the desire amongst missionaries to continue to work in Central America, as was evident by Seymour’s eager desire to return quickly to

376 Honduras after receiving more stateside training. Many eventually returned “home” however, and found that their problems with North American culture only continued in the United States.

Berry, upon returning from MAF to the Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, recalled how his

377 family did not fit in because “it was . . . too ritzy.” The feelings of his family “were Honduran feelings,” and they felt that the people in their own church were “too material” and “too much for

378 themselves.” He even went as far to say that the people in his church “really weren’t meaning

379 it” when they talked about “trying to reach the world.” His description of his church fits

Garrard-Burnette’s description of the Religious Right, who even when they knew absolutely

380 nothing about the region were eager to throw themselves into it. Bragg described a similar uneasiness in his family towards readapting to North America’s “mono-cultural . . .

381 homogeneous situation.” He recalls his son asking him, upon returning to school in the U.S.,

375 Interview, Berry. 376 Interview, Seymour. 377 Interview, Berry. 378 Ibid. 379 Ibid. 380 Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 161. ​ ​ 381 Interview, Bragg. 66 where all the multiethnic people were, because in his new school everyone looked exactly like

382 him. His situation was different from Berry’s, but his family still had the same trouble adapting to the lifestyles and beliefs of the United States.

The evangelical missionaries, in word and practice, strove and succeeded in adopting a contextualized ministry. They realized the “failed” history of mission work was littered with overt North American ideals and structures. To counter this, they stressed a new ministry that solely empowered the locals. They were still by all means proud North Americans, but they realized the U.S. system did not necessarily equal God’s plan in the world. Faults existed in both local and North American culture; they could be rectified together, but not if one tried to impose on the other. Combined with ecumenism, the social gospel and the rising voice against unhelpful foreign policy, contextualization completed the transformation of evangelical missionaries from

U.S. evangelicals to active agents in the homegrown grassroots change in Central America.

CONCLUSION “O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, When I restore the fortunes of My people.” [Hose 6:11] American Evangelical Missionaries entered Central America amidst a growing sea of evangelical revival and fundamentalist beliefs into a situation where a local populace had been rocked by violence and destruction. As the missionaries built their roots and established their ministry, many began to recognize a growing conviction among the locals. These were individuals ready for change, seeking hope and trying to find some path in between armed revolution and the terror of the regimes fighting them. In this critical position, U.S. evangelical

382 Ibid. 67 missionaries could have approached the problem in a few different ways. They could have maintained the mentality of their American constituents, and supported authoritarianism and the status quo. They could have forsaken the goal of evangelism to take up the struggle against the establishment, joining the revolutionaries. The missionaries chose to do neither, however.

Realizing their goal was still within reach, their ministry adopted a path that included unity, social justice, recognizing the faults of the U.S. and a contextualized message. By joining forces with a local development, many evangelical missionaries underwent the process of becoming agents in a massive grassroots movement, bent on reviving a broken Central America.

This conclusion does not refute the claims that the development of evangelicalism in

Central America was a homegrown movement. On the contrary, especially through the angle of contextualization, it was very clear that the movement was locally based. What this conclusion proves is that the movement was not a purely homegrown development. Missionaries realized a ​ ​ growing nationalism and hunger within the peoples of Central America, and with them they built a ministry that enacted grassroots change. In Nicaragua missionaries worked with locals in

CEPAD to denounce U.S. foreign policy and promote unity. In Panama, missionaries warned the

U.S. military of a growing nationalism, and stressed that the military needed to learn from past

383 mistakes. In Costa Rica, missionaries trained youth leaders to propagate the gospel on their own, and in Guatemala they sent out homegrown evangelicals to evangelize indigenous villages.

The missionaries were not the sole source of the grassroots homegrown change; rather, they were active agents in propagating the change, working alongside the locals to build the ministry.

383 Letter, Strachan to Roberts. 68

While many evangelical missionaries were an active part of this change, that does not mean that every evangelical missionary supported the grassroots evangelicalism. Plenty of North

American evangelical missionaries linked their ministry to the interests of U.S. businesses and government, and maintained the ideologies of the Religious Right. As missionary Peter

Wagner’s confidential report on the III CELA evangelical conference shows, plenty of U.S. missionaries rejected ecumenism, feared any “liberal” movements and were scared of

384 homegrown leaders overtaking evangelical leadership. The voices of figures such as Pat

Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart still held great influence. Stoll and Garrard-Burnette are not wrong to suggest that while ordinary evangelicals did not fire the guns that ignited the terror of

385 Central America, they did hold the same religious ideology of those who did.

The days and ministries of the Cold War missionaries are in the past; however, if the modern evangelical mission movement is to be believed, their ministry mentality had not faded.

Rather shockingly, it has become the bedrock of the modern U.S. evangelical mission movement. Leading conservative evangelical David Platt, in his book, Radical, argued for ​ ​ Americans to give up the “American dream” in order to see the gospel lived out around the

386 world. Platt’s book is dotted with letters of missionaries who found themselves liberated from an American life that was holding them back when they joined groundbreaking evangelism overseas. Mission thinkers Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert presented a similar idea in their book

When Helping Hurts. Observing the failures of missions past, they demanded U.S. missionaries ​ hold off on controlling mission, arguing for a more contextualized idea of letting the locals work

384 Peter Wagner to ECLA Board, Confidential Report from III CELA, July 13-19, 1969. Folder 7, Box 3, Collection 646, Records of the Evangelical Committee of Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton Illinois. 385 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 334 and Garrard-Burnette, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit, 178 ​ ​ ​ ​ 386 David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Crown Publishing Group, 2010). ​ ​ 69

387 to grow their own movement. Mission agencies have adopted their ministry ideals to fit those of the evangelical missionaries as well. Renowned mission service Experience Mission (EM)

388 prides itself on offering “authentic” ministry through the slogan “live your mission.” Their ministry seeks to fully immerse missionaries long and short term in the local way of life, letting the locals truly lead a ministry that transforms the missionaries as much as it transforms the local convert. None of these missions link their ideals to those of Cold War missionaries; however, the similarities are too numerous to count. However minimal their voice may have been in the U.S. during their time, their ideals have breached the center of the modern mission movement today.

A great majority, if not all, of the secondary research done on the topic of Central

American evangelicalism has tried to conclude what the future of the movement will be. Modern statistics show the faith has come close to equaling Catholicism in terms of believers in the republics, suggesting the movement is still growing. Has the movement achieved the groundbreaking change it set out to achieve, however? The answer is not, and perhaps never will be, easy to discern. Stoll suggests a few possible climaxes for the faith: it could either develop along more socio-political lines to reach government and enact the changes it propagates into

389 law, or it could stay completely cultural and enact change only as a religious agent. Martin believes it is possible for the movement to model the characteristics the total populace needed to

390 enact democratic change in their society. With evangelical numbers rising so quickly in Latin

America, Central America is now not a region to solely import missionaries, but to export them.

387 Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and ​ Yourself (Moody Publishers, 2014). ​ 388 The writer personally experienced mission work with the EM organization and confirms their widespread use and dedication to the term: “Live Your Mission.” More information on Experience Mission can be found on their website: https://experiencemission.org/ 389 Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant, 330-331. ​ ​ 390 Martin, Tongues on Fire, 287. ​ ​ 70

391 Perhaps it is the signal that the mission to the peoples of Central America, after the brutal

392 period of the Cold War, has finally been achieved.

The Great Commission still beckons evangelical missionaries to this day, and as Platt

393 noted to evangelicals throughout his book, for them there is truly no time to waste. As the next generation takes over the mission of evangelization, the adapted ministry of the Cold War U.S. evangelical missionaries stands as a powerful outline of how to adapt ministry into grassroots change. Whether the next generation continues these changes, reverts to older established mission structures or creates their own unique take on ministry remains to be seen. The message of the Cold War missionaries however, stands clear. By adapting to ecumenism, a social and moral gospel, decrying injustice in the world, and contextualizing the gospel to fit all cultures, the missionaries were more successful in establishing evangelical Protestantism in Central

America. Perhaps, in the Central American missionaries’ experience and work, Paul’s message of ministry to the Corinthians was realized in modern times, enacting a representation of the

Gospel lived-out:

We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nd nothing, yet possessing everything. [2 ​ Corinthians 6:3-10] ​ ​

391 Guillermo Cook, “The Many Faces of the Latin American Church.” In Guillermo Cook, ed., New Face of the ​ Church in Latin America (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 275. ​ 392 Greenway, “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America,” 195-196 393 Platt, Radical. ​ ​ 71

Bibliography

Primary Sources Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 316, Interview with Deborah J. Seymour. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 235, Interview with Donald Wesley Berry. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 115, Interview with Raymond Lee Elliot. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 96, Interview with Wayne G. Bragg. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 180, Papers of Carl Armerding. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 111, Papers of Charles Henry Troutman, Jr. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 646. Records of the Evangelical Committee on Latin America. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 165, Records of the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies (EFMA). Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 236, Records of the Latin American Mission. Archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois, Collection 136, Records of the Mission Aviation Fellowship. Swaggart, Frances. “Communism.” The Evangelist, August 13, 2013. Accessed May 16, 2017. https://www.jsm.org/Evangelist/August2013.pdf ——. “Conditioned for Communism.” The Evangelist, November 11, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2017. https://www.jsm.org/Evangelist/November2015.pdf ​ Books Cook, Guillermo, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America: Between Tradition and Change. ​ ​ Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994. ——. “The Genesis and Practice of Protestant Base Communities in Latin America.” In Cook, 151. ——. “The Many Faces if the Latin American Church.” In Cook, 268-276. 72

——. “Protestant Mission and Evangelization in Latin America: An interpretation.” In Cook, 41-55. Escobar, Samuel J. “The Church in Latin America after Five Hundred years.” In Cook, 21-37. Berg, Mike and Paul Pretiz. “Five Waves of Protestant Evangelization.” In Cook 56-67. Bonino, Jose Miguez. “The Condition and Prospects of Christianity in Latin America.” In Cook, 259-267. Escobar, Samuel J. “Conflict of Interpretations of popular Protestantism.” In Cook, 112-134. Noone, Judith M. “Guatemala: Mission in Situations of Violence.” In Cook, 165-177. Padilla, Rene C. “New Actors on the Political Scene in Latin America.” In Cook, 82-95. Richard, Pablo and Team. “Challenges to Liberation Theology in the Decade of the Nineties.” In Cook, 245-258. Saenz, Adolfo Miranda. “Nicaragua: Political Metamorphosis of Evangelicals.” In Cook, 191-201. Sepulveda, Juan. “The Pentecostal Movement in Latin America.” In Cook 68-74. Slade, Stanley. “Popular Spirituality as an Oppressive Reality.” In Cook, 135-149. Corbett, Steven and Brian Fikkert. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without ​ Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself. Moody Publishers, 2014. ​ Garrard-Burnett, Virginia. Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit: Guatemala Under General ​ Efrain Rios Montt, 1982-1983. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. ​ Gonzalez, Ondina E. and Justo L. Gonzalez. Christianity in Latin America: A History. ​ Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Martin, David. Tongues on Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America. Reprint, ​ ​ Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991. Miller, Daniel R., ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America. Lanham: ​ ​ University Press of America, 1994. Cleary, Edward L. “Protestants and Catholics: Rivals or Siblings.” In Miller, 206-231. Cook, Guillermo. “Protestant Presence and Social Change in Latin America: Contrasting Visions.” In Miller, 119-141. Escobar, Samuel. “The Promise and Precariousness of Latin American Protestantism,” In Miller, 3-35. Greenway, Roger S. “Protestant Mission Activity in Latin America.” In Miller, 176-204. 73

Schutlze, Quentin J. “Orality and Power in Latin American Pentecostalism.” In Miller, 65-88. Smilde, David A. “Gender Relations and Social Change in Latin American Evangelicalism.” In Miller, 39-64. Wilson, Everett A. “The Dynamics of Latin American Pentecostalism.” In Miller, 89-116. Nelson, Wilton M. Protestantism in Central America. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans ​ ​ Publishing Company, 1984. Platt, David. Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. The Crown Publishing ​ ​ Group, 2010. Samson, Mathews C. Reenchanting the World: Maya Protestantism in the Guatemalan ​ Highlands. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama press, 2007. ​ Stoll, David. Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. Berkley: ​ ​ University of California Press, 1990.

Articles Green, John C. and James L. Guth. “The Christian Right in the Republican Party: The Case of Pat Robertson's Supporters” The Journal of Politic 50, no. 1 (February 1988): 150-165, accessed ​ ​ May 10, 2017, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2131045.pdf Gomez, Ileana et. all. “Religious and Social Participation in War-Torn Areas of El Salvador.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 41, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 53-71, accessed ​ May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/166191.pdf Marishane, Jeffery. “US Religious Right and Foreign Policy.” Review of African Political Economy. Special issue, Fundamentalism in Africa: Religion and Politics, no. 52 (November ​ ​ 1991): 73-86, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4005958.pdf Robbins, Joel. “The Globalization of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity.” Annual Review ​ of Anthropology 33, (2004): 117-143, accessed May 10, 2017, ​ https://www.jstor.org/stable/25064848?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Rose, Susan D. and Steve Brouwer. “The Export of Fundamentalist Americanism: U.S. Evangelical Education in Guatemala” Latin American Perspectives 17, no. 4 (Autumn 1990): ​ ​ 42-56, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2633571.pdf Smith, Christian and Liesl Ann Haas. “Revolutionary Evangelicals in Nicaragua: Political Opportunity, Class Interests, and Religious Identity” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ​ 36, no. 3 (September 1997): 440-454, accessed May 10, 2017, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1387860.pdf 74

Vasquez, Manuel A. “Pentecostalism, Collective identity, and Transnationalism among Salvadorans and Peruvians in the U.S.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67, no. 3 ​ ​ (September 1999): 617-636, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1466210.pdf Wellman, James K and Matthew Keyes. “Portable Politics and Durable Religion: The Moral Worldviews of American Missionaries.” Sociology of Religion 68, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 383-406, ​ ​ accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20453182.pdf Wilson, Everett A. “Sanguine Saints: Pentecostalism in El Salvador” Church History 52, no. 2 ​ ​ (June 1983): 186-198, accessed May 10, 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3166951.pdf Wolseth, Jon. “Safety and Sanctuary: Pentecostalism and Youth Gang Violence in Honduras” Latin American Perspectives 35, no. 4 (July 2008): 96-111, accessed May 10, 2017, ​ http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27648111.pdf Unpublished Materials Dove, Steven Carter. “Local Believers, Foreign Missionaries, and the Creation of Guatemalan Protestantism, 1882-1944.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2012. Accessed on May 16, 2017. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2012-05-5233/DOVE-DISSE RTATION.pdf Epp, Jared. “Becoming Evangelical in Rural Costa Rica: A Study of Religious Conversion and Evangelical Faith and Practice.” Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2014. Accessed on May 16, 2017. https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/30957/6/Epp_Jared_2014_thesis.pdf Girard, William. “Enacting Pentecostalism: Spirit-Filled Development and the Honduran Coup d'État.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz, 2013. Accessed on May 16, 2017. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c47n7bv#page-1 Irvine, Melissa. “Transforming the Religious Paradigm: A Study of Female Opportunism and Empowerment through Latin American Evangelicalism.” Senior Thesis, Claremont McKenna College, 2010. Accessed on May 16, 2017. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=cmc_theses