The “Pentecostalized” Politics of Abraham Kuyper in Latin America: From Dominionism to Pluralism?

Kuyper in a Different World

Abraham Kuyper is undoubtedly one of the most prominent Protestant political figures of the last century in the Reformed tradition and a leading pluralist thinker in the field of politics and society. Kuyper has long been viewed as a luminary public theologian and an exemplar for those who seek to participate in the public sphere, especially in countries in the Global North. During the past few decades his ideas have also been circulating below North America and beyond Reformed circles. In contemporary Latin America his name has started to appear in evangelical circles interested in social and political issues, as George Harinck (2021) briefly mentioned. Here I want to offer more remarks on the phenomenon.

In a region marked by Roman Catholicism, a growing evangelical force has begun to show interest in political power and influence since the eighties (Bastian 2011). Still, the theological inspiration of these actors needs more attention. In Latin America, evangelicals are mostly Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal (henceforth both will be referred to as “(neo)Pentecostal” unless a distinction is needed.) These groups share the spiritualization of reality which they apply to the social and political realms. One of the important differences, though, is that while the former regards social problems as resulting from personal distance from God and then emphasizes conversion, the latter wants conversion along with the transformation of society in its cultural and political foundations. Both groups tend to build their theology from the pulpit, and political comments come mainly from preaching. They usually rely on spiritual revelation, seldom turning to Christian traditions of political thought. Even so, in these groups there are intellectuals trying to build theoretical foundations for their Christian politics.

Social scientists have noted the “Dominionist” aspect of evangelical politics in Latin America. The term is not a label that these groups recognize and is one that usually has a negative meaning. Here it is used only in a descriptive way as in academic literature. In the nineties, David Stoll (1990) hinted at a possible relation between American Dominionism and Latin America because evangelical churches in the region were seen as an effective ideological actor against Marxist and revolutionary trends. More recently, Dominionism has been described as a mixture of Reformed theology, Thomism, and spiritual warfare, namely, Calvinism, Catholicism, and (neo)Pentecostalism (Aguilar 2019). The viability of such a mixture is understandable in the context of cobelligerent relations among different conservative religious groups.

The term “Dominionism” was first used in North America referring either to Reconstructionist or to Kingdom Now Christians, which are far from similar. On the one hand, Reconstructionism is a political theology developed by the conservative Presbyterian pastor Rousas John Rushdoony in the U.S. during the second half of the twentieth century. On the other hand, Kingdom Now is a term associated with the Pentecostal Bishop Earl Paulk. He was a precursor of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a neo-Pentecostal movement of the nineties which holds that the apostolic ministry must be restored and also promotes political engagement. Despite their differences, there was a strange encounter between these two trends: in 1987, Reconstructionists organized a conference with Pentecostal/charismatic leaders, Earl Paulk among them (McVicar 2015). The ideas of Rushdoony influenced NAR leaders, as Peter Wagner expressed unambiguously: “The practical theology that best builds a foundation under social transformation is dominion theology, sometimes called ‘Kingdom now.’ Its history can be traced back through R. J. Rushdoony and Abraham Kuyper to John Calvin” (Wagner 2008, 59).

NAR and similar neo-Pentecostal movements are expanding in Latin America, opening megachurches that emphasize belief in God’s supernatural works. Along with its ecclesiology of apostolic ministry, NAR wants to transform societies, applying the belief in God’s miraculous power to many arenas of social life, and somehow Kuyper is related to this. How does he reach Latin America and what can come from it?

Neocalvinism in Latin American (neo)Pentecostalism: Rejection and Uncritical Reception

How does Neocalvinism reach (neo)Pentecostal Latin American churches? Simply put, through North American literature translated into Spanish or Portuguese. The translation and publication of Neocalvinist ideas typically elicit opposite responses in the Latin American church contexts: Kuyperian thought and action are either rejected or uncritically adopted. Sometimes Kuyper’s figure appears mentioned in secondary sources which usually present him as an exemplary political leader. Let’s first consider the response of rejection and then uncritical adoption.

Perhaps one of the most interesting rejections of Neocalvinism comes from the Pentecostal Brazilian Assemblies of God theologian Cesar Moisés Carvalho. In his book Pentecostalismo e pós-modernidade [Pentecostalism and Postmodernity] he starts with a critical approach to the book How Now Shall We Live? by North American authors Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, tracing their ideas to Kuyperian thought and profiling the Neocalvinist tradition to point out strong differences between it and Pentecostalism. He states: “I don’t believe the rationalist approach adopted by Reformed theology was appropriate for the world of those days and much less for Pentecostals” (2017, 39),^[1] clarifying that “due to its essential dependence on Cartesian and Enlightened reason, Neocalvinism, the movement of Christian worldview, fears Postmodernity” (2017, 40). In his view, due to the disenchantment of the world, liberal and conservative theologies altogether “under the strong influence of rationalism, eliminated all supernatural aspects of reality, whether in the way of demythologizing the Bible or in the cessationist way” (2017, 46). This is why these theologies would be in opposition to “the experience of the Spirit.” Colson and Pearcey are representative of the rationalist presupposition as a way of imposing one’s ideas over others, and thus thinkers like Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd are seen as part of a tradition that is incompatible with Pentecostalism. Rationalism leads Neocalvinism to deny the supernatural experience.

An opposite response is the uncritical adoption of Neocalvinism. Here I understand “uncritical adoption” as an acceptance of Neocalvinism or the figure of Kuyper without developing a contextual analysis of the tradition. A first case of this trend is Harold Caballeros, Guatemalan neo-Pentecostal pastor, lawyer, and politician who views Kuyper as a model of cultural transformation. He founded the political party Visión con Valores [Vision with Values], or VIVA, in 2007 and was a candidate for the presidency in 2011. He lost, but the elected President Otto Pérez Molina appointed him as minister of foreign affairs (Christensen 2012).

Caballeros has been linked with Peter Wagner, for instance by being a contributor to a book edited by the latter (Wagner 1993). The book is about “spiritual mapping,” a practice defined as “researching the demographics and history of a given geographic area and then identifying the particular social problems and ‘territorial spirits’ associated with that area” (Diamond 1998, 204). Spiritual warfare combines prayer with charismatic practices and shows the deep relation that NAR sees between spiritual reality and social-political reality. In fact, “often ‘spiritual warfare’ is used in groups where the desired goal is political, such as when ‘prayer warriors’ focus on a particular public figure or piece of legislation or an entire nation believed to be under attack by Satan” (Diamond 1989, 240).

How is Kuyper related to this? In 2003, Caballeros published Avivamiento, reforma y restauración [Revival, Reformation and Restoration], where he suggests that spiritual revival must have consequences in all spheres of human reality, including politics. Adhering to the NAR approach, Caballeros believes that engaging in politics is a spiritual warfare. He introduces the ideas of Darrow Miller, a North American Protestant social thinker who has spread the notion that the basis for a successful economic change is a cultural change, which is to say, a religious change. As an example, Caballeros quotes a lengthy sentence from Miller’s book Discipling Nations (1998), which says that Kuyper

described the concept of worldview from within the Christian tradition. Kuyper, a devout believer in Jesus Christ, understood that whole cultures were transformed during the Reformation as people were given access to God’s worldview via the Bible. Christianity’s worldview is consistent with reality and thus useful on a pragmatic level. (Miller and Guthrie 1998, 37; quoted in Caballeros 2003, 68)

Caballeros highlights the importance of worldview: “The influence of powers is exercised by infiltrating our way of thinking, they alter our worldview and affect the ‘culture’ in which we live, being aware that later that culture will determine the state of society” (2003, 69).^[2] That is why he emphasizes the need for a Christian worldview understood as principles and values that have consequences in material life, with Kuyper as a prime example of this worldview conflict. This concept is drawn from Miller and his positive opinion of Max Weber’s thesis about the Protestant ethic as a basis for capitalist development. Caballeros links neo-Pentecostalism’s views of spiritual reality with the Weberian thesis of the Protestant ethic, the latter being utilized as a secular or non-theological proof of Protestantism’s transforming capability. He believes that the values of Anglo-Protestant culture are “totally opposed” (2003, 124) to those of Ibero-Catholic culture. The effects of Protestantism, or the “Christian worldview” in opposition to Catholicism, are capitalism, freedom, and justice. He stresses that “a way of perceiving the effects of the spiritual world is through its consequences in the physical world, its effects in daily life, conduct, and human condition” (2003, 71).

A second case of reception comes from Chile. Historian and NAR pastor Javier Castro, involved in evangelical political movements and think tanks, was appointed as the director of ONAR, the Oficina Nacional de Asuntos Religiosos [National Office of Religious Affairs], by President Sebastián Piñera in his second term (2018–2022). Castro, much more in a pluralist than a Dominionist sense, is also among those who have mentioned Kuyper as a model for social change. He asserted that in the Netherlands

God raised a leader who would become president of the nation (1901–1905), Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920); his goal was to make the Netherlands a nation according to the principles of God, undermining the socialism of those days and overcoming it in the political struggle. Kuyper declared: ‘There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ (2013, 33)^[3]

Also in Chile, although not necessarily as uncritical reception, recent research has found that there are militants of the right-wing Partido Republicano [Republican Party] who explicitly identify themselves with the Neocalvinist tradition, mentioning Kuyper and Dooyeweerd. Although this party founded in 2019 has a strong Catholic background, it is a good example of how cobelligerent relations can draw conservative religious groups together, because this party is one of the most open for evangelical participation of different traditions—such as Presbyterians and (neo)Pentecostals (Fediakova and Kahn 2024).

These are just a few cases which show that Neocalvinism and Kuyper have expanded far beyond the Global North and Reformed tradition. It is plausible that this phenomenon could be happening in other countries in the region, and it should be considered that some of this content could be found in oral communications, given the (neo)Pentecostal preference for orality over intellectual discussion. What is relevant for our purpose here is to highlight this attempt to “Pentecostalize” Kuyper. At first glance Latin American NAR adherents would tend to follow a Wagnerian-style appropriation of Kuyper instead of Kuyper himself. In the absence of a more critical engagement with Kuyper’s original ideas, there is a risk that he will be reinterpreted from a Dominionist standpoint.

(Neo)Pentecostal–Neocalvinist Synthesis?

There have been attempts to establish a synthesis between these two trends. In the U.S., the prominent Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong based his political theology on Kuyperian pluralism and Sphere Sovereignty. This fact alone is enough to avoid identifying him with a Dominionist or Reconstructionist or Kingdom Now view. He holds that his theological instincts

are to follow Kuyper’s lead and develop political theology in terms of multiple interacting spheres (along with their various authorities), albeit in terms of a Pentecostal and pneumatological theology as complementary to rather than exclusive of Kuyper’s Reformed theology of common grace. (Yong 2010, 92)

In this case, a Pentecostal theologian wants to start from Kuyperian thought critically. This kind of exercise has not yet been undertaken in Latin America. Maybe one case which has the potential to advance in this way is the Brazilian trend called Pentecostales Reformados [Reformed Pentecostals]. This is a recent movement that emerged from the Assemblies of God during the last two decades. Their political convictions take into account the example of Kuyper (McAlister and McAlister 2018), but they still do not progress towards a Kuyperian-Pentecostal political theology.

What is said from the presbyterian side? Chilean Presbyterian and Neocalvinist pastor Jonathan Muñoz raised the question:

Would it be possible to make converge the efforts of reforming religion and society—which appear to be more characteristic in “historical churches”—and the passionate desire for revival—more properly Pentecostal in appearance—in order to create a synergy for a reformist and revivalist movement at the same time? …Wouldn’t it be beautiful that in Chilean Evangelical churches the Reformation and revival were seen as two faces of the same coin…? (2019, 36)^[4]

Muñoz at least holds out hope that a synthesis can be achieved. In a more general Protestant sense, attempts in Chile to promote Kuyperian thought include establishing bridges between the Kuyperian and Catholic Christian Democratic traditions via Jacques Maritain^[5] (Aránguiz 2020), the publication of essays on authors of the Neocalvinist tradition^[6] (Fe Pública 2021), and the appearance of Kuyper in the national debate as an example of the pluralist tradition (Svensson 2022).

Final Remarks

Latin American (neo)Pentecostalism is becoming increasingly aware of Kuyper and Neocalvinism, be it to reject them as rationalistic as does Carvalho or to uncritically adopt them from a neo-Pentecostal spiritual approach as does Caballeros. Kuyper arrives in Latin America from North America, not from the Netherlands, and becomes a case of interest because he offers a framework to develop religious politics. The fact that he is being recognized by leaders from other traditions shows his relevance but also presents a few challenges in the Latin American context. The first is that there is the need for critical reception and contextual adoption, and both require a deeper understanding of primary sources. A positive answer to the question of Muñoz requires an exercise like that of Yong. Latin America is neither the Netherlands nor the United States; they are historically and culturally different. In addition to these complexities, theological differences between (neo)Pentecostal movements and the Reformed tradition should be properly addressed.

The second challenge is that, for now, what is considered more relevant in the region is the social and political aspects of Kuyper’s thought rather than topics such as science or art. The third is that, in the political arena, Neocalvinism and Kuyper seem to be adopted more along the lines of Dominionism than of pluralism. A proper pluralist adoption would help to develop collaborative ties with Catholics in the political arena instead of elevating dogmatic differences to a non-ecclesiastical domain such as politics.

If politically involved (neo)Pentecostals go deeper in studying Kuyper and Neocalvinism, there could be a fruitful relationship between both trends. Thinking critically about this theological association and properly contextualizing Neocalvinism to the particularities of Latin America could result in an evangelical political action capable of strengthening pluralism, democracy, and social development. In addition, it could result in expanding the evangelical presence in many other spheres, and all this without following the—often utopian—Dominionist view.