Freston

pentecostalism replacing CEBs as the academically fashionable subject¹

1951 FSQ Church last foreign one to really take root in Brazil.²

despite the greater concentration of Pentecostal churches in poorer regions many gaps in macrosociology of Pentecostal churches. “The appeal of Pentecostalism is not univocal, and marginal differences in liturgy can meet subtly different social demands.”³

danger of scholars as treating as new, aspects which have previously appeared in Pentecostalism, thus postulating too strong a break.⁴

Reasons for fragmentation in Pentecostalism: 1) Influence from Protestant denominations 2) Brazilian tradition of lay Catholic brotherhoods and ABR religions 3) creation of socially homogeneous units 4) difficulty for churches to “update” encourages creation of new movements.⁵

Three waves of Pentecostalism1) Aog and Cong. Crist 2) 1950s -->new churches using new resources, LA based FSQ church, overtaken by the nationalistic Brazil para Cristo invasion into secular spaces such as cinema, stadiums, radios and even TV 3) third wave reaction to modernization crisis under military.⁶

“Although older groups can and do evolve over time, newer ones are freer to innovate...delving into the countries religious tradition...can be regarded positively as “contextualisation” or negatively as “syncretism”⁷

success of IURD linked to capacity to build a bridge between traditional/religious elements and modern/secular elements of Brazilian culture.⁸

Attempts to nuance the Pentecostal world and Freston's critique: 1) Bittencourt—distinction between Classical churches (American Missionary Origin) and Autonomous Churches. Critiqued as two main “classical churches” AoG (with a Swedish origin) and Cong. Crista (national church founded by Italian immigrants) do not fit the model. ⁹ 2) Mendonca, distinguishes between classical and divine healing, whereby the latter do not have a fixed community and operate a clientele system. Yet Deus e Amor placed in latter group though they have a very strict structure of church discipline. “The “clientele” model has limited utility. Only a small religious enterprise can be economically viable as long as it depends on a fluctuating clientele.”¹⁰

“For Brazil we need to make a clear distinction between the newer lower-class pentecostal churches, such as the Universal Church, and the middle-class charismatic churches such as Renascer em Cristo and the Comunidades Evangelicas....Charismaticism marked the arrival of Pentecostal phenomena in ample sectors of the middle-class....extreme social inequality, often creating a yawning cultural gap between Pentecostals and charismatics.”¹¹

Charismatic dissidents from historical churches less successful than expected-->flow from original denominations dried up as they accommodated Charismatic practices. Expansion into middle classes mainly from Charismatic “communities.”¹²

AP Oro's attempt to define Neo-Pentecostalism/ Freston's nuancing 1) autonomy from foreign control/ all churches of foreign origin now autonomous 2) leaders with personal charisma/ also present in Brazil para Cristo 3) isolation from the rest of the Christian world/ not significantly different in older Pentecostalism 4) demonization of ABRs/ also characterises older Pentecostal and even some historic churches 5) Giving, Prosperity Theology/ Also gaining ground in AoG 6) Use of mass media/ used by older pentecostal churches 7) Political involvement/Actually pioneered by Brazil para Cristo and later taken up by AoG.¹³

Prefers to see neo-pentecostalism as a vanguard, a new wave in Pentecostalism.¹⁴

Sees historical churches and Pentecostal churches as “ideal types at the two extremes of a continuum on which most real cases are a highly variable and creative mix...all denominations and individuals are in fact in constant movement along the continuum. ...towards a Pentecostalisation of historical Protestantism and a histrocisation of Pentecostalism.”¹⁵

Points out that para-church organisations, pan-Protestant representative entities and television programmes have blurred watertight denominational boundaries. As evangelicos become more socially visible, it is harder for denominations to remain in isolation.¹⁶

Focuses on the formation of a Lausanne-inspired AEVB, under Caio Fabio, in the wake of the scandals surrounding a revived CEB in the Constituinte. Unable to acquire hegemony of the AEVB Macedo/IURD form parallel institution with dissident AoG (Madureira). Power struggle for evangelical hegemony comes to a head with Globo attack on Macedo, when Caio Fabio takes side of Globo and denies evangelical status to IURD.¹⁷

1P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 145.

2P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 146.

3P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 146.

4P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 146.

5P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 147.

6P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 147–148.

7P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 148.

8P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 148.

9P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 149.

10P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 149.

11P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 150–151.

12P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 151.

13P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 152.

14P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 152.

15P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 152,

16P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 152.

17P Freston, “'Neo-Pentecostalism' in Brazil: Problems of Definition and the Struggle for Hegemony” Arch. De Sc. Soc. Des. Rel 105 (1999), 145–162, 153–160.