I don’t know how many Brazilians are on Spectrum. Even though there are officially more SDAs in Brazil than in the USA, the majority of Brazilian SDAs don’t read and write English; and the majority of non-Brazilian SDAs have little to no interest in internal Brazilian politics (other than in an attempt by some Americans to project USA internal political dynamics onto Brazil).
While Sr. Kanasiro understandably is writing for an American readership and is therefore trying to describe his country’s internal politics in terms of US politics, Bolsonaro is not Trump; de Carvalho is not Steve Bannon; Lula da Silva’s Partido dos Trabalhadores are not the Democrats and Bolsonaro’s Partido Liberal are not the US Republicans. But if the author didn’t make the awkward US parallels, his article likely would generate even less interest among an anglophone, largely US readership.
This topic should concern all SDAs. With the increase in membership in Latin America, this will become more like “the norm” for the church. When, eventually an administrator from this region becomes GC president, this will most likely be the modus operandi of the church. What we are seeing in Brasil is a peek into the future of the church.
I can see it as a possibility, the past should tell us about the future. The USA church only seems concerned if it is about the so called ‘Sunday Laws’. It would seem that the church is reflecting current political division on many issues, so I can see the .org views reflecting current climate of its membership.
As far as I know there is at least one: ME. I have dual citizenship, Brazilian and American.
Although I was not born in Brazil (but rather in France to a Czech family) I was 10 months old when we moved to Brazil (correct spelling bein “Brasil”) in July of 1951. We lived in the vicinity of that school d in the article, the UNASP, where I got 16 years of Adventist education (including a college degree in Theology - class of 1972). It’s now the largest SDA University worldwide, with over 17,000 (yes, 17K) students (on three campuses) inthe Sao Paulo State. Last I heard they offer about 35 college degrees. It’s huge!!!
Now living in the US for almost 35 years, I no longer follow the politics in Brazil, either the government’s or the Church’s. I only know that Conservative Adventism is flourishing in Brazil - another reason why I am not interested at all.
Ted Wilson has always been a great supporter of the Brazilians, admiring how the Church is growing down there. He should move the GC to Brazil! But I have the impression that he is more interested in moving it to the Bunda District, in Tanzania!!!
Aside from the title there is really nothing in the article about separation except for this line:
This is one of those articles where you know less after reading than you knew beforehand. What pray tell are Brazilians reactionaries? It appears to be a negative term used in the Left-Right political landscape. As Wikipedia says: " As an [ideology], reactionism is a tradition in [right-wing politics]] the reactionary stance opposes policies for the [social transformation] of society, whereas [conservatives]seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present." What that means in a country that only returned to Democracy in 1989 I am not sure, but from the article, it seems that the author desires a Marxist state. In a country with as many twists and turns in government as Brazil reactionary and even conservative seem to be somewhat meaningless. If generally meaningless then it is likely simply a derogatory turn used by those who think of themselves as Progressives, which appears to mean leftist considering the article mention Marx twice.
Obviously if there was no Marxism present it would be silly to use it as a foil. Being a vaccination skeptic is pretty well proven to have been correct as the vaccine never did what it was promised to do, and the ill effects are becoming much more understood. That it is mentioned here is interesting as just another example of agree with the progressive or you are a problem.
I have also never read the Communist Manifesto. I have read books on Karl Marx. I don’t think it is necessary to read the Manifesto to realize the horrible results of Marxism or to see the massive deaths that Marxism has resulted in the 20th century. See: Karl Marx brought death to millions. Don't celebrate him.
I don’t know what these are about. It all depends on what one means with antifeminst. There are 4 waves of feminism and very certainly not all of it effects have been good for society. Reading the Teacher’s union link it says: This: " The Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores em Educação (National Confederation of Education Sector Workers-CNTE), which represents over 4 million public school workers in Brazil, vehemently condemned on 29 October the statement by newly elect congresswoman Ana Caroline Campagnolo, a member of the president-elect’s Social Liberal Party (PSL) calling on students to make audio and video recording of what she defines as “indoctrinating teachers”. As we have similar problems with indoctrination with strange leftist ideas like a boy can be a girl and vice versa, I would not hold that such things are Persecution as the Union says. In the USA the American Federation of Teachers is extremely left wing as anyone who listens to their head RandiWeingarten knows.
Zelota magazine by in it’s own editorial statement:“…its editorial principles and values commonly attributed to the political left” a line or two later says: “This bias is used as a sieve for the preparation of journalistic or opinion articles.” So once again. this appears to be Progressivism good conservatism bad. Linha Editorial - Revista Zelota
When reading this article about the only thing I learned is that political progressives call those who disagree with them reactionaries, homophobes and amazingly transmitting dog whistles which apparently only the reactionaries here and of course the Progressives hear also, which makes one wonder why not just say it straight out since the Progressives find dog whistles everywhere, save us all the trouble of not knowing what they are until the Progressives tell us they heard one even if they can’t actually tell us what it means in language.
Then we have this important piece of info:
A Christian speaks against popular culture and progressive politics. What will they do next?
Didnt we already read here about Koehlers list of “To Dos " for good Adventists ? (Maybe the only way to guide believers down there !?) Didnt I find the ridicoulous interpretation by out Diogo Cavalcanti - “In the Shadow of the Decree” , August 5, 2022 about XARAGMA and then SPHRAGIS , this explained with PHRASSW - - nonsense all together, but - wordlwide in print ? - Then in SS Qarterly, Teachers Edition a declaration of the “real meaning” of Matth 6 : 13 (” - lead not - ") with “MH EISENEGKHS”, this the Aorist subjunctive, really meaning - yes what ?? - not explained -but sufficient for heavy antipapal polemic ?
For starters, the military regime we had in Brasil between 1964 and 1989 was not that bad. The military coup in 1964 that made Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco de first military Presiden, saved us from the imminent establishment of Communism in the country.
When the President, Janio Quadros, resigned (for unknown reasons to date), the VP - Joao Goulart - assumed the government and in about 6 months he was ready to install Communism. Well, not that fast! The Army took care of business and gave a re=start to the country. I remember my parents saying. “Oh no, we escaped from the communist Czechoslovakia and now this?” And what a relief it was when the Army kicked the communists’ butt! It’s important to say that Goulart started his communist attempt by preaching fierce Nationalism! (Does it ring a bell??? )
Yes, the military regime could have been a little shorter, but in their days there was no distress on the streets, there was peace and progress. We felts safe, and above all, FREE. It was not a regime of oppression, just kept the country safe.
One has to be careful talking about the politics in Brasil, because if one never lived there it is difficult to talk without enunciating BS.
Voting is mandatory in Brasil, which means that voting repression does not exist. Neither “redistricting” (so loved by the Reps here in the US…) does not exist either. No Electoral College, just pure/straight Democracy - popular majority wins, not by State but nationally. And there was never an attempt to not transfer the power peacefully.
Bolsonaro missed a great opportunity to become a good President. But he ended up trying to be like Trump, and his government ended up opening the door to “Lula” again. Like Trump, he tried to challenge the election for his second turn, but that dog didn’t hunt like here in the US it did in Trump’s case. He committed some errors that cost him now not being able to run for any office for 8 years. Like with Trump in the US, his denial of Covid’s danger cost the life of thousands of people.
Thank you to Spectrum for allowing this great pro and con dialogue. It sets you apart from other forums. I would like more of this as a moderate who attempts to see the problems and solutions in both political camps. There is a blurred line between religion and state in most countries except where Marxism (communism) and Islam dominate. Unfortunately the terms “progressive Christianity” and “fundamentalism” have been thrown around so much they have become meaningless and people and leaders are being labeled, and many innocently, when associated with the red-flag terms.
Is there anyone out there who can write an article on the real issue behind this contemporary and very popular trend that is destroying society in the church and out? Concerning end-times, both sides give us plenty of beast-like evidence.
Hi Team Spectrum,
“It comes as no surprise that Adventists have been confirmed participants in the January 8th Brazilian Congress attack by Bolsonaro supporters”.
This is a pretty strong affitmation… Where did you get this idea? Can you provide the source?
I wonder if there is actually a source for that statement.
However, I am aware that the majority of people that I know down there were afraid of Lula, thus preferring to side with Bolsonaro because they felt safer.
Well… I would understand the fear about having a former president who served in jain for corruption. But… participating in a insurrection and damage government property? That’s a strong affirmation. I would love for Spectrum to clarify their statement…
Spectrum may not be able to clarify that statement; maybe it came from a source not fully aware of what happened on the ground.Brasil is certainly screwed up again at this time, having “Luladrão” back in the Palácio do Planalto.I voted for Bolsonaro for his first term, but at the end his governance was disappointing; I didn’t vote at all when he ran against Lula because I would never vote for Lula, and Bolsonaro was no longer of my interest. I was already over 70 y/o, so I didn’t need to vote anyway. I am astonished that Brasil had those two guys as candidates. Isn’t there any other politician with better credentials? Sad.