Introduction In Brazil, we have had various models of Christian conversion and evangelism, the first significant one being the acultural model. Extremely violent, it characterized the whole colonial period with its underlying motif: the Indians have to be like us. Indigenous culture was not regarded as having any human value of its own because it was considered to be the fruit of the devil. A second model brings us to the twentieth century; the protectionist model, the best example of which is the Indian Protection Service (SPI), based in part on the missionary work of the Jesuits. Protectionism allowed the indigenous people to live as they wished and on their own demarcated land, but it implied the need for parental control - first the missionaries and later government officials as well. The weakness in this model was that it did not recognize the identity and the maturity of the indigenous people, a fact that resulted in the creation of a judicial figure, a guardian - the Brazilian government - to oversee the indigenous communities. Nearer to us is the third model, which recognizes that the indigenous societies have their own rights and their own culture, that these peoples are not simply a blank page. At times this was characterized by the Old Testament Indian, i.e., that the indigenous communities would have their tradition, their own Old Testament, but it would be up to us to take the New Testament to them. This model sees pastoral work as evangelism, a preparation for an opportune moment when Christ's message can be heard and accepted by the indigenous community. It is primarily a model that criticizes the earlier models, accepts the indigenous values and allows time for the indigenous communities to assimilate or accept the proposal of the gospel, the New Testament. The problem with this last model, of the Indian Old Testament, is that it depends exclusively upon us - we are the ones bringing the New Testament. Not having direct access to the good news, the indigenous community must pass through an intermediary - the missionary or the church - to gain access to the new ideas. In other words, the truth is with us, we continue to be the holders of the truth to give to the other. Is there an alternative to these models? The Indigenous Missionary Council The Indigenous Missionary Council (CMI) started in the Catholic Church in Brazil in 1972, having its roots in the modernization process encouraged by the Second Vatican Council, and its application in Latin America. It grew up also making use of the new ideas of liberation theology and the accumulated experiences of indigenous missionary work, such as, for example, in OPAN (Operation Anchieta), which was founded in February 1969 and which brings together clerics and lay people, as well as anthropologists, CMI is neither a congregation, an order, nor a missionary institute. It is a compilation of all the missionaries - bishops, priests, nuns, monks, lay people - who work in the indigenous field. CMI proposes forms of action that have been elaborated and discussed in its assemblies; it provides help requested by the missionary bases but does not intervene in the pastoral policies of the respective dioceses, which remain under the responsibility of the local bishops. CMI contributes greatly to other Christians and to the indigenous peoples in acting to defend indigenous rights and in the rethinking of the theology of mission and evangelism. In this latter connection we could perhaps study the doctrine of the Trinity, which is extremely interesting for dialogue because it starts from the principle of diversity in unity - the different experience of the identities and not the abolition of the differences. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the differences between God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit continue, they are not abolished, but God is still one. Thus, this diversity in unity, which is a Christian doctrine, may serve as a starting point. …
Read full abstract