We betrayed the Kurds: Let’s admit our big mistake

Our Betrayal of the Kurds: Let’s admit we made a big mistake

A week ago President Trump ordered the removal of U.S. troops from northern Syria. Our troops were there together with our allies, the Kurds, in a prolonged conflict to remove the terrorist group ISIS from Syria. This decision was made by our President but went against the recommendations of most of our National Security and Military leadership. The response from the Turkish government was quick and predictable. They sent troops to invade northern Syria to create a “safe zone”. It was an obvious “land grab” and the area is now anything but “safe”. The rapidly occurring events include the following:

  • Hundreds of Kurdish civilians have been killed and their leaders feel betrayed by us.
  • Thousands of captured ISIS terrorist soldiers are now escaping from prisons and detention camps
  • The Kurds are now asking for help from the Syrian authoritarian ruler, Bashar al Assad.
  • The Kurds, realizing that we have abandoned them, are also seeking a new alliance with Russia.
  • President Trump has threatened Turkey with “crippling sanctions”, but these are still potential measures that have not been implemented. Such feeble threats have done nothing but embolden Turkey’s ruler Erdogan.

In a very rare demonstration of bi-partisan unity, almost all of our Congressional representatives who have weighed in on the issue, have criticized the President’s decision. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, one of Trump’s most faithful allies, announced that the White House “shamelessly abandoned” our allies, the Kurds. Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, rebuked the President and explained that “a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria would only benefit Russia, Iran and the Assad regime…and it would increase the risk that ISIS and other terrorist groups regroup.” This is quite revealing. If McConnell is right, much of the so called “war on terrorism” has been a huge mistake since the gains that were made with great sacrifice and cost, will now be lost.

Although I empathize with Trump’s desire to get us out of “stupid, endless wars” we must be very careful and wise in how we remove ourselves. If not, the solution is deadlier than the problem. President Trump, it takes courage and maturity to recognize one’s mistakes, especially when they occur in full public view.  Be mature, retrace your steps, and change your policy.

Enough is Enough! Senator Mitch McConnell, Bring the Bill Up for a Vote!

This past Saturday our country suffered another mass shooting, this time in El Paso, Texas. A 21-year-old white supremacist opened fire at a Walmart store and killed 22 people and seriously wounded others. Then, early Sunday morning, another mass shooting took place in downtown Dayton, Ohio and nine civilians were killed.

Time and time again we have witnessed mass killings in our country: Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Orlando, Gilroy, and the list goes on and on. These massacres are in the news for a while, but nothing happens. Our Congress has let us down. 90% of our citizens are in favor of requiring a universal background check before people can purchase guns. This would reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them (felons, domestic abusers, mentally ill people, etc.)  Currently there are many loopholes (sales at gun shows, online gun sales, etc.) that allow guns to get into the wrong hands.

There is one man who has blocked legislation that would require a universal background check: Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. He has repeatedly refused to bring legislation passed by the House of Representatives to a vote in the Senate. On a wide variety of issues this has contributed to the deadlock and polarization of our Congress, as moderate measures are not even given a chance. This is especially troubling regarding background checks.  Last month, a bipartisan bill passed the House (240 to 190) that would require a universal background check prior to the purchase of guns and would eliminate the loopholes. It was co-sponsored by Republican Representative Pete King who affirmed, “When background checks are used, they keep guns out of the hands of people that we all agree shouldn’t have guns. As government officials it is our responsibility to protect our citizens, and when it comes to gun violence, we must do more. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to see action and we owe it to the victims and their families to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.” Senator McConnell has not even brought this bill up for a vote in the Senate. The fact that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has given millions of dollars in contributions to his election campaigns clearly suggests that McConnell is in the NRA’s back pocket.

This bill is not perfect and will not end all gun violence in our country. McConnell does not have to vote in favor of this bill, but he does have the moral and legal responsibility to bring it up for discussion and a vote in the Senate. I urge my readers to communicate with Senator McConnell and to urge him to bring the bill to the Senate.  This is not a left/right issue. Even President Trump has urged a bipartisan response that would include “stricter background checks”. Enough is enough. We, the people of the United States, need to demand action by those in Congress who represent us. The lives of our neighbors are in the balance.

Mueller has spoken. So has Barr. Is it time for an impeachment inquiry?

As everyone knows, Special Counsel Robert Mueller headed up the investigation on alleged Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election. The twenty-two-month long investigation resulted in the Mueller Report with the following conclusions:

  • There was definite interference by Russia in our election.
  • The was not enough evidence to bring charges of conspiracy between the Trump election campaign and Russian officials.
  • There were ten episodes of alleged obstruction of justice. The Report laid out the evidence in favor and against obstruction, but did not state a conclusion. It suggested that the Congress has this responsibility.
  • The Report did not exonerate the President.

Within 48 hours, Attorney General Barr wrote a four-page document that summarized the report. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made a decision to affirm that President Trump was innocent of the allegations of obstruction of justice. Trump went even further and claimed that there was no obstruction and that he was fully exonerated.

Mueller disagreed with the Barr summary and wrote two letters to Barr to rectify that misleading conclusion. Not obtaining the rectification that he sought, Mueller broke his public silence on the investigation and gave a nine-minute public address (May 29, 2019) when he also announced his resignation from the Department of Justice. Regarding the investigation, he made the following affirmations:

  • His Special Counsel investigation was not legally permitted to bring charges against Trump due to Department of Justice tradition and policy that would not allow a sitting president to be indicted.
  • Since the Department of Justice cannot bring charges against a sitting president, the only other option is political. The Congress would need to bring charges of impeachment against the President.
  • Regarding the claims of no obstruction and exoneration, Mueller spoke quite clearly, “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination, as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

A few days later, Barr stated his disagreement with Mueller’s comments. Meanwhile, various committees in the Democrat controlled House of Representatives have subpoenaed various documents (Trump’s tax returns) and witnesses (Don McGahn, Hope Hicks, etc.). The Trump administration has refused to turn over documents and has pressured the witnesses not to appear before the House committees.

We are at an impasse. Both sides have their partisan political reasons for their positions. Democrats claim that Trump has obstructed justice and he is doing everything he can to prevent the truth from coming out. Trump claims that the Democrats lost in the investigation and want a “re-do” in a type of witch hunt against the President.

More than partisanship, what we really need is to come to a conclusion regarding the truth on these issues. A full-blown impeachment process would probably not obtain the needed two/thirds majority in the Senate due to the Republican control there, and therefore could be a strategic mistake for the Democrats. Nevertheless, given the White House actions of stalling and stonewalling, I believe an “impeachment inquiry” is now the only way to obtain a clearer understanding of what happened. If Trump is truly innocent, he should turn over the documents and permit McGahn and Hicks to bear witness to the truth, whatever the consequences. Democrats should be courageous enough to begin the inquiry in order to fulfill their Constitutional oversight responsibilities. Let the truth win out!

Let me be as clear as possible. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as articles of impeachment. An inquiry is a first step to gather sufficient evidence to see whether impeachment proceedings should go forward or not. If the White House is not willing to relinquish key documents and allow witnesses to testify, an impeachment inquiry is the next step forward.

The Battle for our National Soul

I believe that we are in a battle for the soul of our nation. It is a battle for our hearts and minds. It is a battle for the truth.

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Mueller Report gave him a threefold clean bill of political health. 

NO COLLUSION! 

NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! 

FULL EXONERATION! 

Claims like these need to be examined under the light of the truth. The first claim is mostly accurate. The Mueller Report did find that the Russian government wanted to help Trump win, but there was not sufficient cooperation by the Trump campaign to bring a charge of complicity. 

The second and third claims are deliberate distortions of the Mueller Report findings. The Report is quite clear when it states, “IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WE WOULD SO STATE. WE ARE UNABLE TO REACH SUCH A JUDGMENT. While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM.” There is no other possible understanding of Trump’s affirmations except that he is trying to mislead the U.S. people in order to protect himself. I personally get very angry when I hear such blatant lies repeated over and over again. 

What is equally troublesome for me is that some 30-40% of my fellow U.S. citizens actually believe his falsehoods. I can understand why some citizens support Trump (the strong economy, low unemployment rates, etc.), but I cannot comprehend why they believe him when he so blatantly lies. 

We have had many difficult times in our nation and in our world in the past, but the current period seems particularly dire. Perhaps our greatest challenge is the battle for the truth. It is the battle for the soul of our nation. If words no longer have any meaning, then there is no hope for resolving the problems before us.  It is time for all of us to affirm the importance of truth for the sake of our country. It is time for all of us to reject falsehoods regardless of the political affiliation of the leaders that propagate them.

Let us commit ourselves to holding each other accountable for the pursuit of the truth. It can set us free. 

Did Attorney General Bill Barr Lie to Congress?

One of the most serious discussions encircling the U.S. federal government these days is the accusation leveled by many Democrats (including the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) that Attorney General Bill Barr has lied to Congress. Here are the details.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller finished his twenty-two-month long investigation of alleged Russian interference in our 2016 presidential elections and turned in his report to the Attorney General Bill Barr back in mid-March. Although the Attorney General could (should?) have published Mueller’s own summary of the Report for public consumption, Barr chose to release his own four-page summary letter on March 24.  In that letter, Barr summarized the Mueller Report in that there was “no collusion”. That was not quite what the Report said. It only stated that the evidence of conspiracy or cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump political campaign did not rise to the level of criminality.

What is more serious is that Barr distorted the Mueller Report regarding Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice. Barr, together with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, concluded that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.[1] Trump immediately and repeatedly claimed “No obstruction! Full exoneration!” Nothing could be further from the truth, because the Mueller Report was very clear on this point, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment. While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” The Report did not exonerate the President, nor did it affirm that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice. To the contrary, it laid out the evidence of ten episodes in favor and against obstruction and affirmed that Congress had the responsibility to evaluate the evidence and decide whether it rose to the impeachment criteria of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Robert Mueller disagreed so strongly with the Barr summary, that he wrote two letters to Barr in the following days, in which he urged Barr to make public Mueller’s summaries that he had prepared precisely to be presented to the public and to protect confidential information. He also claimed that the Barr summary failed to capture the “context, nature and substance” of the Report and that Barr’s summary caused “public confusion about critical aspects” of the investigation.

The big lie to Congress came two weeks later. On April 9, Barr appeared before the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Charlie Crist asked Barr if he knew the basis of reports that members of Mueller’s team were frustrated with his decision to release his four-page summary instead of the summaries that Mueller had prepared. Barr answered, “No, I don’t.” That was a lie, because he had already received Mueller’s two follow up letters. Barr’s later alibi was extremely weak because he claimed that he did not know which members of Mueller’s team were being referred to.

I believe that Barr’s integrity and independence have been seriously compromised. For the good of the country, Barr should step down from his position. On a related issue, Mueller should appear before both Senate and House committees to clarify any lingering questions and doubts about his Report. Originally Barr stated that he had no objections to Mueller’s testifying to Congress. But over the weekend, President Trump has stated he doesn’t want Mueller to testify. The citizens of our country deserve to hear Mueller’s candid comments about Russian interference in our elections and the truth about the accusations of obstruction of justice. The truth shall set us free.

PS – Yesterday a letter was published that was signed by over 450 ex Federal Prosecutors who had served in both Republican and Democrat administrations. The letter affirms that “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” Far from being exonerated as Trump repeatedly proclaims, a fair reading of the Mueller Report demonstrates several examples of obstruction of justice.


[1] This was misleading because Barr had written a 19-page article several months earlier where he claimed that no sitting president could even be guilty of obstruction of justice. Therefore, Barr’s “conclusion” that there was no obstruction was based upon his belief that a sitting president could not be guilty, not because the evidence wasn’t convincing.

The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report…What do we know now?

A week ago, on Thursday, April 18, Attorney General Bill Barr held a press conference about the Mueller Report. He then sent a redacted version of that report to congressional members which he also made available for public view.

Let us not be naïve. Both political sides are putting their “spin” on the Report and the analyzed events. These spins range from one extreme, “This is the best day so far in the Trump presidency” to the other extreme, “He should be impeached!” Trump himself exclaimed at first, “No collusion! No obstruction!” Nevertheless, upon becoming aware of the details of the Report that portray him in a negative light, he has claimed that the Report is full of lies.

As seekers of truth, we need to work hard to filter out the spin. This means we need to read with great care the Mueller Report for ourselves and to not accept blindly the “Cliff Notes” of secondary sources. It also means reading and listening to various points of view. I have forced myself to listen to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and PBS, plus going on line to view additional sources.

Original purpose of the Mueller investigation

What has been overlooked by most news outlets is the conclusion that Mueller arrived at regarding the main purpose of his investigation: Did Russia interfere in our 2016 presidential election? Mueller’s answer was a resounding “Yes!” He provided pages and pages of evidence showing the multiple ways Russia tried to influence the election on behalf of Trump and against Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, neither the White House, nor the Republicans, nor the Democrats have taken enough steps to block this type of interference in the future.

Attorney General William Barr

Every Attorney General swears to uphold the Constitution and is the highest law enforcement officer in the country.  He or she is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of justice and should be above partisan politics. The Attorney General is the attorney for the U.S. people, not the private defense attorney for the president. I believe that Attorney General Barr has lost credibility for the following reasons:

  1. Barr shared the redacted document with the White House and Trump’s lawyers prior to making it available to Congress or to the public. The Attorney General should be committed to equality and to not show favoritism.
  2. In Barr’s four-page summary letter of March 24, 2019 as well as in his press conference last Thursday morning, he distorted the Mueller Report on both the allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice, the right of Congress to evaluate the report, and the supposed eagerness of the President to cooperate with the investigation. (see below)

The Redaction of the Report

Attorney General Barr has emitted a redacted edition of the Mueller Report, not the complete version. Four kinds of information were blacked out. They are the following:

  1. Grand Jury material
  2. Classified information regarding secret intelligence content and sources
  3. Information that could interfere with other ongoing legal investigations
  4. Information that could hurt the privacy and reputation of ´peripheral third parties’

It seems reasonable to me that the first three types of information should not be revealed to the general public.  Because I am committed to the truth, I am not quite so convinced that peripheral third parties need to be protected. Nevertheless, I believe that Republican and Democrat congressional leaders have the right to see the entire non-redacted version plus the evidence that undergirds it. The reason is obvious. Attorney General Barr has lost credibility in the eyes of half of our citizens. He did not let Robert Mueller confirm the veracity of his “Summary” of last month nor the redacted version last week. I do not trust Barr to be the “gatekeeper” of what information is released. I also believe that Barr, Mueller, Don McGahn and others need to appear before Congress to answer important questions so that the truth can be made more public.

Legal Context – A President cannot be indicted but can be impeached

According to the Justice Department’s traditional position and the specific judgment of its Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. The rationale behind this is that presidents should not be distracted from fulfilling their executive responsibilities due to legal procedures against them. The options are the following:

  1. A president can be accused of a crime, but not indicted. Nevertheless, without being indicted, a president does not have a legal way to respond to the alleged crimes.
  2. A president can be indicted for crimes committed during his/her presidency, but only after leaving office.
  3. If a president’s actions reach the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, Congress has the responsibility to impeach a president. This is essentially the only way to remove a president from office.

In addition, Barr wrote an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department in June 2018 before he had become Attorney General. In that article he wrote that the Mueller investigation was illegal and a waste of time and taxpayer money, and that a sitting president could not commit obstruction of justice. Many people think that Trump chose Barr to be the Attorney General precisely due to these opinions. In essence, Mueller’s only course of action was to lay out the evidence and then let Congress take the next step. He clearly stated this, “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”

No Conspiracy and Cooperation between Russia and the Trump Campaign

The good news for Trump is that Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy. The word “collusion” is not a legal term, and as a consequence, Mueller chose to hold a rather strict definition of the legal crime of “conspiracy”. Although Russia interfered in the election in support of Trump and against Hillary Clinton, and the Trump Campaign appreciated their support (ex. “We love WikiLeaks!), Mueller did not find that there was actual cooperation between the Russian government and the Campaign.

Obstruction of Justice

In his summary letter a month ago, Barr concluded (together with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) that Trump was not guilty of obstruction of justice. This is where Barr distorted the facts. The Mueller Report clearly stated that it did not reach that conclusion. The Report reads, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” It continues, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Thus, Attorney General Barr gave false information when he provided the first “spin” of the Mueller Report in his March 24th letter and then again in his press conference on April 18.

Why didn’t Mueller reach a decision regarding possible obstruction of justice? He investigated 10 episodes of alleged obstruction by the Trump campaign and administration. He then laid out the evidence both in favor and against that possible obstruction. Was the evidence so divided and balanced that Mueller could not reach a decision? No! He believed that his role was not to render a decision. He wanted the evidence to be weighed in the court of public opinion. If there would be a judgment, it would not be made by him nor by the Attorney General. The U.S. Constitution dictates that it is the Congress that should evaluate if impeachment is required for an obstruction of justice. (See comments below on Congress)

Did President Trump eagerly cooperate with the Mueller investigation?

                           During his press conference and in other moments, Barr affirmed that President Trump willingly and eagerly cooperated with the investigation. The facts do not confirm this claim. Mueller wanted to directly interview the president and so requested. Trump’s lawyers fought this request over and over again. Finally, it was agreed that Mueller would ask questions that Trump would answer in writing. (Mueller considered subpoenaing the president to an oral interview, but finally decided against doing that because the delay tactics of Trump’s lawyers would have caused the Report to have been extended by months or years.)

                           In his written answers, Trump was not very cooperative nor transparent. Over thirty times, he answered “I do not remember” or “I do not recollect”. Given that he had several days to turn in his answers, he had plenty of time to review emails, his notes, etc. to refresh his memory. (This is particularly ironic given that he has boasted over and over again that he has one of the best memories of anyone in the history of humanity.) During this past week, Trump has again refused to turn over his tax records. He has also demanded that his White House staff (both current and previous) refuse to appear before Congressional committees, even when they have been subpoenaed. It sure seems that he is trying to hide information from public view.

The Role of Congress to Evaluate the Report

Barr repeatedly affirmed that Mueller never said that the report was to be evaluated by the Congress. This goes directly against Mueller’s testimony. On repeated occasions, Mueller indicates the role of Congress to not only read his report, but if necessary, to act upon it. For example, “The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The Report also states, “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” It is quite clear that Mueller wants Congress to evaluate his findings.

“Sincere” Beliefs?

Attorney General Barr made an unusual comment that has not received much comment by the press. He claimed that some of President Trump’s actions were based upon his “sincere” beliefs that he was being unfairly attacked. I take issue with the word “sincere”. Only God can determine the sincerity of people’s hearts. So, unless Barr has an infallible connection with God, he should be an impartial Attorney General and not vouch for the sincerity of anyone.

Where do we go from here?

The two options that are generally proposed are: (1) We should forget about the Report and move on with other challenges; or (2) Congress should begin impeachment procedures now. I disagree with the first option because the serious Russia threat needs to be addressed and because Mueller has placed the ball in Congress’ court.  I am against the second option because an impeachment procedure is painful and divisive for the entire nation and should only be entered into after thoughtful deliberations. I urge a third way. It is the responsibility of Congress to clarify remaining doubts and answer lingering questions by calling Mueller, Barr, McGahn, and others to bear witness to the truth. Let us follow that truth wherever it leads.

A Mature Analysis of Honduras

Honduras has been in the news quite a bit lately as one of the countries of the Northern Triangle (together with Guatemala and El Salvador) from where many of their citizens are emigrating. So, what is the truth about Honduras? For various reasons, the following Declaration provides good answers to that question.

As we all know, in our polarized society, it is quite common for people on the left and on the right to blame only the other side for all the problems that we experience. Therefore, it is refreshing to find leaders who assume responsibility for their actions. The following Declaration ¨Honduras: Between Crisis and Hope¨ is refreshing precisely because these Christian leaders recognize that they are partly responsible for the problems in their country, especially by not holding government officials accountable for their actions. They rightly point out corruption and mismanagement by elected officials, the dangers posed by gang activity, and other internal and external factors, but they acknowledge their own failures. Read their realistic analysis of Honduras and be refreshed and inspired by their recommendations for going forward!

HONDURAS: BETWEEN CRISIS AND HOPE – A DECLARATION OF THE LATIN AMERICAN THEOLOGICAL FELLOWSHIP – HONDURAN CHAPTER [1]

The Latin American Theological Fellowship (FTL – la Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana), Honduran Chapter is an association composed of Protestant[2] men and women committed to the life and mission of God in Latin America. Gathered together as the local groups of the Honduran chapter of the FTL, we announce this declaration about the critical situation that our country is facing. We make this declaration from a perspective of hope in the midst of the frustration, deception and confusion that many of our Honduran people are experiencing. In addition, we are conscious of the need to change how evangelicals participate in our national life.

THE HONDURAS WHERE WE LIVE

We live in a Honduras with alarming rates of poverty that affect more than half of our people. At the same time, we have high rates of unemployment and underemployment, little production, consumerism and a costly rise in the prices of food and other essential items for life. Monopolies, greed, and large debt are enslaving our citizens. There is a decrease in even minimum access to the basic services of health, education and safety. This picture of generalized poverty contrasts greatly with the unequal, and frequently illegal, accumulation of wealth by a small number of people. We live in a Honduras that ranks very high regarding the unequal accumulation of wealth. In fact, we rank sixth in the world and first in Latin America. We live in a Honduras where assassinations, the Sicariato,[3] drug trafficking, arms trafficking, the Maras[4] and violence in the social media have largely contributed to a culture of violence learned at an early age. Immigration, motivated by (these high rates of) violence and poverty, is increasing in spite of difficulties, dangers and barriers. We live in a Honduras where corruption and impunity are an evil duo that has permeated governmental structures, private enterprise and average citizens, devouring, little by little, the lives and institutions of our country.

It is impossible to ignore the scandals and thefts committed within our governmental institutions that have not been resolved, such as the embezzlement of the National Social Security Institute (IHSS -Instituto Hondureño de Seguridad Social). There are other activities that are very disconcerting: the secrecy surrounding the governmental administration of finances, the involvement of public officials in drug trafficking, and additional cases that reveal the negligence and inefficiency of the Honduran system of justice. We live in a Honduras where the lack of trust in the justice system leads to desperation and pushes citizens to take justice into their own hands. Corruption is seen as a sin of the government, but we need to recognize that personal and collective corruption feeds into governmental corruption. We live in a Honduras where the Constitution and laws are continually and openly disobeyed by authorities and citizens alike. This has produced a weakened and corrupt government that lacks any credibility. We are concerned that our country is ungovernable. Our democratic institutions have become progressively weakened. The independence of governmental powers (executive, legislative, and judicial) has been lost and they are under the control of powerful groups of people.

The new generations of politicians are being formed in an environment where respect for the law is quite relative and this is quite serious. We live in a Honduras where citizens are being repressed.  They get treated with a disproportionate violence by governmental institutions when they protest against what they consider to be a violation of the Constitution and fraudulent disrespect of their vote. The chronic crisis that we experience has become extraordinarily worse due to the questionable results of recent elections and by the generalized perception of vote fraud (Psalm 101:7). This has led to an indignant reaction by broad sectors of the society that have chosen to practice civil disobedience and even insurrection. It is disconcerting that no respected national mediators have emerged, those who could call for a true dialogue that would result in believable agreements that would help stabilize our country.

THE CHURCH THAT WE HAVE BEEN FOR HONDURAS

We recognize that we Protestants have developed many service projects intended for the poor and vulnerable. Nevertheless, we have not fulfilled our duty of requiring the government to assume responsibility for its own destructive actions that have led to poverty and injustice. We recognize that we Christians have not been properly taught about the correct exercise of power. In general, we have lived an “escapist” kind of Christianity, hiding behind Biblical verses taken out of context. We have forgotten that although Christians have duties like respecting and praying for government authorities, they are also called to demand that those authorities govern with justice, righteousness and goodness (Romans 13). We acknowledge that many Protestant Christians have become involved in Honduran politics in the last decades, but we also recognize that they have done so without adequate preparation, without making much improvement, and they have confused politics, partisanship, and the Kingdom of God. Confusion and distortion regarding these three spheres have happened due to a reading of Scripture with biased lenses about the Church, society and citizenship and have resulted in a type of participation in society that is shameful. Recent experiences have given us examples of Protestant groups and individuals that have obtained positions of power but have left bad testimony because they have been involved in political cronyism and influence peddling. We recognize that we Christians need to deepen our responsibility to society, but without losing our senses and our firm resistance of evil (Habakkuk 1:2-4). Before we become seduced (by power), we need to remember that the true power of the Church is in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and not primarily when church members obtain governmental power. We have seen, with sadness, that when we seek power, we really lose it. We are convinced that the teaching of Jesus should lead us to transform our society with the power of love and we should avoid the temptation of the love of power. We are ashamed that in the recent elections, self-proclaimed “prophets” have arisen who have predicted who would win the elections, but they predicted different winners.[5] As we study the Holy Scriptures, we discover that the role of prophets goes much deeper than predicting the future; their role consists of denouncing evil, demanding justice, calling the people and their leaders to give God and his commandments first place in their lives. The Biblical prophets also reminded the governing authorities not to abuse their power. “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humblywith your God” is what God has told us through his prophets (Micah 6:8). It is necessary to exercise discernment with these contemporary “prophets”, that are so abundant today and evaluate them according to the Holy Scriptures that show us how to distinguish true prophets from false ones.

WE ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND WE RECOMMIT OURSELVES TO OUR MISSION

As Protestant Christians we ask for forgiveness from our fellow Hondurans, because we also have been responsible for corruption through our actions and our failures to act. To know what is right and not to do it is also sin. We have allowed the seduction of power and access to government subsidies to damage our prophetic function and our independent moral voice. Given our past, we have lost the opportunity to be instruments of peace and mediation. With humility we recommit ourselves to our calling to pray, reflect and act for the common good of our country. We do not only aspire to “peace”, but we do commit ourselves to promote justice. Isaiah 32:17 reminds us that “the fruit of justice is peace”,[6] and as citizens we are called to promote both in a holistic way. We should do this according to ethical and spiritual principles that guide us to overcome (the all too common) confusion, hate, despair, political opportunism and personal ambition.

WE CALL FOR CHANGE IN THE CHURCH AND FOR THE REBUILDING OF HONDURAS

  1. Let’s promote and live out our ethical ideals in both our church and public citizen contexts. The Christian mission is countercultural, because in a country in crisis, it is necessary to build a culture of values, peace, justice, honesty, legality and solidarity. These values include serving those in need and this service should be encouraged and put into practice by the church. We should not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9).
  2. Let fight against corruption and impunity. Christians, wherever they are, should begin to break the chains of corruption. Our message and our lives should be consistent with honesty and righteousness, whatever the cost. In addition, the true prophetic work of the church is to denounce injustice, lies and evil, wherever they are, at both the individual level as well as in structures. Let’s imitate the mission of the ancient prophets of God, who challenged the acts of corruption that happened in places of power and in spaces of religion (Isaiah 33:15-16). Our role is to announce God’s call to repent of the sin of corruption and injustice. Today, more than ever, as a church we need to announce the good news of salvation (I Peter 2:9-10) and to denounce everything that goes against the principles and values of the Kingdom of God and his justice (Matthew 6:33; Micah 6:8).
  3. Let’s rebuild the institutional structures of society. We frequently hear that we should submit ourselves to the earthly authorities because they are instituted by God (Romans 13), but we don’t usually read the entire message within its context, which calls us to build a society that has good government because its institutions are just. The citizen should respect authorities, obey laws, work and pay taxes; but, on the other hand, the governing authorities need to obey the laws and make sure that they are obeyed, punishing evil and rewarding that which is good. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the functions of the Church from those of the government. Both are called to cooperate for the common good but maintaining a clear separation. Christian people and leaders are called to develop an incidence in society with integrity, independence and with a message and action to guide people from crisis to hope.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

(Jesus in Matthew 5:6-10)

Tegucigalpa, Honduras, January 25, 2018 https://www.facebook.com/FraternidadTeologica/


[1] This is a preliminary translation into English by Lindy Scott.

[2] Translator´s note – In the original Spanish version, the word that is used is ¨evangélico¨. Generally, this word in the Spanish speaking world refers to almost all Protestant groups. As such, ¨Protestant¨ is probably a slightly better translation than ¨Evangelical¨ (which is a translation that would too restrictive) or ¨Christian¨ (too broad).

[3] Sicariato = the hiring of a hitman to kill someone.

[4] Maras = a powerful, international gang that operates throughout Central America and in certain areas of the United States.

[5] Translator’s note – The Declaration makes reference to contemporary “Prophets” who claim to have a large amount of authority because they are the voice of God in a special way. This is a fairly recent phenomenon that has emerged primarily in some expressions of Neo-Pentecostalism in Latin America and around the world. Although these Prophets have large followings, there are many valid criticisms against them and their abuses, like the ones mentioned in the Declaration.

[6] Translator’s note. The Greek word “dikaiosune” is usually translated as “justicia” in Spanish versions of the Bible, but as “righteousness” in many English versions (Matthew 6:33). Although “righteousness” used to have a social justice meaning (as utilized by Abraham Lincoln to refer to the emancipation of slaves), it has become excessively individualistic in modern English. “Justice” would be a more faithful rendering of the original Greek into English today.