Between Socialist Hope and Pentecostal Utopia: Pastor Genaro Ríos as Leftist Presidential Primary Candidate for the Republic of Chile in 1938

Methodology

We have selected two reports regarding Pastor Ríos’ campaign. The first is by Revista Zig-Zag, a publication affiliated with the paper El Mercurio, titled Los pentecostales tienen un candidato a la presidencia: El hermano Genaro hará un Chile nuevo (“Pentecostals have a candidate for the presidency: Brother Genaro will build a new Chile”). The second is El Hermano Genaro Ríos Campos. Candidato a la Presidencia de la República (“Brother Genaro Ríos Campos. Candidate for the Presidency of the Republic”) in Revista El Tiempo es Cumplido (The Time Has Come Magazine).

Zig-Zag magazine was founded in 1905 and is considered the first general-interest publication in Latin America. It ushered in a new era in the local media, setting trends in the publishing markets of major cities. It quickly became a bestseller and would continue to exist for nearly sixty years. Its range of topics meant that its target audience was transversal in nature. That is why they were able to publish a report on the pre-candidacy of Pastor Ríos, a campaign that was little known and had an almost farcical impact. Such a political challenge was totally unprecedented, combining socialism and Pentecostalism in a country that was highly conservative at the time, politically as well as religiously.

El Tiempo es Cumplido, on the other hand, was founded in 1936 by Ríos himself. He began preaching on the banks of the Mapocho River, where on August 11, 1933, he created his first church: Ejército Evangélico de Chile (Evangelical Army of Chile). From the start, he cultivated political ties and interests, which materialized on May 7, 1936, when he was received by then-President Arturo Alessandri. Pastor Ríos died in 1951, but the historical record of his denomination has yet to account for its founder’s participation as a pre-candidate in the 1938 presidential race. In this manner, the denominational history depoliticizes not only its founder, but also the denomination itself which, nevertheless, has historically maintained a strong commitment to social service (for example, by maintaining soup kitchens and schools).

Social And Political Contexts: Hope Among Evangelicals And Socialists

The Frente Popular or Popular Front (1936-1941) was a coalition of political parties that, despite its short lifespan, greatly influenced Chile until 1973. It transcended the merely political dimension and also had social and cultural reach, incorporating university students, intellectuals, unions, feminist movements, campesinos, workers, and Indigenous peoples (Mapuche organized in the Araucano United Front, a Mapuche political party, founded on April 17, 1938, and later dissolved in 1941). Evangelicals also joined Frente Popular and were brought into the government in positions of trust. These include Graciela Contreras Barrenechea (a Methodist), who was appointed mayor by then-President Pedro Aguirre Cerda as mayor (the first woman to hold that position in Chile and the whole of South America), and Pastor Mamerto Mancilla (a Pentecostal Methodist), who was named governor of Pitrufquén by President Gabriel González Videla in 1946. Democratically elected evangelical leaders include Miguel Guerrero Méndez, a Pentecostal Methodist professor who was “elected independent councilor [mayor] between 1948 and 1950” (Tribuna Cristiana, 2003: 2), and “José Meza, lay preacher of the Wesleyan church and president of the Maritime Union in Penco, was elected to the town’s municipal council” (Ossa, 1990: 187).

One of the Protestant denominations with considerable participation in popular governments was the Methodist Church, which understood social and political participation as a responsibility among believers and fought for the rights of workers and women. Methodist leaders such as Air Force Colonel Marmaduke Grove took posts in the government. He served as Minister of Defense during the Socialist Republic of Chile, a short-lived government that lasted only twelve days. Following its collapse, he was exiled and later emerged as a presidential candidate, securing the second-highest number of votes behind the eventual winner, Arturo Alessandri. On April 19, 1933, together with Óscar Schnake, another prominent evangelical leader, and other political figures, Grove co-founded the Socialist Party of Chile. That same year, he was elected to the Senate, serving two consecutive terms (1933–1941 and 1941–1949). In 1938, he competed in the Socialist Party’s presidential primary within the Popular Front coalition, although Pedro Aguirre Cerda ultimately secured the nomination and went on to become president.

Reflecting on the relationship between evangelicals and socialist politics during this period, Pastor Zottele Clark noted that “the Socialist Party asked for a list of distinguished brothers who could serve the country”; while several accepted the invitation, others declined, arguing that political involvement was incompatible with their religious convictions (Snow, 1989, p. 93). On the other hand, lay Methodist leaders participated in the (re)creation of the socialist anthem known as the Socialist Marseillaise. This has been acknowledged by Clodomiro Almeyda, who on April 20, 1988, sent a letter to Methodist Bishop Pedro Zottele Clark, recognizing the great contribution of Methodism to Chilean socialism: “Methodist and Socialist Christians share common humanist ideals, and that is why the militancy of Chilean and Latin American patriots of the Methodist Church in parties with socialist roots in the continent is not surprising” (Almeyda,1988:1). Some of these Methodist leaders who were linked to socialism include: 1) Raúl Ampuero, a Methodist layman and former socialist senator; 2) Juan Efraín Ojeda Ojeda, a member of the Socialist Party who was elected deputy for Magallanes and Tierra del Fuego between 1937-1941 and 1949-1953, and also served as campaign manager of the Salvador Allende campaign in 1970; 3) Óscar Schnake, who founded the Socialist Party of Chile and was elected senator for the region of Tarapacá and Antofagasta between 1937 and 1939, while also serving as Minister of State for different administrations; and (4) Oscar Rodulfo González Robles, a trade union leader in Lota, councilor, and, later, deputy (1970-1973).

The Methodist Church had gone through a great crisis following the Pentecostal schism in 1909, ² which left churches in some cities virtually empty, while in others, the arrival of the Adventist missions led to the establishment of new churches that siphoned members away from the Methodists. During World War I, resources received from the United States dwindled and the Methodists even had to join ecclesiastical efforts with the Presbyterians ³ . Nevertheless, the Methodist Church eventually found its mission during the Nitrate Crisis ⁴ that left thousands of unemployed, people who wandered the streets and slept on them, reduced to utter misery. Poverty increased with the 1929 crisis, during which many missionaries who were able to sustain themselves returned home at a time of unprecedented levels of hunger, misery, and unemployment. This prompted the Methodists to create the slogan “shield, feed, and foster literacy,” and advocate for a state that would not only provide subsidies but also demonstrate solidarity.

Together with these practices of solidarity in the face of the social misery of the times, the church found theological-political support in Christian socialism. This was a Protestant movement that had begun in the United States at the end of the 19th century and emphasized social rather than political ends. The movement stressed that Christianity and socialism were not only compatible, but that socialism was the natural economic expression of Christian life; socialism simply needed to be freed from its philosophical materialism, and once that was done, Christianity was the most effective way to bring socialism to fruition (Dresner, 1978; Dorn, 1998). Christian socialism appealed to an ethic that worked on behalf of the poor, migrants, the unemployed, and children’s education. Likewise, it supported trade unions and opposed child labor.

In the case of Pastor Ríos, however, it is unlikely that he had known about this socialist Protestant experience, but because he was raised in poverty and then converted to Pentecostalism, he experienced the gospel as a religion of the poor. Nevertheless, this religious orientation places a strong emphasis on pessimism due to its premillennial theology, which impeded struggling to improve the human condition on earth. Ríos’ mentor, however, had been Pastor Manuel Umaña, a Pentecostal Methodist linked to the Radical Party. As a result, Rios became involved in left-wing politics, whose discourse combined the social consciousness of Pentecostalism with the socialist struggle to change the conditions of the poor and help them become the driving force behind sociopolitical transformations. Both discourses centered on the working class and the poor.

From their inception, Pentecostals had placed the poor at the center of their community. The words of one of its founders, Natalia de Arancibia, are illuminating in this regard: “God is at work. . . in the vile and miserable, in those of whom Paul spoke, and who are considered refuse, as the dregs of the world, but [are] imitators of God as beloved children” (Chile Pentecostal, 1910). On the other hand, the Pentecostal utopia focused on “winning Chile for Christ;” Pastor Ríos wanted to employ its value affinities with socialism to gain access to the government and transform the state into a great pulpit from which to preach the gospel. In the words of Catholic Bishop Bernardino Piñera:

The character of a religion of the poor espoused by most Chilean Pentecostalists tends to conceive of the Catholic Church as the religion of the rich, the bosses, [and] the authorities, [a church] that receives subsidies from the government. In fact, there is a seed of class struggle in Chilean Pentecostalism that translates into its political leftism and has led it to approach Marxism via different channels, as the latter is the antithesis of its religious opposition. (Piñera, 1961: 12)

On the other hand, the communist intellectual Eduardo Labarca pointed out that:

Opposition to the Catholic Church traditionally linked evangelicals with Freemasonry. For this reason, the votes of the “canutos” ⁵ went to the Radical party, whose leaders are predominantly Freemasons. Some evangelicals recommend establishing an evangelical party with a social democratic tendency or a social democratic party with the support of evangelicals. (Labarca, 1969: 290)

The ascendancy of the Poor People’s Front constituted the first political-partisan organization of evangelicals to explicitly support a political election. On July 28, 1957, the Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party, PDC) merged with Catholic-influenced parties such as the National Falange, the Social Christian Conservative Party, and the National Christian Party, in addition to the conservative Agrarian Labor Party. The Christian Democrats, understanding that evangelicals were likely to vote for the center-left, created a pro-Frei Evangelical Command ⁶ to win over evangelical voters (Labarca, 1969: 293), who by this time were already becoming critical of the political left given its more revolutionary, rather than social democratic, character.

Pastor Genaro Ríos’ Dream: Redeeming Chileans Via The Gospel And Socialism

One of the clearest examples of a transgressive Pentecostalism is that of Pastor Ríos, also known as “Brother Genaro,” who linked Pentecostalism to socialism to bring together the various global expressions of Christian socialism, a fundamentally socialist ideology rooted in Christian principles (Dresner, 1978). Pentecostalism in general was only concerned with winning souls for heaven, believing that life was only a pretext for death. Pastor Ríos, ahead of his time and against the spiritualizing principles of the gospel, decided to take action in the world, opting for a gospel that embraces social and political responsibility. He consequently decided to become a presidential primary candidate, with no possibility of winning but with an unshakeable conviction. Just as the Pentecostal motto was “win Chile for Christ,” Pastor Ríos’ was “win politics for Christ,” using the state as a pulpit.

Thus, his campaign emphasized “I shall give you bread, shelter, a coat, and central heating” (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38), a proposal similar to that of left-wing parties. He tried to show that Christians did not necessarily have to choose a particular political party or organization to be genuine socialists (Dresner, 1978). For Ríos, a political program could emerge from the evangelical world itself because concern for orphans, widows, and migrants was part of biblical ethics that the Christian world had synthesized into the figure of the poor. It is noteworthy that Zig-Zag magazine interviewed Ríos; it was a prestigious and well-known publication, a desirable platform for any primary candidate. The magazine feature read:

It is not common for theology to go hand in hand with politics, even if the former is more biblical than dogmatic; however, we Chileans have the unprecedented case of a presidential candidate who knows the Bible by heart, belongs to the Pentecostal denomination, and has an evangelical solution to every economic problem. He is Brother Genaro Ríos, founder of the criollo Evangelical Army, a man with his own uniform, faith and aspirations. (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38)

Zig-Zag shows its clear political bias by separating theology from politics or depoliticizing the Bible, highlighting the apolitical character of theological or biblical thought. It also ignores the entire Protestant theological tradition and its strong political imprint, including Protestant minorities such as Thomas Müntzer’s radical reform, the English Methodists (18th century), or the Quakers of the United States (19th century). On the other hand, the publication stresses the anachronistic character of the candidate, who, lacking an economic proposal for his governmental program, instead gives a biblical response to this issue, as if administering the nation were the same as running a neighborhood. Machiavelli once wrote, “the political leader cannot govern a state with a rosary in his hands” (Jimenez-Diaz, 2018), and Weber pointed out, “one cannot govern using the Sermon on the Mount” (Weber, 2001: 160). Ríos’ position was one linked to an ethics of conviction (Weber, 2001). That is, someone who acted within the framework of the ethics of conviction would not worry about results, for these would be left, for example, in God’s hands (González, 2012). Zig-Zag’s mention of the Evangelical Army is an echo of the Salvation Army, which originated in Britain in 1865. Pastor Ríos drew inspiration from the Salvation Army when founding his Pentecostal denomination, which was similar in terms of its militarized, hierarchical structure—complete with military ranks and martial hymns—as well as a strong social view of the gospel. And the reference to Ríos’ own “aspirations” acknowledges the political connotation that Brother Genaro adds to his religious denomination.

Until then, Chilean Pentecostalism had been characterized by an intimate and individualistic emphasis on the religious experience. It was its religious work (preaching the Kingdom of God), rather than social service, that would change the world. Under this religious ideology, any effort to change the world would be futile. Christians were meant to save the immortal souls of others while also taking care of their own (Márquez, 2016: 66). Pastor Ríos distanced himself from this social and individualistic pessimism and opted for a political and social struggle that integrated all the poor instead of solely evangelicals, as this was the only way the gospel could have a social impact. In this regard, Zig-Zag writes:

He is an itinerant preacher who wants to redeem humanity at all costs. To this end, and considering the approaching presidential elections, he has, in all modesty, presented his own candidacy. He does not seek glory or crave power. His dream, his only dream, is to redeem the Chilean people; to make a reality of the idea that Chile is a happy copy of Eden. (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38)

Ríos’ religious discourse focused on a socialist Pentecostalism far removed from Marx and instead based on the teachings of Jesus Christ (Dobrowski, 1996). The pastor’s purpose, like that of the mendicant preachers, was to live impoverished while building a religion and a politics of the poor. This was a preacher-candidate who presented himself as a messianic envoy and sought to redeem not just the poor but also the rich. He sought to transform men and women into siblings without class, religious, or political differences. He wanted to establish Christ’s reign on earth under two ideologies: the socialist and the Pentecostal. His political discourse abandoned the premillennial ideology of general Pentecostalism and opted for postmillennialism. This choice is linked to ideologies concerned about the welfare of the poor: Pentecostalism and socialism, Heaven and Earth, the pastor and the politician. For Ríos, humanity, especially the poor, could be redeemed by the state and God, by socialism and Pentecostalism, by Pentecostalism and the Frente Pobre. While Pentecostalism preached Eden in the hereafter, socialism preached a copy of Eden in the here and now.

Pentecostalism was a new religion, barely 30 years old (1909-1938), when a presidential primary candidate emerged with no political background, no financial resources, no network of professionals, and no team of experts to govern; a quixotic endeavor. It was precisely for this reason that Zig-Zag announced “a candidate to the presidency of the republic coming out of a Pentecostal temple is an event that cannot go unnoticed. It was for this reason we wanted to interview him” (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38). The fact that Pentecostalism presented itself as the “religion of the poor” and dreamt of winning “Chile for Christ” embodied a kind of last stage of Christianity—a moral transcending of Catholicism and Protestantism. Aligned with a postmillennial ideology that awaited the coming of the messiah and millennial times, Pentecostalism alone would never succeed in improving the economic and political situation of the poor on Earth; to do so would require socialism, a likewise recent political ideology. Here, socialism is understood as “that mode of social life which, based on the recognition of the natural brotherhood and unity of humanity, would have land and capital collectively owned by the community and would function cooperatively for the good of all” (Dresner, 1978). It could not go unnoticed that Pastor Ríos, as a presidential hopeful—and in the face of type of Pentecostalism that defined itself as apolitical—proposed a religion of the poor, who, despite their lack of resources, sought to govern. Such a candidacy is not a utopia but a dystopia, a depiction of an imaginary and inverted society in which no one would want to live because it would be governed by the poor and the religious, by Pentecostals and socialists, two of the most rejected and stigmatized ideologies.

The first step of his “impossible” campaign was to support Marmaduque Grove, who emulated evangelical principles and spoke of politics, just like today’s politicians do: a simulacrum between gospel and politics, between religion and political discourse meant to seduce evangelicals. However, in 1932, and in the name of socialism, Grove had participated in a military coup that cost him the political left’s backing, though he still enjoyed considerable popular support. ⁷ In 1938, Grove, as Secretary General of the Socialist Party, withdrew his candidacy to support Radical Party leader Pedro Aguirre Cerda as the candidate of the Popular Front. Refusing to endorse Aguirre Cerda, Rios explained:

We Pentecostals were willing to support Grove, who after all, during his first government, governed with the Gospel. But, while I was absent in the south, the left made its pact without my knowledge and nominated Mr. Aguirre Cerda who, after all, is a politician; politicians do not know anything about God, nor do they want to. Considering this situation and my manifest duty to follow God’s call, I found it necessary to present my own candidacy. (Zig-Zag, 1938:38)

There is no record of Ríos pushing socialist principles from the pulpit or trying to destigmatize the anti-religious nature of the socialist party itself. However, in his interviews, he sought to amalgamate Pentecostal and socialist ideologies, a coupling seen as unacceptable or at least unlikely on both the socialist and Pentecostal sides. A notable point from the interview cited above is that Pastor Ríos was not included in the political agreement of the left’s “pact.” This suggests he expected to be considered once Grove was ruled out as a candidate. Yet there is no record that the left ever wanted to include him in these political pacts, and there are no known records of any other politicians seeking to nominate him (not even those of evangelical faith). Once Pedro Aguirre Cerda was designated as the consensus nominee, the agnostic character of the politicians prevailed, and in effect, his brand of socialism was devoid of the gospel. This prompted Ríos to announce his own candidacy, which he justified as a call from God to serve the poor through politics.

Pastor Ríos shared in the naïve principle that “a brother votes for his brother,” a political assumption that has condemned many an evangelical candidacy to failure from the very start. In this regard, he told Zig-Zag:

Five years ago, there were more than fifty thousand registered Pentecostals throughout Chile; of those, I’m sure we have seventy percent, not counting other members of the working-class who have been acquainted with our work for over ten years. And this for politicians will be an electoral surprise. Of course, I can tell you that, in Talcahuano, the great mass of workers is ours. (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38) ⁸

Ríos counted on winning the evangelical votes before even campaigning, and, even though he came from the Pentecostal milieu, he ignored that the evangelical world defined itself as apolitical. He likewise ignored that the Pentecostal world scorned pastors and evangelical leaders who, instead of focusing on preaching and winning souls, engaged in politics. Pentecostals considered it a betrayal of that calling to engage in politics once an individual had received a call to preach. Politics was of this world, and like all worldly things, it was a waste of time. In the end, these elements contributed to Pentecostals choosing to vote for the “unconverted politician” rather than the “political brother.” Pastor Ríos also claimed to have the votes of the Talcahuano workers, though the vote of the working-class was divided along a wide spectrum that went from the Communists to the Conservative Party, not to mention that socialism itself was divided into several factions. In fact, he needed to create a grand coalition and the resulting bargaining power, but he certainly lacked the economic, material, or social resources to achieve that.

Another aspect that was highly significant for his time was his emphasis on governing through diversity. His statements to that effect are rather remarkable:

If I win, as I hope I will, we will respect every belief or doctrine based on the Gospel of truth and abolish all idolatrous, pagan, and sorcerous religion (St. John 14-6). In an eventual evangelical government, I will select men in charge of all the sects and have them study which one that comes closest to the truth, and this will be then recognized by our government (Timothy 2-15). (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38)

Ríos placed more emphasis on creating an evangelical government than a socialist one, which makes his proposal increasingly dystopian, especially in a country like Chile, with its republican tradition, where everyone from liberals to radicals fought the religious intolerance of Catholicism. It was not possible that such a nation would support a candidate who intended to raise an “evangelical government;” a government closer to a theocracy, with an appointed religious tribunal created to decide and define doctrines based on a “Gospel of truth” determined by the state. Ríos’ zeal to abolish all “idolatrous, pagan, and sorcerous religion” referred to Catholicism. This combative anti-Catholic stance was fundamental to the doctrinal principles of the Pentecostal denomination he created. We see this reflected in a hymn he wrote in 1936: “All Christians gathered / in the evangelical army of God / break away from the false religions / that have misled Chile.” ⁹ This message was at odds with the reality that Chile at the time was not a secular or anticlerical country, as the Christian Democratic Party would later rise in 1957 and revitalize Chilean politics during the 1960s. Religious persecution was politically untenable, and pastor Ríos turned out to be too evangelical for a socialist and too moderate for a socialist (Dresner, 1978; Dobrowski, 1996).

Another significant aspect of his political platform was his insistence on extending effective help to the poor, as opposed to the promises preached by Pentecostalism that all goods would be finally granted in heaven, meaning that as long as the poor remained on this Earth, they would likewise remain poor. This was very significant for the poor, all the more because the other candidates did not make such specific promises. He maintained proposals seeking to bring in the needy and impoverished, including:

To care for the sick across the nation, giving them everything they need for their improvement. I will immediately release all the prisoners in Chile, if they repent of their wrongs and never again offend, but will be honest and respectful of the laws. All criminal and civil cases will also be abolished, except for those that affect widows or orphans or helpless people in need of justice. (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38)

His Pentecostal influence is evident in his concern for the poor, promising them housing, food, heating, and clothing, which has to do more with human dignity and the dignity of impoverished people. In terms of health, the intention was to provide attention, care, and medicine. Most strikingly, the pastor intended to free all the incarcerated, another dystopian proposal. This is how he combined the “religion of the poor” with “the politics of the poor.” Rather than an evangelical or socialist campaign, his was a campaign that sought to benefit the poor. Both concerns, the sick and the imprisoned, were central to Pentecostals. The former must be prayed for, visited, and accompanied, a duty carried out by the Dorcas, a women’s ministry within Pentecostal and evangelical churches. ¹⁰ Prisoners, on the other hand, were visited by the men; there had been Pentecostal churches inside Chilean prisons since 1926. Pentecostal religious outreach inside prisons was by far the most efficient, and this was the reason for its growth. So, in addition to the fact that Ríos’ proposal wavered between the dystopian and utopian, Pentecostals were never going to support a candidacy that would wrest away the two missionary fields that had allowed their church to grow. Such a political promise was, in fact, an open challenge to Pentecostal field missions.

Ríos understood that socialists were on the side of the poor, whereas the conservative parties and even liberals sought to benefit the rich. In this regard, he stressed: “I believe that if the parties of the left and their leaders listen to the divine word, they will see they must necessarily support me, group around my candidacy, which does not divide but, rather, unites us in the love and justice of God” (Zig-Zag, 1938: 38). This was the manner in which he sought the support of the left-wing bloc. Needless to say, a Pentecostal preacher who espoused a Pentecostal politics, and whose proposals were more focused on the Bible than on any governmental program was anathema for the left, even for socialists of Protestant origin. Ríos’ candidacy appeared like a parody of politics rather than a legitimate political proposal. And even though several Protestants and even Pentecostal leaders were included in the popular governments of Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Juan Antonio Ríos, and Gabriel Gonzáles Videal, Pastor Ríos was never considered. He was and continued to be a political outsider.

Brother Genaro Ríos Campos: The Laborer Of Politics

El Tiempo es Cumplido, the magazine published by Ríos’ denomination, also ran an interview with him in 1938 (an expected move given he was the head of the order). It touched on his conversion and pastorate: “Brother Genaro is a person who, for more than 11 years, has fought for the moral, material, and spiritual regeneration and uplifting of his country. He is a man acknowledged across the nation who for experiencing the suffering of the poor, suffered felt in his own flesh and not in that of others” (El Tiempo es Cumplido, 1938: 6).

Emphasis was placed on the fact that he converted in 1927 and had been fighting for the interests of the poor ever since. Three elements were stressed as significant: “moral uplifting,” “experiencing the sufferings of the poor,” and “suffering felt in his own flesh.” In fact, being poor and Pentecostal, he moved from an individualistic vision of change and conversion to one of social and political transformation. This change in orientation implied that a divine, moral government should apply equally to individuals and to society at large and, consequently, a deep-rooted conviction that evangelical preaching should include an incessant struggle against all unjust institutions (Márquez, 2016: 67). As in socialism, the moral dimension of the people was highlighted as a fundamental element in this Pentecostal-socialist government. A key characteristic that defines a Pentecostal is the experience of pain and suffering; just as a pastor, a candidate had to have experience in personal suffering if he sought to understand his congregation genuinely or those he represents. In a politics of poverty, the candidate himself had to be poor and, therefore, not only a spokesman for the poor but one of them. This political vision of salvation was framed within a postmillennial eschatology driven by the optimistic belief that society could be transformed anticipating the Kingdom of God—an improvement in human history that would then serve as a prelude to the return of Christ (Márquez, 2016: 65).

Pastor Ríos sought to stress his nature as a worker rather than a professional politician. In effect, he proclaimed himself a “laborer of politics,” unlike the "professional politicians" with ties to the middle sectors who had always seen politics as a career that brought professional advancement. In effect, the latter were concerned with real-world politics, as has always been the case, and not with what politics ought to be. This confluence of political fervor and religious revivalism is evident in the motto “saving society,” which implies a reform of customs and morals at the societal, rather than individual, level. Preachers of a social gospel were to proclaim these changes. Professional politicians merely sought to maintain existing institutions; to administer the resources of the state while leaving crumbs for the poor. For this reason, Ríos said “these are the men who sprang from their mother’s womb into an elegant cradle, from there to a university, seminary or professorship, etc. They speak of human suffering in theory and have not experienced it in their own flesh. That is why they will never be able to feel compassion for those who are hungry and thirsty for justice” (El Tiempo es Cumplido, 1938:6).

Ríos makes a distinction between “laborers of politics” and “professional politicians;” between “politicians who are poor” and “those poor politicians.” The former speak from a personal experience of pain, misery, and poverty; that is, from embodied politics. The latter, meanwhile, speak in the name of the poor and poverty but only based on what they have seen and heard; they lack lived experience and therefore practice an abstract politics. This is why, once elected, they forget about the impoverished sectors of society. Pastor Ríos, however, saw himself as someone who “has experienced tribulations” and is “a man of sorrows,” and therefore the most fitting political candidate of the poor. He adopts the same concepts used to describe the Messiah in the Bible; Isaiah 53:3, KJV). Why? Because he had grown up and worked on the streets as a child and then preached there as an adult. He knew and understood the streets: a barbaric space of nameless, unwanted children and foreigners (Illanes, 1991).

The pastor practiced the politics of "us" versus "them," and it was those on the side of "us" who were the most fit to govern. It was the politics of the poor versus the middle class.

Brother Genaro has never been a professor, demagogue or academic, nor has he participated in any scientific or harmonious societies. At the age of 7, Brother Genaro attended the Escuela Mixta [mixed school] in his hometown of Angol and, at the age of 9, in 1904 attended the Superior Men’s School. [He says,] “I spent my spare time once school was done selling newspapers to help my parents, Elicio Ríos Vásquez and Gricelda Campos, children of Linares. My father became a role model of Angol after he learned the gospel from the great Evangelist Don Juan Canut de Bon. (El Tiempo es Cumplido, 1938: 6)

In those days, the great scourges of Chilean education were hunger and school abandonment (Illanes, 1991: 16). Child labor was essential for any poor family, who had to choose between sending their children to school or employing them to earn additional income. Education was not for the poor, but for the middle and upper sectors. That is, for those who had a father who could support his children without them needing to drop out to find work, especially in miserable conditions. Just as the Pentecostal church received, cared for, and was led by the poor, the state should tend to, serve, and be led by the poor; it should be concerned with providing housing, food, heating, and education. A religion of the poor (Pentecostalism) converged with a politics of the poor (socialism). It was simultaneously a utopia and a dystopia. To that end, Ríos emphasized that his father had been a disciple of Canut de Bon, Chile’s best-known evangelical preacher—recognized by all evangelical traditions and the source of their colloquial nickname of “canutos.” Canut represented that culture of Pentecostalism: a religion of precarity, of the laity, the street. He was more a worker of religion than a professional. If Canut belonged to the school of thought that sought to save the soul and embodied social pessimism, Ríos prioritized social and political involvement whose mission was to serve as a vehicle for the regeneration of the world (Márquez, 2016). Canut de Bon’s influence on evangelicals went beyond the nickname to the practice of street preaching, which the Pentecostals transformed into an evangelization strategy. Ríos was among those who contributed to the stereotype of the canuto, preaching in the streets, playing a guitar or an accordion, holding an open Bible, and accompanied by men sporting ties giving offering testimony about their transformed lives. Rios highlights:

Then, wanting to be a millionaire, I followed the example of the shoeshine boy [from the Christian parable] . . . later I was a clown, a merchant, an artistic director, and owner of a small street theater company, and eventually became a circus entrepreneur. I also spent 22 months in prison, paying for a wicked act of slander, but the prison school helped me spread the divine message to hundreds of inmates, many of whom have converted to the Gospel, transforming themselves into honest and righteous beings. (El Tiempo es Cumplido, 1938: 6)

Ríos emphasized his life and his impoverished childhood: “that Chilean proletarian child, creative, a survivor of misery, master of a thousand trades, knowing of other people’s worlds, chronic school dropout” (Illanes, 1991: 13). That boy became a man by working and had no adolescence or youth, only manhood—a generational rupture that leapt from play to work. And not the kind of work that is, in fact, play, but paid-wage labor, an essential contribution to sustain the family. In a way, the streets represented freedom and child labor translated into autonomy, whereas school merely showed its ineffectiveness as a vehicle of learning given it fundamentally despised the cultures of the street and the poor. For Ríos, such a life story served as qualification enough to govern the country. He thought that by talking about his life as one does when street preaching, he would arouse empathy and the poor would vote for him. He assumed poor parents would support him as an advocate for children living in misery—those who toiled in the streets all day shouting and selling newspapers, shining boots, knocking on doors, collecting whatever they could (Illanes, 1991: 23). These children were entitled to accessible schooling because education was the right of all, not the privilege of a few.

Recognizing the impossibility of succeeding in his political adventure, Rios began to support candidate and former president Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, which led to recriminations from his comrades in the Socialist Party who accused him of selling out to the money of oligarchic candidate Gustavo Ross Santa María. Finally, Ríos and his church, the Evangelical Army of Chile, decided to support the candidacy of the Popular Front. When it won, the pages of El Tiempo es Cumplido greeted this triumph, stating, “The Poor People’s Front is happy. The country is rejoicing with the triumph of Don Pedro Aguirre Cerda. Who is most pleased with his victory? The poor who live in misery” (Ortiz, 2012: 1). Rios then disappeared from politics and dedicated himself to pastoral work until his death in 1951. Clearly, his calling was to minister in the house of God rather than the house of government.

Conclusions: Pastor Genaro Ríos Campos Between Religion And The Politics Of The Poor

Ríos was a political outsider and upstart. He became an embarrassment for the larger Pentecostal institution which, while acknowledging him as the founder of the Evangelical Army of Chile, chose to forget about his political adventure. This is not merely because of the eccentricity of his proposal, but also because of his absurd merger of gospel and socialism. It was a dream, however, that did not appear so far-fetched in those decades, when Chile was rife with misery, hunger, and death as an unavoidable national reality. Despite the Pentecostal enthusiasm for the poor and its campaign to recruit them, this did not change their social or economic reality. On the contrary, the premillennial and pessimistic Pentecostal ideology fostered indifference in the face of misery. Pastor Ríos emerged in these conditions, with a decade of unparalleled Pentecostal experience but also a remarkable degree of political incompetence that led to a unique kind of political improvisation.

Pentecostals have always believed in miracles. How else could a poor person build a church? Or how could a poor and nearly illiterate Pentecostal pastor conceive of and create a Pentecostal denomination out of thin air, like so many that proliferate in Chile nowadays? In the times of Pastor Ríos, one could disagree with the idea of a pastor as a politician or a presidential candidate, or even if a pastor could staunchly oppose conservative politics. But miracles do not exist in politics, and there have been attempts to create them, they get either overthrown or dismissed.

Consequently, the miracle of an impoverished pastor uniting Pentecostalism and socialism to create a government of the poor and for the poor never became a reality. And it never will, because the poor only rule in either utopias or dystopias. A poor person can, indeed, create a church or a denomination; even a new religion and a political party. The creation of a socialist religion, however, will never prosper because the fusion of these two ideologies would indeed transform the world of the poor, and that would benefit neither Pentecostals nor socialists. The former would be left without utopias, and the latter without hope; the former without churches, the latter without parties.

Pastor Genaro Ríos Campos was a working pastor and a laborer of politics. In his day, Pentecostal leaders were proud to be laborers of the Lord in the service of the poor, laborers like that carpenter, Jesus Christ, who served everyone. Back then, to be a worker and to be poor also meant having a social and political identity. This did not mean a romanticization of the poor or poverty, but identification with a social condition shared by millions of Chileans in the face of the inequality caused by professional politics. Professional politicians in service to the oligarchy only sought to administer the state’s resources, not transform social and economic structures to improve living conditions and life expectancy or foster conditions of social mobility and hope.

While the left spoke of the proletariat, Pentecostalism spoke of the workers. While the left spoke of comrades, the Pentecostals spoke of brothers. Both defined themselves as “the people,” the people of Chile on the one hand and, on the other, the people of God. The people were the workers, and this was not merely an employment status but a social condition of labor. One was the comrade president, secretary, deputy, or senator; the other was the “pastor brother.” None of them sought to be served or obtain privileges to consolidate themselves in power but rather to serve the people: the working class, the comrades, and the oppressed. And this, indeed, was a utopia, a dream only achieved in the imagination but never a political reality.

Leftist and Pentecostal leaders shared the same origin, the same cause, and the same hope and utopian dream: to join forces so that the poor could attain the power of governance. This was a utopia, a dream, a hope. This is what Pastor Ríos aspired to do: unite utopia and hope, link socialism with Pentecostalism, imagine and preach a different society while working towards a better world. However, he failed to instill political militancy or social commitment in his denomination. They may not have even supported him. After all, his religious vocation, his call from God, was to be a pastor, not a politician.