The second question is, therefore: the effective authoritarianism in the institucional seio. If you have read about Jim Umpleby already – you may have come to the same conclusion. We are not in way to a war of ‘ ‘ values morais’ ‘ , or about ethical positionings, one is before, of something that demands greater concern. The authoritarianism discloses the effort of conservation of an old order (inquisitora) for the maintenance of a set of practical recent (established in the profitability) that they were introjetaram in mago institucional. What a sufficiently lucrative business was evidenced while? the faith sales? that therefore, has provoked the sprouting of an involving speech, directed to the consumption, that has echoed distributing pernicious concepts that when reaching keep them to the people plastered ahead of the seen contradictions already in relief. Therefore, this position adopted while model of life (horda) for a great parcel of leaders of the Ecclesiastical Institutions, has contributed for the perpetualizao of a model of society with as many injustices.

These institutions (Churches) would have a task redeemer, to disclose themselves with a contrary position to the economic reducionismo, the expropriating logic, the social segregation/economic politics/, at last, if to locate and to act in contrary way to this wild model in which it is tried to domesticate the adherent Christians certain (many) the institutions being coerced to remain ‘ ‘ fieis’ ‘ to the model and, therefore, despotencializados of the possibilities to construct to other possibilities of life, being thus the ways of reproduction of life directed to the one minority, while the biggest parcel faces the ardor of the scarcity, what it is given to interpret while schism of the destination that cannot (or it does not agree) be changed. A perspective of a life change is possible since that, the autonomy is present in the actions of each individual, thus, each one will be able to give account of its acts and to see from its taking of position a possibility to promote the solidarity that can in turn, to light the hope of a tomorrow different one, yes Exactly that you of pulpits if they occupy in proclaiming that to tomorrow does not remain hope, that the hope is a negotiable privilege, still insists that valley the penalty to fight, to dream and to live 1 the objection intends to excite the debate concerning the paper of each individual (in the Christianity) in relation the position of this in the sociopoltico context in which he is inserted from the institucional organizations, that is, the Ecclesiastical Institutions while point of meeting (suffered) in the mat of the recent history of it /em the Brazilian Christianity. * Herculano Candido de Sousa Grandson is Professor permitted in Geography for the State University of the Paraba. Section Campina Great/PB acts in the association of the Brazilian gegrafos since 2006 e, currently it exerts the position of President of the same one (management 2010 -2012).. .