The Most Important Debate in Cuba Happening Today: Christians and Politics (Part 2)

(Read Part 1)

In the current controversy in Cuba about Christians and political participation, there is a central element — one key to interpreting political participation from the perspective of the faith community under Castroism — that features prominently in my book, “Hoz y Cruz” (Sickle and Cross). The church can be understood in a dual, albeit inseparable, manner: as an institution and as a body of members (a concept I failed to consider when I wrote the book at the age of 21).

Both facets are subject to the pressures of circumstance, facing distinct Swords of Damocles hanging over their heads. And while some individuals call upon the church-as-institution to speak out in favor of Cuba’s freedom, the church-as-members has, in fact, been doing so consistently for years. At certain moments, one form takes precedence over the other. The former — the institution — took the lead during the MoCE; the latter — the members — has taken the lead since 2025, coinciding with the boom in evangelical influencers.

Addressing this very distinction, the Western Cuba Baptist Convention (CBCOcc) issued a statement that helped settle part of the controversy. In it, the Convention acknowledged the legitimacy of a Christian seeking political change for the good of the nation whenever the prevailing system or government is deemed “dysfunctional, counterproductive, and failed.” In other words, the statement points to the church-as-members.

The text — which was aimed primarily at the faith community itself — affirmed that many believers had begun to question the church’s role as a public voice in the face of the grave national crisis.

It defended the work of the congregations, underscoring their continued presence on the island as an act of commitment and service to the Cuban people, while dismissing criticisms alleging inaction in the face of social hardship.

The Convention’s president — and a signatory to the statement — Bárbaro Abel Marrero, explained to the press that he had drafted the communiqué in response to what he described as an “internal struggle between two differing views regarding what the Church ought to do.” Specifically: what the church-as-institution ought to do.

While “a significant group” held the view that the institution should issue a formal political stance, others recognized that every individual has the right to hold their own personal opinion. “But if brothers and sisters within the congregations begin attacking one another, I do not believe that is healthy for the Church,” Marrero admitted.

The CBCOcc had become the epicenter of the controversy mentioned in this article — precisely because several of the most influential figures in the public sphere held dual roles as both members and leaders within the organization. Ivan Daniel Calás (with over 31,000 followers on Facebook), for instance, served as a youth leader at a local church in Havana, while David Espinosa (with over 30,000) served as a youth pastor at another.

I know from firsthand accounts that internal complaints arose from certain members who did not agree with the public profile projected by these two individuals. One such case even escalated to the leadership level.

Marrero emphasized that the church’s primary mission was not to serve as a political voice, but rather to preach the gospel. His own pastoral record stood as a testament to this principle.

In November 2021 — before he had assumed the presidency of the CBCOcc — he publicly condemned the harassment carried out by pro-Castro mobs against the family of a political prisoner and an independent activist. It is abundantly clear that Marrero is not a man who idolizes the Revolution.

Yet, by 2026 — now at the helm of the denomination — he understood that his words would no longer be interpreted merely as those of an individual member church, but rather as those of the church as an institution: the institution charged with the mission of reaching every Cuban, and over which hang various distinct “swords of Damocles.”

The CBCOcc’s statement had a largely positive effect on the public discourse — which continued for weeks — by giving voice to two legitimate, yet conflicting, positions. Personally, I believe both viewpoints were reflected with fairness and balance in the document — free, at last, from the labels of “opportunists” or “zealots” that had been flying across social media, threatening to fracture the unity of Cuba’s beleaguered yet resilient evangelical community.

The Reconstruction of Cuba according to Nehemiah

Pastor Darlon Bermúdez, who leads a church in Santiago de Cuba, had already garnered public attention in recent months for the humanitarian work he and members of his congregation had undertaken. Amidst the controversy, the young Methodist shared his thoughts on the island’s “spiritual and physical reconstruction,” drawing parallels with the events in Jerusalem recounted in the Book of Nehemiah.

“There are moments when a nation is affected not only in what is visible but also in its internal structure; and that is precisely what happened in the days of Nehemiah: the walls were in ruins, the gates burned, and the people in disgrace. It was not merely a construction problem; it was a problem of spiritual state — of direction, of identity,” he wrote.

Contemporary Cuba, he noted, presents parallels: “a nation that has suffered for years and that requires something more than merely human solutions.”

“But God does not work only with those on the inside; He also raises up people on the outside. Nehemiah was not in Jerusalem; he was in another land. Yet God was molding him there, granting him grace and access,” Bermúdez observed. “I firmly believe that there are Cubans in exile who are not abroad by mere chance, but because God is preparing them. He is granting them wisdom, imparting understanding, and tending to their hearts — for on the day they return, they will not come back as the same people; they will return bearing a specific assignment.”

In the pastor’s view, when that moment arrives, it will not be a mere “migratory return”; it will be a movement guided by God. “People sharing the same bloodline and a deep love for their homeland — yet now endowed with a clear vision, and with the Lord’s grace resting upon them to initiate the work of restoration,” he affirmed. “Some may even find themselves in positions within the government — not out of personal ambition, but because God opens doors whenever He seeks to establish order.”

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.