Ph.D. Student, Cultural Studies
Claremont Graduate University
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Let me ask you a question.
In January, at the District Leadership Conference held in Louisville, Kentucky, someone asked me, “Do you think there will be a day when there will no longer be a need for Spanish speaking churches in the Church of the Nazarene here in the United States?” The question was a genuine and sincere inquiry; nevertheless, it undoubtedly has severe ethical implications for our denomination. I appreciate the question not necessarily for its content, but for its form. By this I mean that although the text of the question is complex and problematic, the form was more or less neutral. Yet, the question hints at silent considerations and practices at the district level, the local church, and/or by individual church members.

I began my response with a brief historical frame of Latin Americans in the United States, and foreground it by briefly contextualizing the historical acculturation of Others (I will explore this term in more detail later) in the history of the United States. Regrettably, the historical acculturation of Others in the U.S. often begins with discrimination and prejudice. Whatever the social and economical implication of a new group becoming part of the work force and other social spaces, discrimination of new immigrants in the United States is an irrefutable historical practice. This historical standard was more pronounced for Eastern and Southern Europeans, not to mention people of African and Asian descent. This is where the term “White” enters quotidian language and U.S. political practice. After a group settled and new groups entered established communities, Brits ceased to be English; Germans ceased to be German; Irish ceased to be Irish; Scotts ceased to Scotts; Poles ceased to be Polish and so forth. As immigrants entered and explored these new social spaces, each one of these nation/ethnic groups acculturated and amalgamated quickly understanding that being Other was disadvantageous. An accent, symbols of culture, and other cultural practices were markers of being outsiders – by cultural definition “non-American.” For the most part, people of European descent were homogenized which in turn engendered Americans /or “White” people. After all, people of European descent were oceans away from their homelands, their culture, their language and all the things, which affirmed their ethnic and cultural identity. In this process of homogenization, immigrants are historically and culturally oppressed and often unable to generate and/or sustain means by which to acknowledge, affirm and thus perpetuate their unique culture and cultural identity. For the purposes of this text, the above history is meant to be brief and oversimplified and is not meant to imply an entire erasure of memory or heritage, but it is meant to underscore the erasure of practice. As Christians, we know that culture is not only a label with which to identify, but it is a doing – a practice. Being a Christian means being in an intimate relationship with Christ and choosing to live one’s life His way.

The immigration process for Latin Americans in the U.S. is multifaceted. It varies from state-to-state, national-origin, national politics and economics. Nevertheless, it is critically important to underscore that the acculturation process for Latin American communities in the U.S. is significantly different than the European model. In order to explore this difference, it is essential to note that every nationality in the American continent goes by their national name – Canadian, Mexican, Guatemalan, Costa Rican, Peruvian, Chilean, Brazilian, etc., etc. Conversely, people from the United States identify themselves as “American” forgoing a national name – i.e. “United Statians.” Appropriating the term “American” as an indentifier of people born in the U.S., constructs a linguistic quandary, which in many ways premises the question I was asked. Who then is an American?

Latin Americans do not become Americans, because they are Americans at the time of their birth. Latin Americans today inhabit the continent of their birth. For Americans of Mexican descent, in particular, the South West represents their homeland. They continue to inhabit their historical lands, a space they never left and never “came to,” but are atavistically relegated the label of foreigner and alien to the land of their ancestors. Although, many in Latin America refer to “white” people born in the United States as Americanos and a popular colloquial phrase - “gringo,” it is imperative to note that the Spanish language offers a distinct name for people born in the U.S. regardless of ethnic and cultural background: Estadunidenses. Thus, in Spanish, the linguistic quandary disappears and an American identity is liberated from the confines of U.S. national borders.

As we redefine terms, it is also imperative to underscore that language is a powerful and distinctive identifier. Culturally, language constructs attachments, connections, warmth and social value. Even within the Latin American communities, each nationality has its own colloquialisms, thus forming sub-cultural intimacy from the Latin American community at-large. Spanish and other linguistic constructions of affinity affirm one’s cultural identity and serendipitously ensure cultural endurance and retention. Access to Spanish media (television, newspapers, and radio), foods, language, and family without having an ocean or a continent of separation has facilitated a continuous cultural attachment to heritage. Ultimately, these media and this contact represent an affinity to one’s primary culture and language.

Although the question was asked in a casual and informal social setting, the question is not an uncomplicated one. Thus, I believe God facilitated this encounter, and I believe He has a message for us as individuals and as a denomination. I must preface the remainder of this piece by noting that I am not the only voice, nor the exhaustive voice, nor the idiosyncratic voice for Latin American communities within the Church of the Nazarene. Nevertheless, I am a voice. Thus, after prayerful consideration, I’d like to explore three foundational suppositions enveloped within the question. Again, as we begin our dialogue, we must engage each of these suppositions honestly and with much prayer. I have framed these suppositions as questions, because I believe we (as a denomination) must engage them dialogically and not as fixed and inflexible: 1) Is assimilation a church practice or even a silent but clear referendum? 2) Are Latin American churches (and/or people of color and other languages) adjunct ministries within the context of the Church of the Nazarene in the United States? 3) Is the English/Anglo-American church the center and standard of the Church of the Nazarene in the United States?

God spoke to Jeremiah and said, “You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid…I have put my words in your mouth… to build and to plant." – Jeremiah 1:7-10¹

Is assimilation a church practice or even silent but clear referendum?

Cultural assimilation is a critical topic, for it is more than acquiescence to social acceptance. It is an incorporation, which regrettably ensures the erasure of something or someone in the merger. Some historians argue that assimilation most engenders “scraps of history.” Thus, acculturation and assimilation do not represent a hybrid or mosaic. Assimilation is a digestive process, which engenders a homogenized mass. Thus, within the context of a dominant Anglo-American discourse, if one has assimilated, displaying any symbol or vestige of the former is tantamount to national treason. During the May 1, 2006 marches for immigrant rights, many were outraged that some of the protesters waved Mexican flags alongside U.S. flags. Waving the Mexican flag was interpreted as a symbol of insurgency, a sign “these immigrants” were not “Americans” or proud and thankful of the country they inhabit. For many, it represented a lack of interest to assimilate. Thus, the construction of a social binary in which it is not permissible to love the country of one’s birth and the country one inhabits. If one were to apply this incongruous sociological logic in other areas, one must relinquish all love for one child as soon as another is welcomed into the family.

Historically, immigrants learn to identify those practices, which interrupt and hinder social acceptance. They must adapt quickly. For an immigrant child, the aggression of assimilation is magnified. The rule of assimilation is to relinquish one’s language and practices with urgency. One’s social survival depends on these social negotiations. For example, participation in summer camp for children from Latin American churches within Anglo-American districts, an ordinary and uneventful exercise of summer things to do, may translate into an intimidating prospect. By definition, Anglo-American district camps reflect their majority. Generally, most campers mirror the majority (as well as campers and staff), have established relationships, will encounter familiar foods, will sing known songs and are more likely to have attended previous camps. Unwittingly, the experience of assimilation is favored as the easiest and most cost effective as some may debate the logistical nightmare of managing a multilingual and multicultural camp experience. Readily, for those planning, English becomes the privileged common denominator. Reasoning that the majority of youth are English speaking, most are born in the U.S. and most will feel more comfortable with English, English becomes the privileged common denominator even within the context of “ethnic districts.”

Within the Anglo-American nationalistic discourse, it is hard to envision immigrant groups who deliberately resist full-acculturation. Latin American communities vary in structure, function and culture. However, their resistance is manifest in their will to maintain and privilege the Spanish language. And although some succumb to English as primary language, Cuban communities in Southern Florida, Mexican communities in Southern California, Chicano communities in the Southwest and Dominican and Puerto Rican communities and churches all represent a Latin-American oppositional stance to assimilation vis-à-vis retention of their language. It is not an “anti-American positioning,” because these three communities are by definition American communities. Nonetheless, the retention of language and culture are an affirmation of a proud Latin-American identity.

Cultural privileging is not just about language and food at camp. It occurs at District Assemblies, when those elected to position of leadership – department chairs, delegates, representatives – most often reflect the majority. Cultural privileging is not static to local churches, camps, and district leadership. Respectfully, I submit that cultural privileging occurs even at General Assembly. Although General Assembly represents a time of celebration and unification for our denomination, holding General Assembly within the context of the United States, effortlessly privileges U.S. Anglo-American culture. And although I am certain there have been debates and previous observations of this fact, regrettably these inadvertent practices engender the same deference and privilege.

Are Latin-American (and/or people of color and other language) churches adjunct ministries within the context of the Church of the Nazarene in the United States?

Although we know that U.S. Census is taken every 10 years, it is easy to forget that the U.S. Census Bureau is an office within the U.S. Department of Commerce and has more functions than the 10-year census alone. Specifically, the U.S. Census Bureau facilitates the American Community Survey (ACS), which collects data every year in order to provide current and often shifting information of the population: age, race, income, commute time, home values, etc. Every three years, ACS selects millions of homes to survey from every county in the United States. These surveys produce hundreds of data sets, which one can readily access on line (i.e. www.factfinder.census.gov). In terms of engaging the question of whether Latin American (and other non-English speaking) ministries lie at the periphery within the landscape of the Church of the Nazarene in the United States, the ACS serves as an extraordinary resource. According to the 2006-2008 ACS 3-Year Estimates, the U.S. population reflects a 53.4% foreign born population. As a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico is included in this percentage. Although the amalgamation of Puerto Rico in this 53.4% national percentage may skew the perspective for some, a closer look at the data may present a more clear view.

Of the cities partaking of the survey, over 74 Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas or cities reflect a foreign born population of over 50%, and many more cities of those reporting near the 50% margin: Albuquerque, New Mexico reflects a 73% foreign born population; Boise City/Nampa, Idaho chimes in at 53.8%; Winston/Salem, North Carolina at 74%; Kansas City, MO/KS Metro at 49.7%. The reality is that the U.S. was built and formed as a foreign born nation: from the Mayflower, to the San Francisco Bay, to Ellis Island, to the present. Perhaps what is most alarming about today’s demographic shifts is that foreign-born populations have not altogether relinquished their culture. Of the foreign-born Latino population, 42.5% have become naturalized citizens of the United States while 57% are not citizens. This 57% reflects two distinct groups: 1) permanent residents who have legal status, a social security card and are able enter and exit the U.S. at their leisure; 2) the undocumented who have no legal status, no rights and little social mobility. It is important to understand and underscore that within a single Latin American household, you will have four legal distinctions represented within the family: 1) those born on U.S. soil; 2) naturalized citizens; 3) legal residents; 4) undocumented. Of these families, over 85% prefer to speak Spanish (and/or other languages) at home even when they are proficient in English. Latin Americans speak English at work and at school, but when they get home they chose to speak Spanish. Latin Americans opt for Spanish at home and many in their worship. Consequently, this is reflected in the composition of our Latin-American churches and ministries in the U.S.

To fully begin to understand the impact of these data, one must underscore that the Latino population is a young population. Over 69% of the Latin- merican foreign born population is between the ages of 18-54 with a median age of 40. Overwhelmingly, the Latino population represents a nuclear family (married-couple family) at 62.9%. Additionally, the Latin American population (specifically those who are 25 years and over) are achieving educational attainment (some college to graduate and professional degrees) at a rate of 44.6%. As the young population continues to increase its higher educational attainment, it will consequently decrease the disadvantageous present income differential. According to the survey, only 29.4% of Latin-American foreign-born families make more than $50,000 a year.

Not only is the population young, birth rates are astounding. By 2002, twenty-three percent of all people born in the U.S. had a foreign-born mother. One of every ten U.S. births was to a woman born in Mexico. Note that this 23% includes mothers who have become naturalized citizens, who are permanent residents, those who are undocumented and immigrants from all over the world (not only Latin Americans). The Center for Immigration Studies cited that “the country had not seen as comparatively as large a share of its children born to immigrants since 1910, when the proportion reached 22 percent.” Again, this historical citation by the Center for Immigration Studies reiterates the fact that the U.S. is an immigrant nation. Nevertheless, what does this mean for the denomination? What does it mean for ministries within the U.S. for both Anglo-American and ethnic districts? One thing is certain, the population does not reflect marginal or peripheral status; no doubt the demographics are shifting daily. With the 2010 Census at our doorstep, who knows what the numbers will reflect?

Is the English/Anglo-American church the center of the Church of the Nazarene in the United States?

Earlier I noted that I would provide more detail on the use of Other. I employ Other referencing a political term within the academic discipline of Cultural Studies and political theory, more specifically within subaltern studies. In “Can the subaltern speak?” Gayatri Spivak theorizes the tendency of dominant discourses and institutions to marginalize and disempower the Third World 'subaltern. ' She examines the ethics and politics of Othering within the context of English colonization in India. India’s native population became Other despite being the native people to the land. The English were the dominant culture and political authority and applied the term to anyone outside the center. Essentially, Other came to imply a non-belonging even within your own land. Other is systematically relegated to the periphery and excluded from the dominant political discourse. To assimilate, amalgamate, homogenize, one must forgo one’s Otherness. If one becomes like, then one’s ethnic identity is obsolete, essentially becoming erased. This Othering process deserves mention because it contextualizes the question I was asked: Will the need for Spanish-speaking churches in the United States become obsolete?

California is one of the most populous and diverse states in the nation, yet there are striking manifestations of Othering in District-to-District and church-to-church interactions. The Othering process not only represents a cultural or linguistic difference; the process bears an economical power differential. Many cities in California, like many cities across the United States, have experienced white-flight or the departure of “Whites” from urban neighborhoods or schools as minority populations increase. Although there is much to explore about this sociological practice, I will not speak to the injustice and lamentable significance of such practice within the content of this text. Nevertheless, it has of course left many church buildings virtually empty. In some California cities, Spanish-speaking congregations (specifically from the Western Latin American District) have existed parallel to Anglo-American ministries within city limits in much smaller and humble buildings. Yet, a conversation of how to transition those buildings from an Anglo-American ministry to a diverse ministry (Latin-American, Asian-American, and/or African-American) is rarely had between districts. Although various scenarios play out, they often yield the same result. Sometimes districts allow 8-10 people of the Anglo-American congregation to remain in order to keep the building complex. In one city, we witnessed an English-speaking congregation build a brand new building only to have it sit empty for years, because the neighborhood experienced white-flight and the Anglo-American congregation dwindled. This Anglo-American church and district did not engage a Nazarene Spanish speaking ministry, which was less than two miles away, with a much smaller church building and much larger congregation to dialogue or collaborate. One of the members from the English-speaking congregation brought up the idea to a member of the Spanish-speaking congregation, but ultimately felt they had no authority to broker such an idea. Sometimes districts maintain an Anglo-American pastor as the senior pastor and begin a Latin-America ministry – rarely the other way around. When Nazarene congregations share a church complex, Anglo-America pastors will often prevent Latin-American Nazarene ministries from using the sanctuary even when the Anglo-American congregation constitutes a much smaller number and when alternative times for use have been proposed. Even when a rental agreement exists to rent a space between congregations (usually the fellowship hall), Anglo-American churches consistently displace the Latin-American congregations for their events. At other times, districts opt to sell the property to the highest bidder regardless of denominational ties even when a congregation does not yet exist to up-start a new church elsewhere. These observations do not reveal empirical data, they are however case-studies of the function of real estate within the Church of the Nazarene. These case-studies are not indicative of the entire denomination, but the practice is manifest and ubiquitous in one of the most diverse states in the nation.

In terms of rental agreements, I understand the need to legalize an agreement for the use of property; yet, it is here where the Othering process takes place. A business hierarchy is constructed within the Church and rarely broken for Christian fellowship. One part of the church is owner and most often Other is renter. One is center and one is Other and thus subject to the center. Historically, I can contextualize the acquisition of property by Anglo-American churches within a time frame when Latin-Americans and other people of color had limited access to purchase real estate of any kind much less within certain neighborhoods. I acknowledge the efforts of members (Anglo-Americans, Latin-Americans, etc.) of yesteryear and the struggles they endured to raise church buildings. Conversely, most current Anglo-American pastors and district superintendents had little if anything to do with the purchase and acquisition of the majority of existing church buildings yet they benefit from the efforts of those before them. “Ownership” and “control” of church buildings is a visual and financial representation of the Anglo-American church as center. Occasions of less problematic transitions from Anglo-American congregations to Latin-America/African-American/Asian-American congregations occur, unfortunately, they are occasional at best.

It is true that there are economic differentials and disadvantages for Latin-American churches as they continue their work with undocumented, disenfranchised, low-income congregations. However, Latin-American communities are not only growing in number, they are changing. This financial differential will decrease as more Latin-Americans have access to higher education. And, as it does, the Church of the Nazarene must consider how well they’ve cultivated the up and coming professionals within Latin-American churches. Perhaps, it has disenfranchised them. Throughout this piece, I did not dedicate any space to Latin Americans who have opted to serve or attend English speaking/Anglo-American congregations. There is much to be said about the sociological, political and cultural dynamics, which collide in this negotiation. No doubt, there are Latin Americans who are called by God to serve/attend Anglo-American ministries. Yet, there are many more who default to Anglo-American ministries for political and financial reasons and yet others because they have embraced the ideology that “White” is the center.

This brief writing is meant to engage the question I was asked and begin to deconstruct the silent ideology hidden behind the expressed inquiry. I do not have all the answers and do not have the abilities to forge new ways of thinking in others. All I can do is plant seeds, do what God has called me to do and wait on Him. So, I wait…