Mañana TheologyThe Challenge of U.S. Hispanic Theology for Theological Education

in the 21st Century

Marc Cortez Western Seminary

Paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society Portland, OR April 3, 2004

INTRODUCTIONThe title of this paper, Mañana Theology, is taken from the title of Justo

González’s recent systematic theology Mañana: Christian Theology from a Hispanic Perspective.1 For González mañana (tomorrow) is an eschatological concept referring to a perspective that provides hope for an often marginalized and oppressed community and a prophetic judgment on the systemic realities that enable that marginalization and oppression.2 In this paper, though, I will use the term to point to the significance of U.S. Hispanic theology for the “tomorrow” of theology in the United States.3

It would be difficult to have been present in the United States during the last three decades without noticing the growing presence of the Hispanic community, particularly in the south and the west as well as such key cities as New York and Chicago.4 Many people are unaware that the United States is currently the fifth largest Spanish-speaking

1 Justo L. González, Mañana: Christian Theology from a Hispanic Perspective. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. 2 We will look more closely at eschatology as a prominent theological locus for Hispanic theology in a later section. 3 Over the years a variety of labels have been proposed for describing the Hispanic population (e.g., Hispanics, Latinos, Latinos/as, U.S. Hispanics/Latinos/as, Chicanos, Spanish-speaking, etc.). Although ‘Hispanic’ is the term most commonly used by churches and government agencies, popularized through its use by the Census Bureau, many scholars and theologians object to its “almost exclusive emphasis on Spain’s legacy as the defining element of U.S. Latino/a cultures” and therefore as “historically inaccurate, unjustified, and misleading” (Orlando O. Espín and Miguel H. Díaz, From the Heart of Our People: Latino/a Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999] 261-262). Nonetheless, a recent survey of registered voters indicates that although Latinos most commonly refer to themselves by place of origin (e.g., Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, etc.), 65% of Latinos prefer ‘Hispanic’ as a pan-ethnic term while only 30% prefer ‘Latino/a’ (De La Torre, Introducing Lation/a Theology, 15-16). Nonetheless, as Roberto Goizueta notes: “There is no consensus among persons of Latin American origin in the United States regarding the most appropriate umbrella term” and it is most likely the case that “no single term is adequate” (U.S. Hispanic Theology and the Challenge of Pluralism, xxv, n. 1). Although I will generally favor one common term (U.S. Hispanic) as most clearly and concisely indicating Latinos/as regardless of specific language proficiency who currently reside in the U.S., I will follow the practice of many U.S. Hispanic theologians and the U.S. Census Bureau by using Hispanic and Latino/a interchangeably The Hispanic Population, 1, n. 3). By limiting the options to these two terms I am following the common practice of avoiding ‘Latino’ as unnecessarily gender oriented and Chicano/a as referring primarily to Mexican-Americans.4 In 2002, 44.2 % of Hispanics lived in the West, 34.8 % in the South, 13.3 % in the Northeast, and 7.7 % in the Midwest (Robert R. Ramirez and G. Patricia de la Cruz, The Hispanic Population in the United States: March [ US Census Bureau, June 2003 <www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-545.pdf > March 27, 2004] 2).

1

country in the world.5 With a population of 38.8 million the Hispanic community now comprises 13.5% of the U.S. population and constitutes the largest minority group in the United States.6 Not only is it the largest but it is also the fastest growing segment of the population. Between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2002 the Hispanic population grew 9.8 % easily outpacing the overall population growth of 2.5 % and comprising fully one-half of the overall population increase during that time period.7 At this pace, the Census Bureau projects that by 2010 the Hispanic community will have grown to 47.8 million (15.5 %) and by 2050 it is expected that they will number over 102.5 million or nearly one quarter of the overall population and nearly half the size of the non-Hispanic white population.8

The Hispanic community has not only grown significantly with respect to its demographic situation but it has also grown in terms of its theological contributions. The last three decades of the twentieth century saw a marked increase in both secular and theological scholarship as U.S. Hispanics began exploring their reality and its theological implications. Given the significance of this burgeoning population, their growing theological voice could become one of the most significant theological developments in the first part of the twenty-first century. In this paper, we will therefore consider some of the issues raised by the growing theological presence of the Hispanic community and the implications that this development has for evangelical theological education in the twenty-first century.

I will approach this task in two main parts. In the first part, I will summarize of U.S. Hispanic theology as a distinct theological perspective by briefly reviewing the three periods of its historical development and then considering its primary methods and sources. In the second part I will examine the current state of theological education with respect to U.S. Hispanic theology. In this section I will (1) summarize demographic information about Hispanic student and faculty involvement in American theological schools; (2) consider information provided by a recent survey of Hispanic leaders suggesting several weaknesses in American theological education; and (3) make some suggestions for moving forward with Hispanic theological education in the twenty-first century. Through this study we will see that although U.S. Hispanic theologians have begun to develop a theological perspective that is well worth listening to and may prove to be one of the driving theological forces of this century, American schools of theology are not yet succeeding in their attempts to meet this new development. 5 Behind Mexico, Spain, Argentina, and Columbia. 6 According to the Census Bureau, the population of the United States that is “Black or African American alone or in combination with some other race” numbers 38.3 million or 13.3% of the population (cf. Census Bureau press release issued on June 18, 2003 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-100.html> March 27, 2004). Many argue that even this estimate of the Hispanic population is too low and point to a history of underestimations by the Census Bureau with respect to Hispanics including their failure to adequately account for undocumented Hispanics working in the country (cf. Ana María Díaz-Stevens and Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, Recognizing the Latino Resurgence in U.S. Religion: The Emmaus Paradigm [Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998] 14-20). This number also does not include the population of Puerto Rico even though it is a commonwealth of the United States although it does include Puerto Ricans living in other parts of the country. 7 Ibid. Just over half (54%) of this growth was from immigration while the rest was the result of natural growth (Ibid.).8 Unless otherwise noted, all census data is taken from the U.S. Census Bureau as reported at www.census.gov on March 28, 2004. Even these projections may well turn out to be far too low as Hispanic population growth in the last several decades has consistently outstripped such projections (cf. Luis G. Pedraja, Teología : An Introduction to Hispanic Theology [Nashville: Abingdon, 2003] 40).

2

THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. HISPANIC THEOLOGY

The Rise of U.S. Hispanic TheologyThe rise of U.S. Hispanic theology can be viewed as taking place in three stages:

background, foundation, and development.9 During the background stage (1946-1972), a number of post-WWII changes (e.g., urbanization, immigration, etc.)10 in the Hispanic community brought about a number of secular responses (e.g., César Chávez’s United Farm Workers, more militant Hispanic groups like the Brown Berets and La Raza Unida, the Chicano movement, the Latino studies movement, and the Puerto Rican nationalist movement) and ecclesiastical responses (e.g., PADRES, las Hermanas, the Division for the Spanish Speaking, and the Hispanic-American Institute). While these groups primarily served to meet social and economic needs, they laid the groundwork for later theological developments.

These theological developments begin in earnest with the 1972 founding of the Mexican-American Cultural Center (MACC) by Virgilio Elizondo which initiated the foundational stage of U.S. Hispanic theology (1972-1990).11 During this phase most of the foundational ideas and methodologies were developed (many of them by Elizondo) and the several key theological organizations were founded.12

The final phase, the development phase (1990-present), has witnessed a publishing ‘boom’ as the second and third generations of Latino/a theologians have

9 The roots of U.S. Hispanic theology stretch beyond the Spanish ‘discovery’ of America to include the religious traditions of pre-Tridentine Iberian Catholicism as well as the native religions of the African and Native American peoples. Nevertheless, it was not until the last quarter of the twentieth century that U.S. Hispanics theologians began to “unapologetically and assertively enter the overall theological discourse from the perspective of their own socio-cultural location” (Miguel A. De La Torre and Edwin David Aponte, Introducing Latino/a Theologies [Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001] 71).10 Cf. Moises Sandoval, “Effects of World War II on the Hispanic People,” in Fronteras: A History of the Latin American Church in the USA since 1513, ed. Moises Sandoval (Mexican American Cultural Center: San Antonio, 1983) 341-376.11 Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo date the beginning of the Latino religious resurgence to 1967 with the publication of Rudolfo ‘Corky’ González’s poem ‘Yo Soy Joaquin’ and the subsequent foundation of PADRES, Las Hermanas, the MACC and other important Hispanic religious organizations (cf. esp. 116-179). It cannot be argued that the period 1967-1972 was extremely significant for the development of U.S. Hispanic religious life in America but it was less significant in terms of U.S. Hispanic theology. Most of the efforts during that period were with addressing societal and ecclesiastical concerns rather than developing explicitly theological ideas. It was really not until the work of Elizondo that U.S. Hispanic theology began to develop a voice of its own. 12 Working in coordination with the MACC, Justo González quickly began work on Apuntes (1980), the first academic journal dedicated to Latino/a theology. Another key development was the founding of the Academy of Catholic Theologians of the United States (ACTHUS) in 1988. By the early nineties, this important organization had brought together “almost two-thirds of all U.S. Hispanic Catholics with or completing doctorates in some theological discipline” (Roberto S. Goizueta, “U.S. Hispanic Theology and the Challenge of Pluralism,” in Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States, ed. Allan Figueroa Deck [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995] xxiii ) and continues to provide a forum for the discussion of academic theology from a Hispanic Catholic perspective. In 1989, an ecumenical group of scholars formed La Comunidad within the American Academy of Religion. Throughout the period the Fund for Theological Education (FTE) promoted Hispanic theological education through the provision of Latino/a fellowships and in 1988 it established the Hispanic Summer Program. This latter program provided Hispanic students with the opportunity to study under the leadership of Hispanic faculty exploring issues of interests to Latinos/as.

3

begun contributing to the discussion.13 This period has thus continued to develop the primary themes of the foundational era while at the same time deepening U.S. Hispanic theologies understanding of its methodological commitments.14

The Methodology of U.S. Hispanic TheologyAs we move on to consider the distinctive aspects of U.S. Hispanic theology we

must realize that in many ways “[i]t is premature to begin speaking of a U.S. Hispanic theology in the sense of formulated propositions supported by a fully developed methodology.”15 It is a dynamic theology that is still in process. But, as it has been developed to this point, it is characterized by a number of key distinctives with respect to its methods and its sources.

A Contextual TheologyAs a contextual theology it explicitly embraces its socio-historical situation as the

starting point of its theology. Thus theology is seen as developing “from a specific hermeneutical horizon derived from the socio-cultural context out of which it arises, from the theological tradition in which it is inscribed, from the basic preoccupations that accompany it, and from the challenges to which it wants to respond.”16 This approach is driven by two convictions. First, U.S. Hispanic theologians affirm the post-modern critique of supposedly ‘objective’ modes of discourse and acknowledge the perspectivalism inherent in all human knowledge.17 Second, Latino/a theologians

13 The 1990 publication of Justo González’s Mañana was followed by the 1992 release of three anthologies: Allan Figueroa Deck’s Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992), Roberto S. Goizueta’s We Are a People! Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), and Justo L. González’s Voces: Voices from the Hispanic Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). This publishing boom has continued throughout the decade including several more anthologies (Arturo J. Bañuelas, ed. Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995]; Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero, Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997]; and Orlando O. Espín and Miguel H. Díaz, From the Heart of Our People: Latino/a Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999]) and two introductory works (Miguel A. De La Torre and David Aponte [Introducing Latino/a Theologies] Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001 and Luis G. Pedraja, Teología: An Introduction to Hispanic Theology [Nashville: Abingdon, 2003]).14 In addition to this publishing boom, a number of organizations have added to the contributions of earlier groups to promote and develop U.S. Hispanic theology. The 1990 foundation of the Asociacíon Nacional de Sacerdotes Hispanos (ANSH) has helped promote Latino/a ecclesiastical concerns, the Associacíon para la Educacion Teología Hispana (AETH), a mostly Protestant organization founded in 1991, has provided resources for promoting and advancing theological education among Hispanics, the establishment of the Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology (1993) by ACTHUS added another academic outlet for Latino/a theologians, and the founding of the Hispanic Theological Initiative (HTI) in 1996 has encouraged networking among Hispanic scholars, promoted Latino/a theological publication, and supported the enrollment of Hispanic students in doctoral programs of religion and theology.15 C. Gilbert Romero, “Tradition and Symbol as Biblical Keys for a U.S. Hispanic Theology,” in Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States, ed. Allan Figueroa Deck (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992) 41. 16 María Pilar Aquino, “Perspectives on a Latina’s Feminist Liberation Theology,” in Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States, ed. Allan Figueroa Deck (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992). Cf. also Loida I. Marell-Otero, “The Ongoing Challenge,” in Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology, eds. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Marell-Otero [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 147.

4

maintain the importance of understanding and engaging one’s historical reality if one’s theology is to be vital and transformative.18

Furthermore, Latino/a theologians argue for the necessarily contextual nature of all theology. They object to the common practice of qualifying the so-called ‘advocacy theologies’ as U.S. Hispanic, Feminist, or Black while referring to the theology of more dominant groups simply as ‘theology’ leaving the impression that it alone is “acontextual, universal, and relevant to the entire church.”19 So Justo González comments: “North Atlantic male theology is taken to be basic, normative, universal theology, to which then women, other minorities, and people from younger churches may add their footnotes. What is said in Manila is very relevant for the Philipines. What is said in Tübingen, Oxford, or Yale is very relevant for the entire church.”20 Latino/a theologians argue that such “North Atlantic male theology” is just as contextual and perspectival as other ‘advocacy’ theologies.

As a contextual theology, U.S. Hispanic theology is thus not seeking to replace other theological perspectives or to limit its own perspective so narrowly that its insights are only applicable to other Hispanics. Rather, the goal is to thoroughly engage its own

17 “Indeed, in the last twenty years or so, the myth of a systematic and universal theology, as well as the myth of an objective and universal interpretation, have been exposed as highly uncritical constructs which reflect a very definite, though largely implicit, ideological stance, which ultimately involves the universalizing of one position or reading (and hence on social location) over all others, favoring and exalting thereby the one reading or position (and thus social location) in question while bypassing and denigrating all others in the process.” (Fernando Segovia, “Two Places and No Place on Which to Stand: Mixture and Otherness in Hispanic American Theology,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas [Maryknoll, Orbis, 1995] 29). 18 For U.S. Hispanic theologians, the contextual situation includes not just their present socio-historical reality but their corporate history as well Thus, Orlando Costas states that one of the first tasks of Hispanic theology is to “to remember the rich cultural heritage of the Hispanics peoples in the Americans and the events that have led the various Hispanic groups in North America to their present situation” (“Hispanic Theology in North America,” in Struggles for Solidarity: Liberation Theologies in Tension, eds. Lorine M. Getz and Ruy O. Costa [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992] 67). Without such a “responsible remembrance” (González, Mañana, 79) that non-innocently recognizes both their own historical victimization and their corporate involvement in the victimization of others, (Ibid., 40) they will not be able to “transcend their alienated consciousness introjected by the dominant sectors of North American society through many years of conquest and domination” (Costas, 67). 19 Ibid., 15. 20 González, Mañana, 52. In a similar manner, Roberto Goizueta observes: “Too often so-called contextual theologies are dismissed as irrelevant to the larger, presumably noncontextual and hence universal, theological enterprise. U.S. Hispanic theology is then perceived as important for U.S. Hispanics, feminist theology for women, African American theology for African Americans, and so on, but none of these is considered important for the task of those who do white, male, Anglo American theology. Thus, for example, a university with no Hispanic students is not likely to hire a U.S. Hispanic theologian, since the assumption is that, in that context, he or she would have no one with whom to speak, no one who would be interested in listening, and no one who would have anything to learn from the theologian” (“The Significance of U.S. Hispanic Experience for Theological Method,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995] 98). Luis Peraja notes that this view stems from two incorrect assumptions: first, that a non-contextual, universal viewpoint is possible and second, that contextual theologies are so limited by their contexts as to be incommensurable with other viewpoints (“Building Bridges between Communities of Struggle: Similarities, Differences, Objectives, and Goals,” in The Tie That Binds: African American and Hispanic American/Latino/a Theology in Dialogue [New York: Continuum, 2001] 206).

5

particularity such that it might have something to offer at the theological roundtable for understanding universal realities.21

An Empirical TheologyThe emphasis of U.S. Hispanic theology on contextuality almost requires their

methodology to have a strong empirical component. Seeking to seriously engage their socio-historical reality, Latino/a theologians take as their starting point “the socio-economic, political, or cultural realities grasped with the aid of the corresponding social sciences.”22

On this point, U.S. Hispanic theology has been greatly influenced by the insights of Feminist and Liberation theologians. Both of these approaches argue for a greater emphasis on the sociological mediation in theology as a means to more seriously addressing the current situation.23

A Liberative Theology24 An empirical analysis of the socio-historical situation of Latinos/as and the

resulting awareness of poverty and marginalization characteristic of Hispanic life, quickly leads U.S. Hispanic theologians to an emphasis on liberation as a necessary part of their theology. Thus, it can be said that the “central tenet of any Latino/a theology is praxis, that is, doing the deed of justice.”25 Similarly Pablo Jiménez calls it “a theology of

21 Cf. González, Mañana, 52-53 and David Maldonado, Jr., “Doing Theology,” 98. Goizueta offers the analogy of a marriage to explain this dynamic: “How would one know what the ‘universal experience of marriage’ is all about? What is marriage? According to the quantitative, arithmetic criteria of logical rationality, in order to know the meaning of marriage we should marry as many persons as possible. Thus, the most knowledgeable person would be whoever has had the greatest number of particular marriages (perhaps a polygamist). According to the qualitative criteria of the aesthetic sense, however, in order to know about ‘marriage’, an abstract universal, one must enter fully into the depths of one particular marriage, engage one’s life completely in the life of one other particular person, and, there – in that very particularity – uncover the universal meaning and significance of marriage. It is thus, out of one’s own intensely-experienced, particular marriage that one will be able to relate to and identify with the particular marriages of other persons.” (Camimemos Con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995] 97). 22 Goizueta, “U.S. Hispanic Theology,” xiv. 23 Cf. Ada María Isasi-Díaz, “Preoccupations, Themes, and Proposals of Mujerista Theology,” in The Tie That Binds: African American and Hispanic American/Latino/a Theology in Dialogue, eds. Anthony B. Pinn, and Benjamin Valentin (New York: Continuum, 2001) 135-144 and Clodovis Boff, Theology and Praxis: Epistemological Foundations. Trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987) 20-66. 24 A close relationship has existed from the very beginning between U.S. Hispanic theology and Latin American liberation theologians (Goizueta, “The Significance of U.S. Hispanic Experience for Theological Method,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995] xiv). But there has been an increasing recognition by U.S. Hispanics that to take seriously the insights of liberation theology they must develop theologies that are consistent with the experiences of U.S. Hispanics rather than Latin American Hispanic (Valentin, “Strangers No More: An Introduction to, and an Interpretation of, U.S. Hispanic/Latino/a Theology,” in The Tie That Binds: African American and Hispanic American/Latino/a Theology in Dialogue, eds. Anthony B. Pinn, and Benjamin Valentin [New York: Continuum, 2001] 41). U.S. Hispanic theology has thus developed themes and methodologies that are markedly different from those of Latin American theologians and have even been quite critical of Latin American liberation theologians on some points. 25 De La Torre and Aponte, 67. Praxis is an important term for all of the theologies that emphasize liberation and emphasize the idea of ‘reflective action.’ Built on the Aristotelian distinction between poesis (doing) and theoria (reflection), praxis is the point at which the two come together in a dynamic synthesis

6

survival that seeks to make sense of the reality of oppression – restoring a sense of human dignity to the community – guided by a vision of a new world based on justice and equality.”26 Affirming this praxiological orientation of theology, Harold Recinos states that it is not possible to know God without showing justice to those on “the underside of history.”27

One key theme in U.S. Hispanic theology that develops from this liberative perspective is its preferential option for the poor. This notion is drawn from liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez who argued that

God has a preferential love for the poor not because they are necessarily better than others, morally or religiously, but simply because they are poor and living in an inhuman situation that is contrary to God’s will. The ultimate basis for the privileged position of the poor is not in the poor themselves but in God, in the gratuitousness and universality of God’s agapeic love.28

This divine preference for the poor is demonstrated throughout Scripture in God’s continued “predilection for the weak and abused of human history.”29 A commitment to the viewpoint of the poor and oppressed in society is therefore an epistemological presupposition based on the conviction that “[t]heir expressions of God are much more accurate and closer to the truth about God than the best theologies about God, formulated by persons who are removed from the everyday struggles of God’s chosen ‘little ones’ of this world.”30

A Communal TheologyFor U.S. Hispanic theologians, la comunidad (community) is not only basic to

ecclesiology and anthropology, as it is in many other theologies, but it also serves as a fundamental methodological presupposition. Teología en cojunto (or pastoral de conjunto) is a phrase used to describe Latino/a theology’s commitment to doing theology

(Max L. Stackhouse, Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988] 85. For an extensive discussion of the use of praxis in U.S. Hispanic Theology see Roberto Goizueta, Camimemos, 77-100 and “The Significance of U.S. Hispanic Experience,” 86-89. 26 Pablo Jiménez , The Bible: A Hispanic Perspective,” in Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology, eds. Jose David Rodriquez and Loida I. Martell-Oter [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 75. 27 Harold Recinos, “Mission: A Latino Pastoral Theology,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995) 133. 28 Gustavo Gutierrez, On Job (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987) 94.29 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1973) xxvii. Goizueta argues divine neutrality is impossible since a non-preferential approach to the poor would necessarily favor the rich (Camimemos, 177). 30 González, Mañana, 18. He goes on to elaborate this by providing several examples: “The meaning of the Exodus and of the law that springs from it is best understood by those who have an experience of slavery and a long trek through the wilderness. The minority report of the prophets is best understood by those who are not usually included in the chronicles of the kings or of high society. The exile is best understood by those who live in societies that are not theirs, and who ‘by the rivers of Babylon’ are called upon to sing the songs of the Lord in a foreign land. The enormity of the self-marginalization of God in Galilee is best understood by modern-day outsiders in modern –day Galilee – ghettos, barrios, and the misdeveloped countries” (49-50).

7

communally and collaboratively.31 In other words, they emphasize their role as members of a particular theological community who seek to interpret and articulate the faith experiences of that community and they also seek to do their theology in collaboration with other theologians and theological perspectives.32 Latino/a theology thus rejects the individualistic paradigm that has often served as the model for doing theology and instead argues that “there should be no such thing as an individual theology.”33 “Hispanic theology,” according to David Maldonado, “is better understood as being rooted in the collective work of the whole.”34 That this is a methodological commitment can be seen in the large number of anthologies produced by Latino/a theologians many of which are produced only after an extended period of collaborative interaction by the authors.35

The Sources of U.S. Hispanic TheologyHaving briefly considered the methodology of U.S. Hispanic theology, we must

now consider the theological sources that they use. Although their basic sources are the same as that of the Wesleyan quadrilateral (Bible, experience, tradition, and reason) the ways in which they use those sources are distinct.

Reading the Bible in SpanishAlthough various Latino/a theologians approach the Bible differently,36 the Bible

nonetheless serves as an important source for all Latino/a theologians, Catholic and Protestant alike, with nearly all Hispanics receiving it as a supernatural work meriting profound respect.37 Justo González has been particularly influential in this area with his suggestion that Hispanics can and should read the Bible ‘in Spanish.’

By reading the Bible ‘in Spanish’, González does not mean reading it in the Spanish language. Though some scholars argue that the very act of reading the Bible in a Spanish translation has a unique impact on theological understanding, González has something else in mind.38 He is referring instead to a hermeneutical approach to the Bible that embraces the unique perspective of U.S. Hispanics.39 Such a reading must therefore

31 According to Rodriguez and Martell-Otero, en conjunto is a phrase that means “‘in conjunction’, or ‘conjoined in’, implying not only the coming together but also the integration and intimacy involved in such a sharing” (Teología en conjunto, 1). For a brief study on the concept of teología en conjunto see Ana María Pineda, “Pastoral de Conjunto,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective _Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995) 125-131. 32 Valentin, “Strangers No More,” 50. 33 González, Mañana, 29. 34 David Maldonado, Jr. “Doing Theology and the Anthropological Questions,” in Teologia en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology, ed. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 104. 35 For an example see the introduction to Orlando O. Espín and Miguel H. Díaz, eds., From the Heart of Our People: Latino/a Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999) 1-6. 36 For an overview of how different Latino/a theologians handle the Bible see Fernando Segovia, “Hispanic American Theology and the Bible: Effective Weapon and Faithfull Ally,” in We Are a People! Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology, ed. Roberto S. Goizueta (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 21-50. 37 Jiménez , “The Bible,” 66. Sixto Garcia states that belief in the Bible as the Word of God is a foundational belief for Hispanics although he acknowledges that there is no unanimity as to precisely what that means (“Sources and Loci of Hispanic Theology,” Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995] 107-108. 38 E.g., De La Torre and Aponte, 77. 39 González, Mañana, 75-88.

8

be ‘noninnocent’ and recognize the political dimension of all interpretations.40 This reading strategy must be guided by four rules.41 First, the interpreter must embrace the perspective of the weak and powerless.42 Second, we must remember that most of the Scriptures were intended to function publicly rather than privately. Third, while the Bible should be read noninnocently, we “must remember that the core principle of scriptural ‘grammar’ is its availability to children, to the simple, to the poor.”43 And fourth, the Bible must be read in the vocative – it addresses us and calls us to action. Each of these rules reflects a significant aspect of U.S. Hispanic hermeneutics.

Religiosidad Popular and MestizajeWe have already seen how significant Latino/a experience is for their theological

methodology but it provides a key theological source as well. One key theological source derived from the experience of the Hispanic population is the notion of mestizaje (or mulatez). Though it was developed as a theological source by Elizondo,44 it was originally formulated as a philosophical concept by José Vasconcelos in the 1940’s to refer to the creation of a new race, la raza cósmica (the cosmic race), that is being produced through the coming together of multiple races and cultures in the Hispanic peoples.45 As it is used by Latino/a theologians it does not refer to the ‘melting pot’ notion where some tertium quid is produced through the merging of two different races but to a union whereby the various aspects of the mestizaje remain in tension with one another, “brought together in a particular instantiation of a living human being that can understand and identify with both.”46 The biological and cultural mestizaje that is taking place in the Hispanic population is thus “a source of theology, a hermeneutical lens for understanding our situation, and an eschatological hope.”47

Beyond the information provided by the sociological mediation, U.S. Hispanics also appeal to religiosidad popular (popular religion48) and lo cotidiano (everday life) as providing valuable theological insights. Even a brief discussion of either of these two sources lies well beyond the scope of this paper as quite a number of studies have been devoted to this aspect of Latino/a theology. But a few brief comments are in order.

Religiosidad popular can be defined as

40 Ibid., 75-77.41 Ibid., 85-87.42 González refers to this as ‘reading in the vernacular’ and sees this move as having significant implications: “We have usually thought that the significance of this was simply that people could now read for themselves what previously was reserved for scholars. But perhaps we ought to see another dimension in what happens when the Bible is read in the vernacular. It becomes the people’s book, no longer under the control of those who control society. When the people read the Bible, and read it from their own perspective rather than from the perspective of the powerful, the Bible becomes a mighty political book. This is what I mean by ‘reading the Bible in Spanish’” (Ibid., 84). 43 Ibid., 85.44 Cf. Elizondo’s Galilean Journey: The Mexican-American Promise (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983) 7-18 and The Future is Mestizo:; Life Where Cultures Meet. Bloomington, IN: Meyer Stone Books, 1988. 45 Cf. Isasi-Díaz, En La Lucha, 15. 46 Pedraja, Teología , 79.47 Ibid.48 As used in this paper, religiosidad popular refers to the actual religious practices of Latino/a communities. It can also be used to refer to “a disposition or inclination to popularize faith expressions” as opposed to the actual faith expressions themselves (Cf. Stevens-Arroyo and Díaz-Stevens, 10).

9

…the set of experiences, beliefs and rituals which more-or-less peripheral human groups create, assume and develop (within concrete socio-cultural and historical contexts, and as a response to these contexts) and which to a greater or lesser degree distance themselves from what is recognized as normative by church and society, striving (through rituals, experiences and beliefs) to find an access to God and salvation which they feel they cannot find in what the church and society present as normative.49

As such, ‘popular’ does not refer the popularity of a particular practice but rather to its sociohistorical status; it comprises the faith expressions of the marginalized as opposed to that of the elite.50 Nevertheless, Latino/a theologians unanimously agree that this religiosidad popular is ubiquitous among Hispanic peoples and is one of the distinctive marks of Latino/a religiosity.51 Among such popular practices the two most common are those that involve devotion to Mary and the crucified Christ.52 Other common practices include the sprinkling of holy water, home altars, novenas (devotional prayers), lighting candles, the quinceañero (celebrating a girl’s fifteenth birthday), and the making of vows.53 U.S. Hispanic theologians argue that these religious practices can serve as a

49 Goizueta, Camimemos, 29. Noting the complexity and variability of popular religiosity, Ana María Díaz-Stevens questions whether or not a consensus on its precise nature will ever be reached (“Analyzing Popular Religiosity,” in An Enduring Flame: Studies on Latino Popular Religiosity. Program for the Analysis of Religion Among Latinos, eds. Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo and Ana María Díaz-Stevens [PARAL Studies Series Vol. 1, 1994] 19). 50 Cf. De La Torre and Aponte, 119. Stevens-Arroyo notes that in many conceptions “popular religiosity is in religious expressions that fall outside of ecclesiastical control. Freed from the constrictions of clerical interference, popular religiosity creates its own space at the frontiers of social identity….Moreover, popular religiosity is often projected as more influential in the daily lives of Latinos than the doctrines and dictates of institutionalized religion. More than a few scholars consider it a form of Latino resistance to assimilation, not only in matters of religion, but in much else as well” (9). 51 Orlando Espín comments, “Popular religion (or ‘religiosity’) is indeed omnipresent in the Hispanic universe. and it is one of the few core elements shared by all Hispanic cultural communities in the country. Variations do exist, depending on the specific cultural history of each of the communities, but some basic structures and symbols seem to appear as constants from coast to coast” (“Tradition and Popular Religion: An Understanding of the Sensus Fidelium,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995] 148). 52 The literature on both of these aspects of Hispanic religiosidad is quite extensive but some good introductory material can be found in Espín’s works “Tradition and Popular Religion” (157-162) and The Faith of the People (71-77). 53 For a statistical survey on the observance of some of these practices see Roberto O. González and Michael J. LaVelle, The Hispanic Catholic in the United States: A Socio-Cultural and Religious Profile ([Hispanic American Pastoral Investigations, vol. 1. Northeast Catholic Pastoral Center for Hispanics, 1985] 95). Most Latino/a scholars recognize the syncretism latent in most forms of popular religion but argue that it is no different from the syncretism practiced by the early church or any time the church moved into a new cultural territory. Virgilio Elizondo notes that it was this very syncretism that enabled the success of Christianity in Europe: “This process was the very core of the evangelizing process of the various European tribes. In fact that is precisely why today’s Europe is so deeply united as Western culture and yet so diversified linguistically, culturally, gastronomiacally and in so many other exciting ways. Early Christianity affirmed the local identity while providing truly universalizing rites, words and symbols. In other words, it affirmed rootedness while destroying ghettoishness. Christianity changed peoples and cultures not by destroying them, but by re-interpreting their core rituals and myths through the foundational ritual and myth of Christianity.” (118)

10

source for theological reflection because they are the symbolic faith expressions of the community.

Orlando Espín’s work has been particularly important in this area. He rejects the traditional view of popular religion which sees it as syncretistic superstition:

Popular religion has all too frequently been considered an embarrassment to Catholicism. It has been derided as the superstitious result of religious ignorance, a product of syncretism, a vestige of the rural past, and an ideologically manipulated tool in the hands of those who would abuse simple folk. These accusations (and many others) do point to real issues and do express serious concerns. But when popular religion is viewed only or mainly through the prism of these accusations, the result can only be prejudiced and distorted.54

On the contrary, he argues that since the revelation of God has been entrusted to the whole Church, “the whole Church is charged with proclaiming, living, and transmitting the fullness of revelation.”55 The popular religious practices of the Church should thus be understood as the “the culturally possible expression of some fundamental intuitions of the Christian faith” as the Church seeks to carry out its revelatory responsibilities.56 “It is this faith-full intuition that makes real Christian people sense that something is true or not vis-à-vis the gospel, or that someone is acting in accordance with the Christian gospel or not, or that something important for Christianity is not being heard….This ‘faith-ful’ intuition is called the sensus fidelium.”57 Since he views the Holy Spirit as the “foundational origin” of this sensus fidelium and the popular religious practices that seek to express it, he maintains that it reliably (even infallibly with respect to their revelatory purpose) serves as a proper source of theological reflection.58

Despite the importance of the communal sensus and its pneumatologically infallible character, he maintains the importance of ascertaining

the authenticity of the intuitions (i.e., their coherence and fundamental agreement with the other witnesses of revelation) and the appropriateness of the expressions (i.e., their validity as vehicles for the communication of revelation, realizing that no human expression is ever totally transparent to God and the gospel).59

Thus, although these faith-full intuitions are a fundamental aspect of the communal theological task, they must still be approached with caution recognizing the possibility of their misuse.

54 Orlando Espín, The Faith of the People: Theological Reflections on Popular Catholicism (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997) 148.55 Ibid., 66.56 Espín, “Tradition,” 152-153. 57 Espín, The Faith of the People, 65-66. 58 Ibid., 66. 59 Ibid., 66-67.

11

Underlying this emphasis on popular religiosity is the “fundamentally sacramental character of the U.S. Hispanic way of life.”60 From this sacramental perspective they are able to see their physical existence, down to the most routine aspects of lo cotidiano, as “intrinsically related to the supernatural, transcendent realm of the sacred” and thus a valuable source for theological reflection.61

Responsible RemembranceGiven the prominent role that church historian Justo González has played in the

formation of U.S. Hispanic theology and the importance that Latino/a theologians place on the essential historicity of any community, it should come as no great surprise to find that tradition serves as a significant source for Latino/a theology. Despite this, tradition has tended to hold a somewhat ambiguous place among the theological sources for Hispanic theologians as a result of the oppressive way in which tradition has often been used by those in places of power.62 Even more so than most theologians, Hispanic theologians thus find themselves forced to “walk the fine line between honoring that tradition and being prophetic and exercising discernment”63 as they seek to responsibly remember and faithfully interpret that tradition anew with each generation.64

Practical ReasonCompleting the traditional quadrilateral, Latino/a theologians also emphasize the

role of reason in the theological process. In doing so they seek to make use of reason without falling prey to the dilemmas created by the “modern Western epistemological dilemma”65 – that being the divide between modernism and postmodernism with respect to theory and practice. Both modernists and postmodernists, according to U.S. Hispanic theologians, accept a false dichotomy between theory and practice.66 Modernists do so by overemphasizing abstract universal concepts (theory) and denigrating the concrete realities of everyday life (practice). Postmodernists try to rescue the value of practice but do so by rejecting the value of theory altogether and leaping into irrationality. Latino/a theologians try to resolve this problem by rejecting the dichotomy altogether, instead opting for a praxiological union of the two (i.e. reflective action).

Although postmodernism might seem attractive to minority theologians given its willingness to validate the truth claims of alternate viewpoints, most Latino/a theologians reject the postmodern position because its abandonment of reason “does not provide a means for one context to criticize the other” and thus “makes it difficult for marginalized

60 Goizueta, Camimemos, 19.61 Ibid.. The desire to emphasize lo cotidiano as a source of theology has been of particular interest to mujerista theologians who argue that it provides a primary theological source for Hispanic women who tend to be more engaged in the concrete struggles of everyday family life than men (cf. Aquino, “Perspectives,” 33 and Isasi-Díaz, “Preoccupations,” 137-138). 62 Elizondo, “Mestizaje,” 21. Cf. also Garcia, “Sources and Loci,” 109-110. 63 Loida I. Martell-Otero, “The Ongoing Challenge” in Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology, eds. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 151. 64 Cf. Romero, 45-47. 65 Goizueta, “Significance,” 95. 66 Goizueta thus argues that modern and postmodern philosophies are not fundamentally different epistemologically in that they both accept the dichotomy between “the intellect and the heart, between theoretical reason and ‘irrational’ affect;” the difference lies in which of the poles is accepted and rejected (Cf. Camimemos, 132-172).

12

groups to offer a critique of dominant notions that may be contributing to their marginalization.”67 While U.S. Hispanic theologians do embrace the perspectivalism of postmodernism, they insist that this does not result in irrationality or incommensurability. Pedraja argues that perspectivalism itself assumes that there is some “common event, experience, or reality that we encounter” although “we each encounter it from a different perspective” and that we therefore have sufficient common ground for shared dialogue despite our perspectival limitations.68

CHALLENGES FOR THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURYIn the previous sections we briefly summarized a variety of demographic,

historical, and theological material related to the rise of U.S. Hispanic theology at the end of the twentieth century. It has hopefully become clear through this that U.S. Hispanic theology is a distinct theological perspective with important insights and contributions which will play are larger and more significant role in U.S. theology throughout the course of the twenty-first century.

Unfortunately, it would appear that American theological institutions are still ill-prepared to face this challenge. During a recent summit at Duke University, Latino/a religious leaders from around the country met to discuss an agenda for strengthening ministries to U.S. Hispanics.69 One of the chief problems addressed at this summit was a continuing lack of adequate opportunities for formal theological education and training among Hispanics. Fernando Segovia, in his presidential address at ACTHUS in 1993 gave this somber description:

It is my belief, after twenty years in theological education, that the life of a minority person in such a context is indeed una lucha – a ‘struggle.’ This is so whether one happens to be a student for the ministry, a graduate student, a beginning scholar, or a seasoned professor. The context is a difficult and trying one, largely unreceptive and unsympathetic. I often wonder whether anything at all has been achieved in all these years, even in the aftermath of the civil rights and feminist movements.70

This assessment may be a little harsh given that there have been some significant increases in Latino/a theological education. The number of both Hispanic students and faculty have steadily increased over the last two decades as have the number of resources and programs available to those dedicated to Hispanic theological concerns.71 But the next section will show that these increases are not as significant as they are sometimes understood to be and that theological education in American still has a long way to go with respect to meeting the needs of the Hispanic community.

67 Pedraja, Teología , 20. Cf. Goizueta, “Significance,” 96. 68 Ibid.69 For a summary of this summit see the press release, “Hispanic/Latino Religious Leaders Agree on Strategies to Strengthen Ministry,” http://www.divinity.duke.edu/documents/hispanicsummitfinal.htm, March 28, 2004. 70 Quoted in Rodriquez, “On Doing Hispanic Theology,” in Teologia en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology, ed. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 11. 71 Ibid.

13

The Demographic ChallengeThe first thing that we should note is that there has recently been significant

growth in both the enrollment and employment of Hispanics in American theological schools. Justo González reports that between 1972 and 1987 there was an increase of 425% in Hispanic enrollment although he does note that this still resulted in Hispanics accounting for only 2.5% of all seminarians.72 By 1991 Hispanic representation had increased to 2.7% and Hispanics currently make up 3.7% of all students enrolled in schools accredited by the American Theological Society (ATS).73 Growth in Hispanic enrollment over the last 15 years has thus resulted in a 60% increase in total Hispanic representation at ATS schools (a 37% increase in proportional representation). The same kind of increase has characterized Latino/a theological faculty. In 1991, Hispanics accounted for 1.7% of all ATS faculty, by 1997 this had increased to 2.5%, and in 2002 the number had risen to 3.0% representing a 113% increase in total numbers and a 47% increase in proportional representation.74

Despite this important growth, there are a number of factors that suggest the picture is not as rosy as it appears. The most obvious caveat, of course, is that the percentage of Hispanics in ATS schools (3.7% of students and 3.0% of faculty) is still far below the population as a whole where Hispanics account for 13.5% of the population.

With respect to student enrollment there are several other factors to take into account. First, we should note that the increase of Latinos/as in ATS schools over the last fifteen years is less dramatic when compared with the growth of the Hispanic population in general. Between 1991 and 2002 the Hispanic population grew from 23.4 million (9.3%) to 37.4 million (13.3%) representing almost a 60% total increase and a 43% proportional increase. Thus, the total increase in Hispanic student enrollment between 1991 and 2002 is almost identical to the total growth of the Hispanic population as a whole while the growth in proportional representation at ATS schools (37%) actually lags the overall growth (43%). Second, most of the growth in Hispanic enrollment has occurred in only a few degree programs. In the period 1997-2002, most of the enrollment growth took place in non-M.Div. ministerial degrees (125.6% increase), general theological studies degrees (98.2% increase), and other degrees (46.8% increase) as opposed to M.Div. degrees (16.2% increase), advanced ministerial degrees (9.7% increase), and advanced research degrees (23.8% increase). Thus, the more advanced theological degrees lagged the overall growth in Hispanic enrollment and the population at large which grew 27.6% and 26% respectively during that same period.75

72 González, Mañana, 35. 73 Unless otherwise noted, all statistics related to ATS schools are taken from The Fact Book on Theological Education (2001-2002) published by ATS. 74 Manuel Jesus Mejido indicates that there were a number of reasons for this precipitous increase: “Perhaps the most significant is the coming to the fore of fellowship and networking programs for Latino students such as the Hispanic component of the Fund for Theological Educaiton (FTE), the Hispanic Summer Program, and the Hispanic Theological Initiative (HTI)." (63) Also points to AETH and ACTHUS….Lastly we must acknowledge the fact that seminaries and universities have begun to recognize the need to diversify their faculty, and have thus begun to make greater efforts to bring Hispanic instructors into their respective programs” (“U.S. Hispanics/Latinos and the Field of Graduate Theological Education,” Theological Education, 34.2 (Spring 1998): 64). 75 The lag is even more significant with respect to proportional growth. During this period Hispanics enrolled in M.Div. programs only grew from 2.63% to 2.77% (a 5.3% increase), advanced ministerial degrees from 2.39% to 2.45% (a 2.5% increase) and advanced research degrees from 1.95% to 2.26% (a

14

The situation is better with respect to Latino/a faculty. Increasing from 1.7% of total ATS faculty in 1991 to nearly 3% in 2002 (an increase of 76.4%), the growth of Hispanic faculty as a percentage of total faculty easily outpaced both population and student enrollment during the same period although it slowed down significantly in the second half of the period growing only 19.5% from 1997-2002. A closer look at the kinds of faculty positions held by Latino/a faculty, though, suggests another difficulty. Although 48.8% of all ATS faculty are employed as full professors and 25.4% as associate professors, Hispanic faculty hold only 20.8% and 8.1% of those positions. Contrarily just 20.8% of all faculty hold assistant professorships while 67.4% of Hispanic faculty hold such positions. Thus while Hispanics represent nearly 3% of all faculty appointments, they only account for 2.2% of professorships and 2.3% of associate professorships.76 While it is probably the case that some of this disparity can be explained by the fact that much of the growth in Latino/a faculty has taken place relatively recently and thus may not yet have allowed sufficient time for many of those faculty members to advance to associate and full professorships. Nonetheless, it indicates that theological schools in America still have a ways to go in establishing Hispanic faculty as equal participants in their institutions.77

Thus, the demographics of both Hispanic student enrollment and faculty employment indicate that while some strides have been made over the last fifteen years, there is much work yet to be done.

The Methodological ChallengeThe demographic challenges just mentioned are significant but could leave the

impression that the problem is mainly one of recruiting and maybe financing. If we could simply recruit more Hispanic students and faculty and enable them financially, we would be able to solve the problem. Unfortunately, there are other issues that run deeper. A 1995 study led by Edwin Hernández and funded by the Pew Charitable Trust compiled data from nearly 2,000 surveys providing “the single largest set of data collected from Hispanic religious leaders to date.”78 The results of this survey as summarized in an article by Hernández and Kenneth G. Davis indicate a number of areas that must be addressed, four of which are: (1) lack of adequate training for ministry in Hispanic contexts; (2) insufficient finances; (3) inadequate faculty; and (4) pervasive marginalization.

After listing a number of areas in which theological education has proved successful with respect to the Hispanics surveyed, including a deepened commitment to serve Latino/a communities, the study notes “expectations of being trained to minister specifically to their Hispanic community more effectively, and of learning about Hispanic/Latino theological contributions, are noticeably absent from the list of

16% increase). While the increase in advanced research degrees is encouraging, all three lagged the overall proportional increase in enrollment and the population at large which grew 27.2% and 19.8% respectively.76 The situation is even worse for Latina faculty. Although 6.7% of all full professorships are held by women, only two Hispanic women hold full professorships. 77 Since the average salary for assistant professors in ATS schools is only 70% that of full professors, these statistics also suggest that Hispanic faculty on the average are paid much less than other faculty members.78 Edwin I. Hernández and Kenneth G. Davis, “The National Survey of Hispanic Theological Education,” Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology, 8.4 (2001): 37-38.

15

expectations met.”79 The recent summit on Hispanic religious leadership at Duke University reached similar conclusions stating that seminaries “need to do a better job of preparing students for Hispanic ministries. Hispanic students who do attend seminary often find that theological schools are poorly equipped to meet their needs and to prepare them for ministry to Hispanic/Latino parishioners.”80 One respondent to the Hernández survey concluded that theological schools should “conceive training as preparation for the ministry in an intercultural context and not only the dominant or monocultural context….They need to embrace diversity, not just tolerate it.”81

A lack of financial support is also a major problem for Hispanics. While financial struggles are a problem for all students, the unique economic disadvantages of the Hispanic community noted earlier make this problem especially burdensome for them. Unsurprisingly, the Hernández survey found that financial difficulties were one of the major reasons preventing Latinos/as from participating in theological education or hindering their progress.82

As the demographic evidence would suggest, the lack of Hispanic faculty is also a problem. The study indicates that inadequate Hispanic representation on theological faculties causes the few existing Hispanic professors to feel overwhelmed by “expectations beyond that placed on other faculty (e.g., mentoring minorities).”83 Since Latina faculty members are virtually non-existent on theological faculties, the problem is of course exacerbated for Latina students. This lack of Hispanic faculty may also help explain some of the problems students encounter with regard to inadequate training for ministry to Hispanics and marginalization.84

This last area, the pervasive marginalization experienced by Latino/a students, was one of the most remarkable aspects of the Hernández study. According to the study, respondents “repeatedly referred to the experience of being a minority student in a university or theological institution as alienating, marginalizing, and contributing to the feeling that their presence was neither appreciated or welcomed.”85 Given some of the statistics reported by the study, that hardly seems surprising:

57 percent of the respondents with graduate degrees indicated that they were discriminated against while attending seminary/graduate school; 38 percent heard a faculty member make inappropriate remarks about minorities; 35 percent were excluded from school activities because they

79 Ibid., 45.80 “Hispanic/Latino Religious Leaders Agree on Strategies to Strengthen Ministry,” http://www.divinity.duke.edu/documents/hispanicsummitfinal.htm, March 28, 2004.81 Hernández and Davis, 48.82 Ibid., 44.83 Ibid., 45.84 Mejido also indicates some of the negative repercussions of limited faculty: “First, the scarcity of Latino faculty makes it almost an impossibility for courses and curricula to have a genuine Hispanic component…. Second, the lack of Hispanic faculty in our seminaries and universities makes it extremely difficult for Latino students to have access to latino mentors, advisors, or dissertation committee members….And third, I would like to point to the relationship between the lack of Hispanic faculty and the scarcity of Hispanic scholarship....Anyone who doubts this need only, for instance, visit the exhibit halls of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) annual meetings to notice that Latino scholarship is egregiously underrepresented. Granted that there has been a relative increase in the production of Hispanic scholarship throughout the 1990s, but there is a long way yet to go” (64-65). 85 Ibid., 46.

16

were Latino/a; and 22 percent indicated that they were actually insulted or threatened.86

Beyond this blatant marginalization and even outright racism, respondents also reported more subtle problems. Most of the respondents (68%) indicated that other students know little about Hispanic culture and over half (56%) felt that their courses did not include a minority perspective of any kind.87

Given the demographic and other challenges faced by Hispanic students in American schools of theology, it is no wonder that Justo González described the experience of many Hispanics in theological education as “a struggle to preserve their identity, to discover theological dimensions that were not being presented to them, and to resist various forms of racism and parochialism.”88 It is indeed una lucha.

Suggestions for the 21st Century Having surveyed some of the challenges facing Hispanic theological education in

America, it remains for us to briefly consider our own situation as evangelical theological educators in the Northwest and to suggest some possibilities for the future.

With respect to the former, there are two mistakes that we could make with respect to our situation. First, we could conclude that these issues are only for those who work in areas with large Hispanic populations like Texas and California ignoring the fact that Washington and Oregon both have substantial Hispanic communities.89 Second, we might reason that the above statistics reflect the condition of all ATS schools and that maybe specifically evangelical theological schools are somewhat better situated. Although sufficient data on Hispanics in specifically evangelical theological schools has not yet been compiled, there are some indications that evangelicals are also guilty of not paying sufficient attention to U.S. Hispanic theology. A perusal of the indexes of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology and Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology, two prominent evangelical theological resources used in many evangelical classrooms, shows that they cite one U.S. Hispanic author each (Grudem cites Moises Silva and Erickson cites Catherine and Justo González) for a total of six citations. The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society has published no article on U.S. Hispanic theology or related issues since at least 1990 and a look at the authors reveals only four or five with

86 Ibid., 47.87 Ibid., 48. Hernández and Davis conclude this portion of the study by observing: No student should have to endure the ethnocentric, sexist, exclusivist experiences described by study participants, especially in environments that supposedly represent the heartbeat of Christianity. Theological institutions must not remain complacent while their students are forced to deny the culture and heritage that is theirs and their communities’ in order to seek deeper spiritual understanding and better skills for ministering the Gospel (50). 88 Justo L. González, The Theological Education of Hispanics (New York: The Fund for Theological Education, 1988) 75. Similarly Martell-Otero observes that a Hispanic in an academic institution “is faced with the possibility of being disconnected from the Hispanic community because of the lack of Latinos or Latinas in traditional seminaries, or of finding oneself embroiled in the many conflicts one has already faced as a student trying to get the institution to acknowledge the presence of Hispanics. Many future scholars are dismayed by the latter possibility: the struggle is exhausting, and many already suffer from ‘battle fatigue.’” (“The Ongoing Challenge,” 152).89 Hispanics are the largest single minority group in both Washington and Oregon (the second largest in both states is the Asian population) numbering 480,917 or 8.1% of the population in Washington and 248,577 or 7.2% of the population in Oregon. Both Seattle and Portland also have large Hispanic populations with 184,297 (5.2%) and 196,638 (8.6%) respectively (see www.census.gov).

17

Hispanic surnames.90 A similar consideration of the papers presented at the last three annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society uncovers no papers on or related to U.S. Hispanic theology. These findings suggest that U.S. Hispanic theological concerns are not being addressed by the broader evangelical theological community. We should also not be so naïve as to think that some of the other concerns – e.g., finances, faculty, training for ministry, and marginalization – are not problems for our evangelical institutions as well.

Finally, we should consider some brief suggestions about how to address the problems raised in this paper. Given the limitations of this paper, we can only list some possible avenues worth exploring and we will thus not be able to address the admittedly complex realities making the implementation of any of these suggestions quite challenging.

1. Faculty and finances. These are the two most obvious problems facing any attempt to address Hispanic theological education. American theological institutions must continue to find ways to train and recruit Latino/a theological educators and provide financial assistance to Hispanic students.

2. Hispanic youth. Any long-term solution to these various problems must address the needs of Hispanic youth. The chronically high drop-out rates among Latino/a high school students makes it even more difficult to increase the proportion of Hispanic students in our colleges and seminaries. Those of us who seek not only to be educators but also ministers of the gospel should be at the forefront of attempts to alter this academic reality.

3. Faculty training. The concerns about marginalization expressed in the Hernández study suggest that we need to devote more attention to training our current faculty in the issues and concerns of the Hispanic community.

4. Community involvement. Seminaries and schools of theology will only be effective in dealing with these issues insofar as they work in close partnership with Hispanic communities and their leaders.

5. Immigrants. Given the high immigration rates of the past several decades and the likelihood that such high rates will continue for the foreseeable future, theological institutions must find ways to incorporate not just the well-assimilated, middle-class Hispanics into their theological programs but also the more recently arrived, less well educated, and poorer immigrant population.

6. Balance. We must be very careful not to approach the question of Hispanic theological education in a way that pits the interests of one minority group against those of another. Rather than setting aside a portion of the budget and a certain number of classes for ‘minority issues’, we should seek ways to integrate an ethnically plural approach to budgeting and curriculum development in all our programs.

90 Determining Hispanic ethnicity on the basis of surnames is a notoriously unreliable approach but suffices here as suggestive of an overall trend rather than a definitive conclusion. The journal did publish two articles on Latin American liberation theologies but, while these are related to U.S. Hispanic theology, they are not the same thing.

18

Admittedly, these suggestions raise more problems than they solve but they can serve to spark a renewed dialogue on how we should respond to these issues.

CONCLUSIONThis brief survey of U.S. Hispanic theology – its history, its methodology, and its

challenges – has attempted to provide some insight into the current state of a relatively new theological approach. Hopefully, we have in the process gained a better understanding of U.S. Hispanic theology, of the need for ethnic plurality in theological discourse, and of our task as theological educators. As the Hispanic population continues to grow numerically and to flex its demographic muscles politically, culturally, and religiously in the twenty-first century, we need to be well-prepared for the challenges and opportunities it brings. In many ways, U.S. Hispanic theology may well be the mañana of American theology and no theologian, educator, or theological institution can afford to neglects its insights and contributions.

19