LATINO EVANGELICALS LIVING IN THE HYPHEN

Latino Evangelicals Living in the Hyphen

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

As the Congress continues to struggle with many of the critical issues facing Americans, immigration reform debate has slowly become the silent issue on the political landscape. Depending on who one listens to, immigration reform this year is dead, while others claim that if given an opportunity to vote on the issue, reform would pass. One must admit, the expectation that reform would continue to gain momentum as the Congress moved toward a vote, in fact has lost much of the Si Se Puede spirit.

The tireless efforts of many pro-immigration reform for families groups have seemed to have lost much of its political influence since Congress went on vacation during the August recess. Returning to the distractions of Syria, health care reform, finalizing the federal budget, and the on-going struggle to jump start a weakening economy which is not keeping pace with the number of good jobs needed by Americans.

With less undocumented immigrants coming from south of the border, many Latino faith leaders are beginning to look at growth projections of the past, and are now acknowledging the fact that Spanish-speaking ministries may have misplaced priorities and expectations of the future. Arlene Sanchez-Walsh, associate professor of Latino church studies at Azusa Pacific University places the blame squarely on the economy for less church planting. “The economy has put a crimp on how you can start a church.”

The Spanish-speaking church will soon be facing the fact that less Spanish-speaking undocumented immigrants are no longer risking the dangerous journey through the new desert trails to the United States, only to face the reality of not finding a “good paying job” in an economy that cannot even meet the needs of Americans under-employed.

This disturbing trend should prompt serious soul-searching by Latino evangelical church leaders as to whether cantering to Spanish-speaking adherents should be the focus of the church. Daniel Rodriguez, professor of Religion at Pepperdine University states clearly what he believes the Latino church leader’s position should be. 

“The church's mission is to preach the gospel to all people. It is not to preserve the language and cultural preferences of any generation, whether foreign or native born. As God's missionary people, we have been sent into the world just as Jesus Christ was sent into the world by the Father (John 20:21). We cannot allow our ethnocentrism to blind us to the prisons of disobedience evident in every culture, including our own.”

The dramatic changes in demographics in the Latino community should be cause for Spanish-speaking church administrators to reexamine who the church will be ministering to in the near future. Gaston Espinosa, associate professor of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College says the changes in demographics “will pressure churches to gear more toward second and third generation Hispanics – who virtually all speak English as a primary language.” 

As more undocumented immigrants become more “Americanized in language and culture,” English will become the predominant language at home, school, and business. Second and third generation Latinos understand that in order to succeed in the USA, learning to read and write English proficiently is a given.

In the past, most Latino families felt it was important to maintain a strong cultural tie to our Raza heritage, and language was thought to be the best way to keep our customs alive. In addition to ministering to Spanish-speaking congregations, Spanish was a cultural icon that kept our traditions vibrant and alive in a society where the dominant group placed little value on their cultural past.

Perhaps more alarming or critically important for faith leaders in Latino evangelical ministries, is to heed the words of Daniel Sanchez, from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas who teaches church planting, “Any church that insists on just being Spanish-speaking risks losing young people.”

Beyond debating the politics of how many undocumented immigrants are crossing or not crossing the border, what the focus of our debate should be how evangelical Latino leaders examine the demographic changes and how they are challenging Latino churches to remain culturally and spiritually in touch with second and third generation Latinos. 

With more Latino youth opting out for English, where will these Latino young people go to church? Bi-lingual church services were all the rage a generation ago, but even though seen as an accommodation, if one understood both English and Spanish, it was a double dose or dare we say, “Double portion of the Word?” Bi-linguicism in Latino churches while a noble attempt to keep both groups content, services were perceived as doubling up on every facet of the service.

Daniel Rodriguez, professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, adds another important perception to the debate of ministering to the Spanish-speaking ministry models. Rodriguez claims these models “were unintentionally designed to preserve the language and cultural preferences of foreign-born Latinos.

Rodriguez outlines how the Latino church has missed one of the greatest opportunities for meeting the spiritual needs of the Latino whose demographic changes should also modify the church’s focus in ministry. “My research during the past five years has convinced me that as the church's attention and resources have been drawn to the rapid growth of the Hispanic evangelical church during the past three decades, they have unintentionally overlooked U.S.-born English-dominant Latinos.

Like the Greek-speaking Jews described in Acts 6:1–4, "Hellenized Latinos" are not receiving the daily distribution of spiritual food. They represent more than 60 percent of all Latinos in this country, but are invisible to many denominational and local church leaders who uncritically equate "Hispanic ministry" with "Spanish-language ministry.”

There will always be a need for a Spanish-speaking ministry, but to ignore “more than 60% of all Latinos in this country not receiving the daily distribution of spiritual food,” must also be acknowledged as a priority strategy.

Manuel Ortiz, in his groundbreaking study, The Hispanic Challenge, contends that the role that language plays in the Latino church will always be one of on-going debate. Ortiz observes that, “Legal and illegal immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean to the United States ensures an ongoing need for Spanish-speaking immigrant churches. But it is time for church and denominational leaders to recognize a new generation of Hispanic leaders dedicated to becoming all things to all Latinos – including the silent majority who are native born and English dominant, “living in the hyphen” Latin American and Anglo-American cultures.”

While Latino evangelical church leaders lead the debate on the need for comprehensive immigration reform for families, we must also focus on the importance of the future of the Latino evangelical church and its ability to recognize how immigration reform may affect the Latino evangelical church’s ability to remain relevant to a diverse Latino community – and how language may be an advantage to accomplish more for Christ, and our ability to spread the Gospel.

MORE THAN VOTER SUPPRESSION

MORE THAN VOTER SUPPRESSION

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

The first recall election in the history of the State of Colorado shocked and staggered the two elected Democrat state legislators who expected to withstand the recall election. Instead, angry voters in their districts recalled both legislators for their anti-Second Amendment positions and votes for stricter gun control. 

The first ever recall election, sent shock waves through the Colorado State House. For the first time, the constituents of their respective districts recalled two Democratic state senators because of their positions over the controversial issue of gun control legislation.  Colorado Senate President John Morse and State Senator Angela Giron were defeated, leaving many unanswered questions about voter sentiments.

The recall of Colorado State Senator Angela Giron from her Pueblo, Colorado district no doubt surprised many election pundits, and should give Colorado Democrats reason for pause and concern. The district represented by Senator Giron was heavily weighted toward the incumbent, where Democrats are a majority of the registered voters. Giron lost the first ever recall election in Colorado by a 56% to 46% margin, losing by an unbelievable 12% margin.

Also banished from the Colorado Senate was Senate President John Morse who was unable to withstand his own recall. Fifty-one percent of the voters in his district-favored recall, Forty-nine percent of the voters voted against the recall.  In the end, Morse lost his position as Senate President by a mere 343 votes.

On election night, as Giron tried to make sense out what happened, Giron was at a loss for words and told her constituents that she was not sure what happened. President Barack Obama carried her district by over 20% of the vote. With more registered Democrats in her district, I am sure Giron and Democrats felt the winning edge was in their favor. In a district which encompasses Pueblo and Pueblo West, of the 70,719 registered voters, 47% are registered Democrats, whereas, registered Republican voters are only 23%. Voters registered as independent or unaffiliated are 29% of the voters.

Clearly, in a district which historically has been a Democratic voter stronghold, and a district where statewide Democratic candidates could expect Democrats to rally behind their campaigns, now are going to have think twice before counting these votes as their own. Keep in mind, that when Giron ran in 2011, she easily won the election by 55% of the votes cast. It is understandable why Giron could not understand what had happened.

The questions that left Giron perplexed and unsure of what caused her recall and defeat left many other political experts wondering the same. Even the Public Policy Polling withheld the results of their last polling before the election, because they too were puzzled and unsure why their poll showed Giron losing by a 12-point margin. The poll showed Giron losing by such a large margin, the pollsters felt the poll had to be wrong.

Tom Jensen of the Public Policy Polling released a statement explaining why the polling results were withheld. He wrote, “I figured there was no way that could be right and made a rare decision not to release the poll. It turns out we should have had more faith in our numbers because she was indeed recalled by 12 points” The decision to withhold the results, The Denver Post reported raised the ire of many local politicians and bloggers.

The same Public Policy Polling reflected surprising results of how the constituents of Senator Giron felt about gun issues triggering the recall. 68% favored expanded background checks for gun buyers, with only 27% not favoring the expanded background checks. On the more controversial law limiting high capacity ammunition magazines to 15 bullets, the poll had 47% supporting and 47% opposing it. It does not look as if voters were that upset by the gun laws, which generated the recall.

The questions remain as to why Giron, who was elected by 55% of the vote, was forced out by almost 12% of voters.

Some of the voter dissatisfaction with Giron was associated to her initial support of a water bill that would have sent precious water to Aurora and Colorado Springs from the mighty Arkansas River. Giron’s support for a renewable energy bill had opponents claiming it would raise energy rates for resident of Pueblo West. Joey Bunch of The Denver Post reported that Giron had created a number of enemies of influential Democrats since her election in 2011, which no doubt could have played a role in the recall.

The picture drawn from the voter dissatisfaction complaints may have prompted many voters in her district to sign on to recall of Giron. There is another perspective, which may have affected why voters in Giron’s district, perceived her tenure at the State House with disapproval. Twenty percent of the voters who signed the recall petition were Democrats. The Denver Post reported that many signers volunteered that Giron was, “arrogant and difficult to work with.” The fact that 20% of Democrats signed the recall petition, that statistic alone should give us the best reason why Giron lost.

Giron protests the fact of her being difficult to work with or arrogant, “I’m really a grassroots person. I don’t hang out with the VIPs.”

Still, there were voters speaking out about their dissatisfaction with her work as the senator from Pueblo.  One of the three plumbers who initiated the recall, Victor Head, president of Pueblo Freedom and Rights, the group responsible for the recall, issued a statement, “Giron’s disregard for the majority of her constituents to vote ‘no’ on anti-Second Amendment issues and her general disregard of our Constitution and the rights of the citizens of Colorado demonstrate she must be removed from the Senate. This election has been about holding our elected officials accountable.”

David Zvonek, state director of Americans for Prosperity proclaimed, “Coloradans…sent a clear message that politicians who blatantly ignore their constituents will be held accountable.”

The Founder of the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, Tim Knight felt lack of accountability from Giron played a major role in the recall. “Tonight is a victory for the people of the state of Colorado, who have been subject to the overreach of a Democrat agenda on guns, taxes, and accountability to the people.”

George Rivera, retired Pueblo police officer who will serve the remainder of Giron’s term, thanked the Pueblo Freedom and Rights organization, “This election has been about holding our elected officials accountable. The voters of Pueblo have sent a strong message. We are the voice of democracy.”

On CNN, Giron tried to raise the issue of “voter suppression” as the reason for her loss. In a very argumentative interview with the CNN anchor, Giron ill prepared for the interview only reinforced the observations of being, “arrogant and difficult to work with.” 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NNcWCxVIIkQ)

The 2013 session of the Colorado Legislature called one of the most progressive in Colorado history, but after the recall of the Senate President and Pueblo Senator; it should give other Democrats cause for alarm and reevaluation of their liberal agenda.

Voters are watching very carefully their elected officials, their voting records, their ability to communicate and respond to voter concerns, and whether or not, they too may be perceived as arrogant and difficult to work with.

~30~