PRESENT BUT NOT ACCOUNTED FORThe Rise and Development of U. S. Hispanic Theology

I. INTRODUCTIONIt would be difficult to have been present in the United States during the last three

decades without noticing the growing presence of the Hispanic1 community, particularly in the south and the west as well as such key cities as New York and Chicago.2 Many people are unaware that the United States is currently the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. 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.3 Not only is it the largest but it is also one of the fastest growing segments 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.4 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

1 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’ (Miguel A. De La Torre and Edwín David Aponte, Introducing Latino/a Theology [Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001] 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,” Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States [ed. Allan Figueroa Deck; Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995] 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 (cf. 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] 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.2 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 (The Hispanic Population, 2). 3 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. 4 Ibid. Just over half (54%) of this growth was from immigration while the rest was the result of natural growth (Ibid.).

1

number over 102.5 million or nearly one quarter of the overall population and nearly half the size of the non-Hispanic white population.5

The Hispanic community has not only grown significantly with respect to its demographic situation but it has also grown in terms of its theological contribution. 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. Recognizing this growing presence and some of the implications it represents, the U. S. Catholic Church stated in their pastoral letter The Hispanic Presence: Challenge and Commitment:

No other European culture has been in this country longer than the Hispanic. Spaniards and their descendents were already in the Southeast and the Southwest by the late sixteenth century. In other regions of our country a steady influx of Hispanic immigrants has increased their visibility in more recent times. Plainly the Hispanic population will loom larger in the future of both the wider society and the Church in the United States.6

Given the significance of this growing reality, Pastora Cafferty and David Engstrom suggest that “addressing the issues raised by this heterogeneous population will define how Americans in general deal with issues of class, race, and ethnic identity during the twenty-first century.”7 A similar statement could be made with respect to the significance of understanding this population for how we will deal with theological, ecclesiastical, and other religious concerns in the twenty-first century.

We will approach this task in two parts. In the first, we will consider the rise of U. S. Hispanic theology. To do this we will look at the background of the movement by briefly surveying the history of the Hispanic church in America from its colonial origins to 1972. We will then consider the advent of U. S. Hispanic theology as a distinct theological perspective as it has developed from that time to the present. The second part of the paper will discuss the development of a distinctly U. S. Hispanic theology by providing a concise summary of its theological methods and sources.

By exploring U. S. Hispanic theology in this way, we will hopefully accomplish two things. First we will have a better understanding of U. S. Hispanic theology and thus be better prepared to interact with what may become one of the most significant theological influences in America during the twenty-first century. Second, by interacting with their issues, insights, and concerns, we may come to deeper understanding of our own theological perspectives and methods.

II. THE BACKGROUND OF U. S. HISPANIC THEOLOGY (ORIGINS-1972)

Although Hispanics have maintained a significant presence in what is now the continental United States for hundreds of years, their presence has in many ways only recently begun to be

5 U. S. Census Bureau, 2004, "U. S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin," <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/> March 27, 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). 6 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hispanic Presence (1984) 1.6. 7 Pastora San Juan Cafferty and David W. Engstrom, eds., Hispanics in the United States: An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2000) xii.

2

recognized by the more dominant non-Hispanic white population as their numbers have been swelled by high birth rates and rising immigration. Recognizing this tension between the “long-standing presence and recent arrival” of Hispanics in the U.S., Timothy Matovina and Gerald Poyo describe their history as “a wide-ranging and fascinating story of colonial origins and new beginnings, struggle and endurance, immigration and exile, unity and diversity, triumph and resistance.”8 A survey as brief as this one cannot hope to address all of the disparate elements that comprise the history of Hispanic religious life in America but we will attempt to bring out the more significant aspects including both its ancient pedigree and its more recent development.

1. The Spanish Period (1565-1848)Although Hispanic involvement in the United States can be dated somewhat earlier than

1565, the settlement of the first permanent colony in America at St. Augustine (Florida) in that year marks the beginning of an established Spanish presence.9 For the next several hundred years Spanish presence spread all over the southern part of what is now the continental United States through colonization and missionary activity extending from coast to coast and as far north as Virginia.10

During the Spanish period the experience of the Hispanic peoples in these lands is best described as marginalized and oppressed. Though comprising a large portion of the Spanish lands, these areas never highly populated by Spanish settlers and were considered ‘borderland’ territories by the more densely populated and centrally located regions in central Mexico and South America.11 Thus marginalized as a territory, Hispanics living in these ‘borderlands’ were further marginalized by political and economic policies that blatantly favored those who were of ‘pure’ Spanish descent and placed those of lower social status in positions where they could be manipulated and instrumentalized.

The militant nature of the Spanish involvement and its corresponding ‘conquest’ mentality also caused Hispanic origins in America to be “profoundly marked by slavery, plunder, oppression, and suffering.”12 Overall, Spanish rule was harsh and created a society that was “seigniorial in kind, shot through with cast privilege, and widely, though not universally, dependent on peonage.” All of this contributed to the continued oppression of the indigenous and mixed populations.

8 Timothy Matovina and Gerald E. Poyo, eds., ¡Presente! U. S. Latino Catholics from Colonial Origins to the Present (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000) xv. 9 Throughout this paper, I will consistently use ‘Spanish’ to refer to those who came from Spain and to those who maintained ‘pure’ Spanish bloodlines and thus remained at the top of the social hierarchy in the Spanish colonies. Contrarily I will use ‘Latino/a’ and ‘Hispanic’ to refer to those who are of mixed Spanish descent. These terms will thus include mestizos (mixed Spanish and Indian descent) and mulattos (mixed Spanish and African-American descent). 10 Ibid.11 Cf. Peter W. Williams, America’s Religions: From Their Origins to the Twenty-First Century (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002) 433. 12 Orlando Espín , “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) 153. Espín goes on to argue that this militancy also characterized the Church: “These Christians, who for hundreds of years had fought non-Christians, had developed a style of Christianity that was militant and attracted tot eh heroic, and was not known for its tolerance of religious or ethnic diversity. National self-definition, indeed, had depended on the conquest and expulsion of those who are different. Not surprisingly the same militant, heroic, and intolerant attitudes were brought to the Americans by the Spaniards and made present in the process of evangelization and colonization” (Ibid., 154).

3

Unfortunately, this marginalization and oppression was carried over into Latino/a religious life as well. Hispanic religious life during this era was thoroughly dominated by the Catholic Church.13 But, under Spanish rule, the Catholic Church has often been described as having a dual nature. On the one hand, the ‘official’ Catholic Church was controlled by the upper classes and was influential in supporting and even promoting the political and economic policies of the Spanish colonies and thus the oppression and marginalization of the Hispanic peoples.14 The Spanish Catholic hierarchy has thus been consistently criticized for failing to developing sufficient indigenous ecclesiastical leadership and not speaking out strongly against the abuse heaped on the Latino/a population.15 But, on the other hand, there was a “church of the dispossessed”16 led by people like Barolome de Las Casas who ministered to the needs of the common people and tried to better their lot sometimes in direct conflict with institutional Church structures. “Thus,” according to Justo González , “from its very beginning, Spanish-American Roman Catholicism has been torn between a hierarchical church that has generally represented the powerful and stood by them and a more popular church, formed by the masses and led by pastors who have ministered at the very edge of disobedience.”17

2. The American Period (1848-1941)American involvement in these Hispanic lands actually begins long before 1848. Conflict

between the Spanish and the Anglo populations in North America begins with a series of disputes over the Spanish colonies in Florida that eventually ended with the transfer of Florida to the United States in 1821. Tension heightened as American settlers began moving in greater numbers into Texas and California. Although granted significant freedom by the new Mexican government, Texas declared its independence in 1836 leading ultimately to the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and culminating in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848) in which Mexico ceded the northern third of its territory to the United States. Although the Treaty guaranteed the rights and freedoms of the Hispanics living in the ceded territories, the non-Hispanic whites quickly dominated the social, political, economic, and even religious places of power. Most Hispanics argue that this same pattern of conquest, whether that conquest be military (Mexico and Puerto Rico), political (Cuba), or economic (most of Latin America), followed by marginalization has characterized the interaction of the United States with the Hispanic peoples.

The dual nature of the Church in the Spanish period also continued to characterize the religious experience of Hispanics under American rule. Church hierarchy was dominated by foreign clergy (largely Irish-American and French) and it was to be over a hundred years before the appointment of the first Hispanic bishop in the United States. This dual religiosity has been such a pervasive influence in Hispanic religious life that Justo González could state: “Hispanics, 13 Although there was some Protestant missionary activity, especially later in this period as Protestant missionaries moved into Texas with other American settlers, the vast majority of Hispanics at this time were Catholic.14 Justo González states that to a very significant degree “the Catholic Church in Latin America was an arm of the powers of conquest, colonialism, and oppression” (Mañana: Christian Theology from a Hispanic Perspective [Nashville: Abingdon, 1990] 56). 15 Cf. Williams, 433-434.16 Justo L. González, “Hispanics in the New Reformation,” Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995) 243. 17 Ibid., 244. According to Latourette, this situation was actually made worse by Mexican independence as it caused most of the foreign-born clergy to flee the country and involved a devastating transfer of ecclesial properties from the regular to the usually less prepared secular clergy (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity. Volume II: A.D. 1500 – A.D. 1975 [Peabody, MA: Prince, 1999] 1286).

4

no matter whether Catholic or Protestant, and no matter whether or not they have heard of Bartolome de Las Casas or the cura de Taos, have been shaped by this dual Catholicism, a Catholicism that is deeply pained by the tension within itself and that is best epitomized in the common phrase – almost a contradiction for Catholics of other traditions ‘soy católico, pero no creo en las curas’ (I am a Catholic, but I don’t believe in priests).”18 Thus, the marginalization and oppression characteristic of Hispanics in both the Spanish and American periods indicates that in secular society and the church, Hispanics have largely been present but not accounted for.

3. The Latino/a Resurgence (1941-1972)A new period began in 1941 as a number of developments either contemporaneous with

or resulting from American involvement in World War II had a dramatic impact on Latino/a life. Toward the end of the previous period, Hispanic immigration increased significantly. Almost 250,000 Mexican laborers crossed the border between 1918 and 1920.19 Though many of them were subsequently deported during the Great Depression, the shortage of workers during World War II led to the establishment of the braceros (workers) program in 1942. Between 1942 and 1964 when the program was ended, well over five million Mexican workers participated in the program. In addition, many scholars think that the braceros program also increased the immigration of undocumented workers who were not allowed into the program.20

A number of post-WWII developments laid the groundwork for the rise of U. S. Hispanic Theology. During this period, according to Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo:

A mostly rural, agricultural people became urban and proletarian; educational attainments increased, new class divisions were created, a more complex labor force segmentation appeared, and a wider religious diversity arose among Latinos. Perhaps the changes from 1930 until 1965 did more to alter the everyday life of Latinos than had the political transfer of power from Mexico and Spain to the United States after the wars of conquest. These revolutionary transformations had ecclesiastical aftershocks.21

Additionally, they note several social developments that were significant including rapid population growth, high immigration, as well as a growing awareness of pervasive racism, discrimination, and both political and economic obstacles.22 Another broad development that impacted the Latino/a community was the Civil Rights movement. Although primarily oriented toward the needs and concerns of the African American community, it certainly had an impact on the Hispanic community as well.

The latter part of this period also witnessed “an intense period of advocacy and organization.”23 Although this broad based movimiento is typically viewed as involving primarily secular developments like César Chávez’s United Farm Workers, more militant Hispanic groups 18 González, “Hispanics in the New Reformation,” 245. 19 L.H. Gann and Peter J. Duignan, The Hispanics in the United States: A History (Boulder and London: Westview, 1986) 46. 20 Moises Sandoval, On the Move: A History of the Hispanic Church in the United States (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991) 49. 21 Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo, 117. Elsewhere they state that the mass movement toward urbanization resulting from the loss of their agricultural niche in the New Deal era has caused Latino/a religion to undergo more changes in the last seventy years than during the previous millennium (62). 22 Ibid., 40-41. 23 Ibid., 125.

5

like the Brown Berets and La Raza Unida, the Chicano movement, the Latino studies movement, and the Puerto Rican nationalist movement, it was also closely related to the development of Catholic organizations like PADRES24, Las Hermanas,25 and the Division for the Spanish Speaking (later the Secretariat for Hispanic Affairs) as well as Protestant organizations like the Hispanic-American Institute.26 One key proponent of these ecclesiastical developments was Robert E. Lucey, archbishop of San Antonio from 1941 to 1969. Leading the way in expressing concerns about the situation of Hispanics in America, he helped to establish the Bishops’ Commission for the Spanish Speaking which was “the first national organization aimed at the concerns of Hispanics in general and of Mexican Americans…in particular”27

The period was thus characterized by both a growing Hispanic presence in the United States and a growing Latino/a awareness of the challenges and obstacles hindering them from full involvement in society as well as a commitment to unapologetically address those problems and the needs of the Hispanic community.

4. The Social Location of U. S. HispanicsBefore moving on to consider the rise of U. S. Hispanic theology that resulted from these

various social and religious developments, we must briefly consider the present social location of U. S. Hispanics. An overview of the various social realities of Hispanic life should suffice to demonstrate that marginalization and oppression have not only been historical realities for the Latino/a community but remain present realities as well. These present realities, as we will see in the second part of the paper, comprise a vital aspect of U. S. Hispanic theological reflection.28

a. The Diversity and Pan-ethnicity of the Hispanic CommunityBefore attempting to summarize the social reality of U. S. Hispanics it is important to

recognize that ‘Hispanic’ is an umbrella term that actually encompasses a large and diverse group of people each possessing its own unique history and culture.29 Indeed, Manuel Mejido 24 Founded in 1970, Padres Asociados para Derechos Religiosos, Educationales y Sociales was by Hispanic priests in response to the social and economic needs made so clear out by Chavez’s UFW. 25 Similar to PADRES, Las Hermanas was formed in 1971 to “promote the interests of Hispanic Catholic women within the church, provide mutual support, advocate for social justice, and take positions on issues such as the ordination of women” (David Maldonado, “The Changing Religious Practice of Hispanics,” in Hispanics in the United States: An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century [eds. Pastora San Juan Cafferty and David W. Engstrom; New Brunswick: Transaction, 2000] 107). 26 The Hispanic-American Institute was organized in 1969 by a coalition of Presbyterian, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Lutheran churches. Though it was eventually closed it helped spawn a number of denominational organizations that served to support Hispanic needs (Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo, 168). 27 Ibid., 47.28 De La Torre and Aponte describe U. S. Hispanic theology as an attempt to “construct a theology to help them clearly see themselves and the present reality of their struggle” (38).29 Manuel Jesus Mejido states: “Indeed, when we monolithically categorize a Mexican, a Puerto Rican, or a Central American as 'Hispanic', we must be cognizant of the fact that there is a unique history, culture, and religiosity that transcends the category. For this reason Segovia rightly states that 'it would be quite improper to regard [the Latino community], whether from the outside or the inside, as a monolithic or uniform entity, except for specific and clearly articulated analytic or strategic reasons” (“U. S. Hispanics/Latinos and the Field of Graduate Theological Education,” Theological Education 34.2 [Spring 1998] 54-55). But Cafferty and Engstrom argue that even this guarded use of a panethnic descriptor may do more harm than good: “It can be a form of self-conceptualization by the individual or an identity that society assigns to the individual, creating a Hispanic panethnicity that is impossible to define and that, indeed, may be of little real consequence” (xiv). But, as we will discuss shortly, a number of recent development suggest that there is a developing panethnic Hispanic identity that makes such terminology useful as long as they are used carefully.

6

comments that the heterogeneity of this group is so significant that it makes general statistical formulations like the ones cited above “almost absurd, as they do not reflect the nuances and idiosyncrasies that define this population.”30 This heterogeneity must be acknowledged in all areas of Hispanic life including history, culture, religion, and social status.

The cultural background of the U. S. Hispanic population is quite diverse consisting as it does of Mexicans (66.9 %), Central/South Americans (14.3 %), Puerto Ricans (8.6 %), Cubans (3.7 %), and a variety of other Hispanic peoples (6.5 %) each with its own unique set of customs, traditions, institutions, and shared memories.31 Hispanics are also racially diverse. As used by the U. S. Census Bureau and most scholars, Hispanic and Latino are ethnic/cultural terms rather than racial terms and are therefore more akin to ‘European’ or ‘North American’ than to ‘White/Caucasian’ or ‘Asian.’32 Economically, while we will see that many Hispanics live below the poverty level and that the Hispanic community as a whole makes less than that of other people groups, a growing Hispanic middle class and marked economic differences between the various Hispanic groups means that any generalizations in this area necessarily fail to capture the complexity of the Hispanic economic situation. A commonly overlooked area of diversity is that which arises from generational differences. Latinos/as constitute one of the youngest population groups in the U. S. with over a third under the age of 18 (22.8% of non-Hispanic Whites).33 Markedly different from Generation Xers, these Hispanic have been labeled Generation Ñ and are noted for both challenging the traditional assumptions of older Latinos/as and being more generally assimilated into ‘mainstream’ culture while at the same time maintaining the importance of holding on to their Hispanic heritage.34 Finally, the Hispanic community is far more religiously diverse than is commonly recognized. Although the majority of Latinos/as still consider themselves to be Catholic,35 Hispanics can no longer be considered a monolithically Catholic group. The last several decades have seen “a gradual decline of Hispanic

30 Mejido, 54. In the foreword to Isidro Lucas’ The Browning of America, Virgilio Elizondo describes this diverse reality and the difficulties it presents for those who wish to study it from the outside: “Sociologists, educators, and census counters become frustrated because we do not fit into their neat categories. We are white, black, and brown; we have black, blue, green, or brown eyes. We are short and we are tall, we are fat and we are skinny. We are rich and we are poor. We are Spanish-speaking and English-speaking. We constantly hear the question, ‘What do you people want to call yourselves?’ We never ask that question ourselves, because we know who we are, but outsiders get frustrated because they cannot define the depth of our mystery” ([Chicago: Fides, 1981] ix-x). 31 The Hispanic Population in the United States, 1. Some of these labels (e.g., Mexican and Central/South American) are themselves rather broad and hide a variety of historical and cultural differences.32 Thus, some Hispanics consider themselves to be White racially (indeed the Census Bureau classified all Hispanics as White until fairly recently) while others describe themselves as Black, Indian, or some combination of races. Because of this multiraciality, according to De La Torre and Aponte, “the dominant culture ‘sees’ all Hispanics as nonwhite, even though Latinos/as see a segment of their own community as white” (56). Only those Hispanics who “have a lighter skin, acquire economic or cultural capital, and speak English without a Spanish accent” are perceived as possessing an “honorary whiteness” (Ibid.).33 The Hispanic Population, 2. 34 De La Torre and Aponte, 143 and González, Mañana, 37.35 Note that many are not active Catholics.

7

Catholic identity”36 and the rapid rise of Hispanic involvement with the Protestant church and other religious groups.37

A number of characteristics generally common to all Hispanic groups, though, suggests that they possess a pan-ethnic identity that transcends their cultural differences.38 Despite recent trends, the Catholic Church39 and the Spanish language40 continue to be the most significant unifying factors. But there are a number of other important commonalties as well. Ada María Isasi-Díaz mentions the importance of their Caribbean and Latin American background, their social status, and their emphasis on popular religiosity.41 Additionally, Luis Pedraja notes not only that Hispanics have shared “family values, and sense of spirituality” but also that the Spanish conquest of the Americas stands as the “one single element” that “traverses all our cultures and nationalities.”42 Thus, as Fernando Segovia observes, “Despite their divergent backgrounds and natural tendency to define themselves in terms of their country of origin, Hispanic Americans have more recently begun to see themselves as a distinctive group with

36 David Maldonado, “The Changing Religious Practice of Hispanics,” 101. He further notes that the Hispanic population “has come to mirror much of the religious diversity found in the broader culture and society. The trend is away from traditional Catholicism, and even beyond mainline Protestant denominations…who have been active in Hispanic communities for more than a century….However, the fastest growing Hispanic religious group has been the Pentecostal and evangelical denominations” (Ibid.).37According to one study cited by Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo (35-37), in 1990 67%of Hispanics consider themselves to be Catholic and 26%identified themselves as Protestant. Since the survey allowed respondents to specify their own religious affiliation it is somewhat difficult to indicate the precise breakdown of the Protestant denominations but the most commonly used descriptors are Baptist (7.4%) followed by Christian or evangelical (5.5%) and Pentecostal or Assembly of God (2.4%). The only other religious descriptors that received any significant attention were Jewish (.7%), Jehovah’s Witnesses (1.7%), and Mormon (.8%). Less than one half of one % identified themselves as agnostic. 38 According to Valentin, the “staging moment of U. S. Hispanic/Latino/a theology is, therefore, particularly rooted in the emergence of a critical pan-Latino/a social consciousness among latinos/as” (Benjamin 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] 39). Similarly De La Torre and Aponte describe U. S. Hispanic theology as an attempt to “construct a theology to help them clearly see themselves and the present reality of their struggle” (38). 39 Even Protestant theologians like Justo González recognizes that the Catholic Church is a part of the common heritage of all Hispanics as an integral part of their culture (González, Mañana, 55). Maldonado, another Protestant, describes the universal significance of the Catholic Church for Hispanic cultural life: “The Catholic Church and Catholic religious practices played dominant roles in the peoples’ daily lives, in their cultural formation, and in the formation of their self-identities. From birth to death, the religious calendar of the church, with annual celebrations of religious events such as Christams, Lent, Easter, and the various saints’ days, guided the lives of communities. Key religious rituals or sacraments…shaped social relations. Religious values, teachings, and rituals shaped personal worldviews and individual and social behavior. The family, community, and society were all Catholic, thus providing a unified socioreligoius cultural system” (“The Changing Religious Practice,” 100). 40 Roberto Goizueta comments on the significance of language for the formation of a people’s identity: “The language is not incidental to the individual person’s self-understanding and worldview; it shapes and informs these. If community is prior to individuality, language is prior to self-understanding. As family, community, and culture give birth to self-identity, language gives birth to self-understanding” (Camimemos Con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995] 53; cf. also Cafferty and Engstrom, 69-96).41 Ada María Isasi-Díaz, En la Lucha: In the Struggle: A Hispanic Women’s Liberation Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 54. 42 Luis Pedraja, Teología: An Introduction to Hispanic Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003) 42. Other important elements, according to Eldin Villafañe, are their personalism, love of music, hospitality, sense of community, love of family, and sense of honor and dignity, and passion (Edwín Villafañe, The Liberating Spirit: Toward an Hispanic American Pentecostal Social Ethic [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 1-15).

8

common needs and goals, with specific and urgent agenda, within the American political and cultural scene.”43

b. Poverty and MarginalizationAny attempt to understand U. S. Hispanic theology must address two important aspects

of this pan-ethnic identity: the pervasive poverty and marginalization characteristic of Hispanic life. Poverty is an important issue for Hispanics. Although the growing Hispanic middle class points to increasing economic diversity, it is nonetheless true that poverty is still a pervasive issue that touches the lives of nearly all Hispanics. The Census Bureau reported in 2002 that more than one in five Hispanics in the United States live below the poverty line (only 7.8% of non-Hispanic Whites do so).44 While Hispanic children represented only 17.7 % of all children in the United States, they constituted 30.4 % of all children in poverty.”45 A substantial income gap also exists. Over half of non-Hispanic Whites make over $35,000 a year but just over a quarter of Hispanics achieve the same level of income.46 This widespread poverty touches the lives of even those Hispanics not living in poverty (through friends and relatives) and means that all Hispanic theologians work from this context.

Political and religious marginalization have also been consistent realities facing the Hispanic community. As has been true from the time of the two conquests, the Spanish and the American, Hispanics continue to play only a marginal political role. Manuel Mejido reports that through the last two decades of the twentieth century, Hispanics held less than 3.3% of the seats in Congress none of which were in the Senate.47 At the local level, Hispanics in 1992 held approximately 1.5% of all elected county positions, 1.3% of municipal offices, .17% of township seats, and 2.8% of school district offices.48 Although Latinos/as are achieving growing political

43 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 Goizueta; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 29. Justo González sees this development as the beginning of a “new reality” and a “new way of being human” that transcends the limitations of ethnic rivalries and divisions although it is still marred at times by “group pride and prejudice” (cf. Justo González, “Hispanics in the United States,” Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 27.1 [Winter 1992] 13 and Mañana, 13). Similarly impressed by the significance of this development, Benjamin Valentin sees the evolution of “a fragile, yet appreciable, panethnic social identity” as one of the most prominent events shaping Latino/a consciousness since World War II (“Strangers No More,” 39). This same solidarity, according to Maldonado, characterizes the rapidly developing Hispanic ecumenism: “In spite of the diversities, a sense of mutual identification and understanding seems to be emerging among Hispanics across denominational and traditional lines; however, this differs from traditional forms of ecumenical dialogues and movements. Hispanic ecumenical dialogue and cooperative activities have not focused on doctrinal or liturgical issues. These have not been of urgent importance. Instead, the focus of Hispanic interdenominational activity has been on the shared experience of being Hispanic and being Hispanic Christians in particular” (“Doing Theology,” in Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology [ed. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 102; cf. also De La Torre and Aponte, 147).44 “The Hispanic Population,” 2. There is significant diversity among the Hispanic groups on this issue with poverty levels ranging from a high of 26.1 % (Mexicans) to a low of 15.2 % (Central and South Americans) (Ibid.). Some suggest that poverty statistics actually understate Hispanic poverty since many Latinos/as routinely send money to families in other countries and are thus supporting more dependents than is acknowledged in the Census Bureau statistic (González, Mañana, 34).45 Ibid. The Bureau also reported: “Hispanic children younger than 18 years of age were much more likely than non-Hispanic White children to be living in poverty (28.0 % compared with 9.5 %, respectively).46 “The Hispanic Population,” 2. Additionally the report indicates that nearly a third of non-Hispanic Whites make $50,000 or more but only 12.4 % of Hispanics do the same. 47 Mejido, 57.48 Ibid.

9

power in the United States through a more unified Hispanic political voice, they continue to be underrepresented at almost all levels of government.

Culturally, the marginalization of Hispanics in America has taken place through a variety of mechanisms including a failure to include Hispanics in American histories,49 a lack of presence in pop culture, and a bi-polar racial paradigm (white/black) that tends to exclude Hispanics.50

Finally, although the situation improved somewhat during the last quarter of the twentieth century, Hispanics continue to experience marginalization in the Church, Catholic and Protestant. Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo point out that as recently as 1977 Hispanics could be almost completely ignored in a major work on American Catholicism.51 They similarly note, “From 1986-1996…the journal Sociology of Religion, has published more articles on the fans of Star Trek than on Latinos!”52 Institutionally, Hispanics are still underrepresented in the clergy and in accredited theological and ministerial programs.53 Even such key Hispanic leaders as Virgilio Elizondo and Justo González relate personal experiences of marginalization and even outright racism in the church.54

Thus, we can see that poverty and marginalization continue to be characteristic of Latino/a life. As important aspects of U. S. Hispanic experience, they have also come to form integral components of Latino/a theological reflection.

III. THE FOUNDATIONS OF U. S. HISPANIC THEOLOGY (1972-1990) 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

49 Pedraja notes that these historical omissions “keep the accomplishments and contributions of Hispanics hidden, giving the impression that most of us are recent interlopers and freeloaders, living off the wealth of America without contributing much in exchange” (Teología, 43).50 Cf. Ibid. With respect to the racial paradigm Pedraja notes: “In the United States, most of the race dialogue occurs within a white-black paradigm, often excluding Latinos/as, Asians, and even Native Americans. This exclusion was most evident during segregation, as Virgilio Elizondo writes in his book, The Future is Mestizo: ‘I remember well the problems we experienced just trying to go to the toilet. If we went into the ones marked ‘colored’ we were chased out of by the blacks because we were not technically black. Yet, we were often chased out from the ones marked ‘white’ because we had dark skin. So we didn’t even have toilets to which we could go.’ The exclusion of Latinos/as from the categories that defined race in America left them without a clear place in society and often excluded them from politics, the media, and public life.” (Ibid.). 51 Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo, 2. 52 Ibid., 5. 53 According to a recent Washington Post article, Hispanics still comprise just 3.6% of Catholic clergy and even more evangelistic Christian groups, which tend to be somewhat more successful at recruiting Hispanic clergy, find it difficult integrating Hispanic clergy into the mainstream (“Hispanics’ Numbers in Clergy Seen as Low,” Washington Post [Jan. 24, 2003]). For statistical information on Hispanics in American and Canadian ministerial and theological schools see The Fact Book on Theological Education (2002-2003) published by the Association of Theological Schools. Although there has been significant growth in the total numbers of Hispanics enrolled in such programs over the last several decades, this growth has not been as significant in the more advanced degree programs (e.g., M.Div., D.Min., Ph.D., etc.) nor has the growth managed to outpace the growth in the overall Hispanic population to any great degree.54 Teresa Chavez Sauceda, “Love in the Crossroads: Stepping-Stones to a Doctrine of God in Hispanic/Latino Theology,” in Teología en Conjunto: A Collaborative Hispanic Protestant Theology (eds. Jose David Rodriguez and Loida I. Martell-Otero; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 23.

10

assertively enter the overall theological discourse from the perspective of their own socio-cultural location.”55

Although defining the chronological parameters of any movement is always somewhat subjective, many U.S Hispanic scholars point to 1972 as marking the beginning of a distinctively U. S. Hispanic theology.56 That year saw the founding of the Mexican-American Cultural Center (MACC) in San Antonio Texas by Virgilio Elizondo who also served as the Center’s first president. The MACC soon became a leader in promoting Hispanic theological concerns. 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 Hispanic Theologians of the United States (ACHTUS) 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”57 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.58 This latter program provided Hispanic students with the opportunity to study under the leadership of Hispanic faculty exploring issues of interest to Latinos/as.59

The theological father of U. S. Hispanic theology is widely recognized to be Virgilio Elizondo whose important writings during this period set the tone for all subsequent Latino/a theology. In 1982 he published his seminal work, Galilean Journey. Drawing parallels between the oppression, alienation, and marginalization of U. S. Hispanics with the social, religious, and political situation in first century Galilee, Galilean Journey established the key theological loci and developed a contextual methodology that values the anthropological nature of culture.60 Elizondo’s commitment to both reflection and social action as exemplified through the MACC and through his pastoral involvements and scholarly activities continues to provide almost the

55 De La Torre and Aponte, 71. 56 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, 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. 57 Goizueta, “U. S. Hispanic Theology,” xxiii. 58 For more information on the FTE involvement in promoting Hispanic theological education see Justo González, The Theological Education of Hispanics (New York: The Fund for Theological Education, 1988) 108-116. After the 1995-96 school year the FTE no longer had funds to continue supporting these programs. Fortunately Asociacíon para la Educacion Teologica Hispana has been able to continue operating the Hispanic Summer Program and the Hispanic Theological Initiative has helped bear the burden of funding Hispanic doctoral students (cf. Mejido, 69, n. 3 and 4). 59 Maldonado, “The Changing Religious Practice of Hispanics,” 109. 60 We will discuss these two concepts in the next section. Cf. Roberto 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, 1992) xiii-xiv; Valentin, “Strangers No More,” 42-43; and Miguel H. Díaz, On Being Human: U. S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001) 25-30.

11

definitive model of an ‘organic intellectual’–one who recognizes that his or her intellectual pursuits are rooted in the needs and experiences of the community.61

Although there were several other important U. S. Hispanic theologians during this first period in its development, Elizondo remained “the sole, highly visible U. S. Hispanic theologian” for nearly twenty years.”62 Others who were involved in the foundational development of U. S. Hispanic theology included other Catholic theologians Allan Figueroa Deck, Fernando Segovia, Orlando Espín, Jaime R. Vidal and Marina Herrera, Protestants Justo L. González and Orlando E. Costas, and Catholic feminist theologians Ada María Isasi-Díaz and María Pilar Aquino.63 These thinkers served to provide the theological and intellectual interpretations and explanations for the religious resurgence mentioned in the previous section.64

Two other important aspects of this period deserve mention. First is a series of encuentros (meetings) held by the Catholic Church to address Hispanic concerns. The three encuentros (1972, 1977, and 1985), led to a greater awareness of the religious needs and insights of the Hispanic community and a more strategic approach to addressing those concerns.65 The second is the establishment of centers devoted to Hispanic theological issues at various seminaries throughout the country. Led by the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University other programs include those at Andover-Newton Seminary, Drew University, Gordon-Conwell Seminary, McCormick Seminary, and Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. Such programs have provided a much needed forum for the exploration of Latino/a theology.

IV. THE DEVELOPMENT OF U. S. HISPANIC THEOLOGY (1990-PRESENT)Although most of the primary themes of U. S. Hispanic theology had been introduced and

explored and a basic methodology had been suggested and modeled by the late 80s, the task of analyzing and developing those themes and methodological presuppositions had not yet been done. Thus, in 1992 Orlando Costas described U. S. Hispanic theology as still being in an “embryonic stage.”66

It would not remain in that stage for long. The early 90s witnessed a ‘boom’ in the publication of U. S. Hispanic theological works.67 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, Roberto S. Goizueta’s We Are a People! Initiatives in

61 Valentin, “Srangers No More,” 43; cf. also Goizueta, “U. S. Hispanic Theology,” xiv. 62 Goizueta, “U. S. Hispanic Theology,” xiii. 63 It is significant that mujerista (feminist) theologians have been involved in the development of U. S. Hispanic theology from the very beginning. Their insights and methodologies have been highly influential in developing the distinctive nature of Latino/a theology.64 Díaz-Stevens and Stevens-Arroyo, 152.65 Cf. Sandoval, On the Move, 79-83.66 Orlando Costas, “Hispanic Theology in North America,” in Struggles for Solidarity: Liberation Theologies in Tension (eds. Lorine M. Getz and Ruy O. Costa; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 63-74. Eduardo Fernandez notes: “Some have commented that the work of U. S. Hispanic theologians is overly represented in the insertion model and that it therefore lacks theoretical depth. There are numerous philosophical, anthropological, and psychological realities behind their theologizing, which only now are beginning to be explored….This academic profundity is necessary not only for self-criticism but also for furthering dialogue with other branches of theology as well as with the human sciences.” (La Cosecha: Harvesting Contemporary United States Hispanic Theology (1972-1998) [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000] 170).67 Cf. Allan Figueroa Deck, “Latino Theology: The Year of the ‘Boom,’ Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology 1.2 (1994): 51-63 and Valentin, “Strangers No More,” 46-47.

12

Hispanic American Theology, and Justo L. González ’s Voces: Voices from the Hispanic Church.68 This publishing boom has continued throughout the decade including several more anthologies69 and two introductory works.70

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 Asociacíon 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 ACHTUS 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.

V. THE CHARACTERISTIC OF U. S. HISPANIC THEOLOGYHaving surveyed the rise of U. S. Hispanic theology in its socio-historical location, it

remains for us to briefly consider its distinctive characteristics. As we move on to consider several important aspects of Latino/a 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.”71 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.

Note that recent developments modify this somewhat.

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.”72 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 68 Cf. Allan Figueroa Deck, ed., Frontiers of Hispanic Theology in the United States (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992), Roberto S. Goizueta, ed., We Are a People! Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), and Justo L. González, Voces: Voices from the Hispanic Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). 69 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). 70 Miguel A. De La Torre and David Aponte, Introducing Latino/a Theologies (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001) and Luis G. Pedraja, An Introduction to Hispanic Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003).71 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. 72 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.

13

which it is inscribed, from the basic preoccupations that accompany it, and from the challenges to which it wants to respond.”73 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.74 Second, Latino/a theologians maintain the importance of understanding and engaging one’s historical reality if one’s theology is to be vital and transformative.75

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.”76 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.”77 Latino/a theologians argue that such “North Atlantic male theology” is just as contextual and perspectival as other ‘advocacy’ theologies.

73 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. 74 “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). 75 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). 76 Ibid., 15. 77 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).

14

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 particularity such that it might have something to offer at the theological roundtable for understanding universal realities.78

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.”79

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.80

A Liberative Theology81 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.”82 Similarly Pablo Jiménez calls it “a theology of survival that seeks to make sense of the

78 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). 79 Goizueta, “U.S. Hispanic Theology,” xiv. 80 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. 81 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. 82 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 (Max L. Stackhouse,

15

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.”83 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.”84

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.85

This divine preference for the poor is demonstrated throughout Scripture in God’s continued “predilection for the weak and abused of human history.”86 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.”87

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 communally and collaboratively.88 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

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. 83 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. 84 Harold Recinos, “Mission: A Latino Pastoral Theology,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995) 133. 85 Gustavo Gutierrez, On Job (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987) 94.86 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). 87 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).88 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.

16

community and they also seek to do their theology in collaboration with other theologians and theological perspectives.89 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.”90 “Hispanic theology,” according to David Maldonado, “is better understood as being rooted in the collective work of the whole.”91 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.92

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,93 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.94 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.95 He is referring instead to a hermeneutical approach to the Bible that embraces the unique perspective of U.S. Hispanics.96 Such a reading must therefore be ‘noninnocent’ and recognize the political dimension of all interpretations.97 This reading strategy must be guided by four rules.98 First, the interpreter must embrace the perspective of the weak and powerless.99 Second, 89 Valentin, “Strangers No More,” 50. 90 González, Mañana, 29. 91 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. 92 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. 93 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. 94 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. 95 E.g., De La Torre and Aponte, 77. 96 González, Mañana, 75-88.97 Ibid., 75-77.98 Ibid., 85-87.99 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

17

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.”100 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,101 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.102 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.”103 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.”104

Beyond the information provided by the sociological mediation, U.S. Hispanics also appeal to religiosidad popular (popular religion105) 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

…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.106

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). 100 Ibid., 85.101 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. 102 Cf. Isasi-Díaz, En La Lucha, 15. 103 Pedraja, Teología , 79.104 Ibid.105 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). 106 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).

18

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.107 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.108 Among such popular practices the two most common are those that involve devotion to Mary and the crucified Christ.109 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.110 U.S. Hispanic theologians argue that these religious practices can serve as a 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.111

107 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). 108 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). 109 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). 110 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)111 Orlando Espín, The Faith of the People: Theological Reflections on Popular Catholicism (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997) 148.

19

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.”112 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.113 “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.”114 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.115

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).116

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.

Underlying this emphasis on popular religiosity is the “fundamentally sacramental character of the U.S. Hispanic way of life.”117 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.118

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.119 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”120 as

112 Ibid., 66.113 Espín, “Tradition,” 152-153. 114 Espín, The Faith of the People, 65-66. 115 Ibid., 66. 116 Ibid., 66-67.117 Goizueta, Camimemos, 19.118 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). 119 Elizondo, “Mestizaje,” 21. Cf. also Garcia, “Sources and Loci,” 109-110.

20

they seek to responsibly remember and faithfully interpret that tradition anew with each generation.121

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”122 – 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.123 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 groups to offer a critique of dominant notions that may be contributing to their marginalization.”124 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.125

VI. CONCLUSIONThis brief survey of U. S. Hispanic theology has attempted to provide some insight into

the background, development, and current state of a relatively new theological approach. Hopefully, we have in the process gained a better understanding of U. S. Hispanic theology, the issues and challenges it faces, and its distinct contributions to theological discourse. As the Hispanic population continues to grow numerically and to flex its demographic muscles politically, culturally, and religiously it may well become one of the driving forces of American theology in the twenty-first century. Those of us who are involved in theology or ministry in America must therefore take account of its growing presence.

120 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. 121 Cf. Romero, 45-47. 122 Goizueta, “Significance,” 95. 123 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). 124 Pedraja, Teología , 20. Cf. Goizueta, “Significance,” 96. 125 Ibid.

21