• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1

Gaining a Voice: Hispanic Mennonites in America

By

Jordan Penner

A Research Paper Presented to the Department of History Bethel College

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course Social Science Seminar, History 482 Penny Moon, Advisor

North Newton, Kansas April 2008 2

Mennonites emerged out of the turmoil of sixteenth century Europe and the radical religious reformers of that time, the Anabaptists. The European origins of the Mennonites continued for centuries, producing a religious denomination that was, for the most part, culturally and ethnically homogenous. Cornelius J. Dyck in An Introduction to Mennonite History writes that Mennonites in North America “have much in common because of their faith and because they have been a cohesive and homogeneous ethnic group throughout much of their history.”1

Being a Mennonite not only encompassed worshiping with a Mennonite group, but, because

Mennonites through much of the twentieth century were almost exclusively born and raised

Mennonite (meaning that Mennonites were not gaining new members from outside their already established cultural/ethnic/religious group), it also meant being ethnically Mennonite.2 Thus, ethnicity and religious belief became tangled and tied up together under one all encompassing title of “Mennonite.”

Ethnic Mennonites (Mennonites born and raised as part of the Mennonite culture), along with most Mennonite historians, have for the most part ignored the very real and actual growth of non-ethnic Mennonite peoples. Today, Mennonites in Africa outnumber Mennonites in North-

America.3 Even in North America, however, the historical ethnic meanings of “Mennonite” have been increasingly challenged by the growth of the non-ethnic Mennonite congregations. The largest amount of growth has occurred within Latino communities.4 From 1982 to 2001, the number of Hispanic congregations in North America grew from 52 to 130.5 Although an ethnic

1 Cornelius J. Dyck, An Introduction to Mennonite History, 3d ed. (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1993), 406. 2 J. Howard Kauffman and Leo Driedger, The Mennonite Mosaic (Scottdale: Herlad Press, 1991), 89. 3 John A. Lapp and C. Arnold Snyder eds., foreward to, A Global Mennonite History, vol. 1, Africa, Alemu Checole and others (Kitchener, Pandora Press, 2003), 9. 4 Conrad L. Kanagy, Road Signs for the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA (Scottdale: Herald Press, 2007), 52. 5 Gilberto Flores, “Hispanic Mennonites in North America,” Mennonite Life 56 no. 3 (Sept. 2001), 1. http://raven.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2001sept/flores_article_pf.php From this point on I will use the term “Hispanic Mennonite” rather than using the term “Latino.” I’ve chosen to use Hispanic rather than Latino primarily because this is the term that Gilberto Flores used in a 2001 article and what Rafael Falcón used in his book The Hispanic Mennonite Church in North America: 1932-1982. It is also simply easier this way. I recognize that many 3

Mennonite may see him or herself as being surrounded by distant cousins of the same Mennonite names, ethnic decent, cultural customs, and culinary repertoire; and the non-ethnic Mennonite may see him or herself as looking in from the outside behind a seamless wall of tradition, the growth of non-ethnic Mennonites makes it impossible to continue to truly consider Mennonites an homogenous group. However, the term ‘Mennonite,’ in many ways, still connotes both ethnic and religious meanings (that can exclude non-ethnic Mennonites) which make the growth of the non-ethnic Mennonite population all the more interesting and important to understand.

The growth of the Hispanic Mennonites raises new questions and dimensions to debates surrounding Mennonite identity (a contentious subject already). Mennonite identity is often wrapped up not only in religious belief, but in an ethnic history and culture. The ever-growing presence and voice of Hispanic Mennonites in North America challenges ethnic Mennonites to see the church in a more pluralistic manner. Today, and especially with the combination of the

Mennonite Church (MC) and the General Conference (GC) into Mennonite Church USA (MC

USA), Hispanic Mennonites have entered with force into the conversation of “Who are the

Mennonites?” Or, as one Mennonite Mission Network (MMN) publication put it, “Quien Son

Los Menonitas.”

Spanish speaking Mennonites first made their appearance in the United States in 1932, but it is only recently that the Hispanic Mennonites have shifted from a focus on internal matters to an outward focus which confronted problems with the larger Mennonite church structure.

Growth and internal organization were the primary preoccupation of the first fifty years of the existence of Hispanic Mennonite churches. Hispanic Mennonites since the mid 1980s focused on positively presenting themselves to the dominant white-European homogenous Mennonite

Hispanic Mennonites would prefer to be referred to as Latinos rather than Hispanics, but I do not want to get caught up in semantics and I feel more comfortable following the precedent set by previous writers on the subject. 4 culture while simultaneously confronting issues of racism, acculturation and differentiation within the larger North American Mennonite fold. This shift in focus was in large part due to the lessening of the need to focus on internal organizational matters. A growing concern in the popular American consciousness about immigration issues, the numerical growth of the Hispanic

Mennonites, and active encouragement from the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) for multicultural awareness and work in the area of immigration facilitated this key shift in focus.

Though the literature on Hispanic Mennonites is sparse, Rafael Falcón’s book, The

Hispanic Mennonite Church in North America, 1932-1982, describes the beginnings and growth of the Hispanic church as a part of the Mennonite Church (MC), one of the largest branches of

Mennonites in the United States.6 The early Hispanic Mennonites were characterized by a separation from the dominant culture of the North American Mennonite church, a separation encouraged by both groups. While the traditional, ethnic Mennonites tended to keep their distance from Hispanic concerns, the Hispanic Mennonite churches focused internally on self- organization and self-identity. The inward focus of Hispanic Mennonites grew from the need to tackle challenges as varied as a persistent paternalism in the Mennonite Church and an attitude of separation between the two groups.

A lack of religious education from a Mennonite perspective forced the early Hispanic

Mennonites to focus inwardly and resulted in the theological separation between Hispanic

Mennonites and the larger Mennonite culture. Rafael Falcón wrote in 1986 that:

The Sunday schools are nurtured by Nazarenes, Baptists, Pentecostals, and interdenominationals because of the lack of Anabaptist materials in Spanish; many congregations display a sign that says “Mennonite Church” but the concept reaches no

6 Falcón mentions the General Conference (GC), another branch of Mennonites in the U.S., in the Appendix, but, as at the time there were only sixty Hispanic Mennonites in the entire General Conference Mennonite Church, there was little to say. Falcón’s book (like this research paper) does not include Hispanic Mennonites as part of the Mennonite Brethren (MB), another branch of Mennonites in the United States. Other histories address this topic as it relates to the MB’s. 5

farther; and, the shortage of leaders pushes congregations to hand over the flock to pastors from other denominations.7

As Hispanic Mennonites considered education an important aspect of organization, building up education and internal organization were intrinsically intertwined. North American

Hispanic Mennonites faced a host of education-related problems: the need to educate pastors,

Sunday School education materials, and the general lack of representation within Mennonite higher education.

Leadership for the early Hispanic church, especially educated leadership, was hard to find. Securing Mennonite, educated, and Hispanic pastoral leadership was a difficult task since the early days of the first mission work in Chicago. This mission, the Chicago Home Mission, for many years relied upon former missionaries and Pentecostals.8 In José Ortiz and David

Graybill’s book, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite, Graybill writes of some of the frustrations Ortiz, a prominent Hispanic Mennonite leader, had at his church in Goshen Indiana,

Iglesia del Buen Pastor. He wrote that Ortiz’s frustrations came because, “In Goshen, the pastor of the only Hispanic Mennonite church had a fifth grade education. José had a doctorate.”9

Ortiz’s personal problem reflected a larger problem for the Hispanic church at the time.

While 42% of Mennonites between the ages of 30 and 49 had attained a college education in 1989, much of the Hispanic Mennonite leadership was not well educated.10 This lack of education forced church leadership to focus on the inward problem of leadership education. The lack of educated leadership that created a reliance on outside sources for leaders, or leadership training, in Chicago also held true for many Hispanic congregations around

7 Ibid., 55-56. 8 Ibid., 32-33. 9 José Ortiz and David Graybill, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite (Intercourse PA: Good Books, 1989), 44. 10 Kauffman and Driedger, The Mennonite Mosaic, 240. 6

America.11 The gap that Oritiz felt between himself and his pastor would presumably also be present between any uneducated person (of which there would have been more Hispanics) and well educated persons (of which there would be more Anglos). The education gap, added to the cultural and language gaps between Anglo and Hispanic Mennonites. According to Falcón, all the way up to the publishing of his book in 1986, the education of leaders remained a problem for Hispanic Mennonites.

The lack of education among ministers was an internal issue that kept Hispanic

Mennonites focused inward. The fifth annual assembly of the Minority Ministries Council in

1973 in Sandía, Texas addressed education issues among the Hispanic Mennonites. The assembly was a milestone in the development of the Hispanic churches. Falcón wrote that one of the “two principle dreams of Sandía” was, “the education of Hispanic Mennonite leadership.”12

Lacking this basic necessity, leaders were forced to concentrate internally on keeping congregations afloat instead of looking at larger issues with the encompassing Mennonite Church and culture. Though the need for the education of ministers has diminished significantly, it is still an issue today.13 The difference, however, is that today it is a problem being addressed by the church as a whole, instead of just by Hispanic Mennonites.

The other basic dream of Sandía was to have much more Spanish language religious literature.14 Falcón argued that leadership and literature were, “part of a solid foundation for a bright future for the church.”15 In 1973, Hispanic Mennonite leaders were just getting to the point where they could seriously address the issues of Mennonite trained leadership and Spanish language literature which, according to Falcón, were of such basic importance. Since these

11 Saulo Padilla, “Attempts and Challenges to the Development of a Hispanic Mennonite Identity” (Term paper, Goshen College, 2005), 13. 12 Falcón, The Hispanic Mennonite Church, 53-54. 13 Gilberto Flores, email correspondence with author, 6/28/07. 14 Falcón, The Hispanic Mennonite Church, 54. 15 Ibid., 54. 7 fundamentals were not in place, Hispanic Mennonites continued to focus on issues of internal organization and identity rather than on their relationship with the larger Mennonite Church. This focus limited them almost strictly towards associating only with other Spanish-speaking members of North American Mennonite churches.

Beyond the isolation that may have developed from the inward focus of early Hispanic

Mennonite churches, a paternalistic relationship arose out of mission work and the need for economic support from the larger church body between the Anglo-dominated Mennonite leadership and Hispanic Mennonites. This financial dependency constituted another problem facing Hispanic Mennonites. José Ortiz believed that, “District conferences kept their distance from Hispanic congregations …Conference leaders seldom involved themselves in problems affecting a Spanish-speaking church, but called Ortiz and the Hispanic Concilio to put out the fire.”16 At this time, 1981, Ortiz was Associate Secretary for Hispanic Concerns for the

Mennonite Church, and so had the job of relating between the Hispanic churches and the rest of the Mennonite Church.

The separation that Ortiz felt also, in turn, contributed towards the inward focus of the

Hispanic Mennonite churches. The Anglo-dominated Mennonite Church leadership always delegated problems with the Hispanic Mennonites to Ortiz. Leadership did not take an active role themselves in the relationship, and in so doing communicated a lack of serious interest in strengthening the ties between Anglo and Hispanic Mennonites. Iris de León-

Hartshorn commented on how that very paternalism was revealed in the fact that relations with

Hispanic Mennonites were considered “missionary work” by Anglos.17 Absent was the more appropriate and accurate term used today: “church planting.” According to Leon-Hartshorn, this

16 Ortiz and Graybill, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite, 45. 17 Iris de León Hartshorn, interview by author, Phone interview by author, 5 June 2007, notation. 8 language indicated and encouraged a paternalistic structure between the churches from the beginning.

Mutual confusion exacerbated this separation and paternalism. José Ortiz wrote concerning the position he held with the Hispanic Council that, “Both groups, I found, lacked a clear picture of where my position fit in the maze of church agencies and acronyms.”18 It was financial needs, however, that fueled paternalism within the church.

Along with mutual confusion, economic needs contributed towards paternalistic feelings and actions. Falcón wrote that, “The Hispanic conglomerate has a tremendous economic dependence on the Anglo church.”19 Ortiz commented that the system in which Mennonite conferences provided subsidies for pastoral salaries created a sense of “ownership,” and that,

“[a]utonomy is impossible without financial independence.”20 This economic dependence led to many of the ills that remain between the Hispanic churches and the overall body of the

Mennonite Church USA.

Above and beyond the basic reasons for the inward focus of the Hispanic Mennonite

Church- the need for an educated leadership, and the problem of paternalism- was the need for better organization of the Hispanic Mennonite churches themselves. Initially the small size of the

Hispanic churches prevented organization from being a problem. However, when the population of Hispanic Mennonites (in the Mennonite Church) more than doubled from 498 persons to

1,089 between 1970 and 1975, that need became apparent.21 Indeed, Falcón’s history, The

Hispanic Mennonite Church in North America 1932-1982, focuses largely on the growth of the organization of the Hispanic Mennonites as part of the Mennonite Church.

Through that organization, the church gained self-identity. Sandía 1973 was extremely 18 Ortiz and Graybill, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite, 47. 19 Falcón, The Hispanic Mennonite Church, 168. 20 Ortiz and Graybill, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite, 49. 21 Falcón, The Hispanic Mennonite Church, 159. 9 important because it created the Hispanic Council. Falcón wrote:

Before this event the Hispanic church lacked self-identity because it largely depended on the English-speaking church. After the reorganization, however, it began to function as an institution with its own identity. From this moment, the Hispanic Mennonites could think of a body that represented them and which would fight for their interests in the central structure of the denomination.22

The organized Hispanic churches, under the leadership of the Hispanic Council, were able to start confronting issues of education and identity. Gaining this organizational structure and confronting problems of education, Spanish language literature, and identity, were necessary precursors to the current focus on the problems in the relationship between Hispanic Mennonites and the wider North American Mennonite church. These early internal developments ensured that Hispanic Mennonites since the mid 1980s were able to effect this change of focus.

A CHANGE IN FOCUS: HISPANICS RAISE THEIR VOICE AND ANGLOS BEGIN TO LISTEN

As the 1980s rolled into the 1990s the relationship between Hispanic Mennonites and the denomination as a whole began to change. The Hispanic Mennonites continued to gain numbers, and were beginning to look out at the landscape of the Mennonite Church and realize that there was much to be done. Hispanic Mennonites began to work on cross-cultural awareness and at establishing Anabaptist values in the mindset of Hispanic churchgoers. Changes also began to happen on the Anglo side. The church leadership realized that there was a divide between them and the Hispanic Mennonites and began to think about what was to be done to correct this divide.

One can trace these changes from church wide statements, initiatives, all the way up to today, where the 2007 church conference in San José took the theme of “¡Vive el Llamado!.”

22 Ibid., 49. 10

The Hispanic Mennonites were far ahead of the dominant church culture in realizing the need for greater understanding and work at cross-cultural relations. Hispanic Mennonites, armed with the awareness of their subjugation from the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the

Chicano movement of the sixties, seventies and eighties, began to push not only to use the

Mennonite Church to make change in the United States, but also for relational changes within the

Church itself. The publication of Ecos Menonita, a trimonthly Spanish language news source, was itself a manifestation of the growing organizational strength of Hispanic Mennonites in the

1970s. It was also a realization of the dream of Sandía 1973 which aspired to create literature printed in Spanish for Hispanic Mennonites. Through its articles on cross-cultural conventions and personal reflections on cross-cultural issues, Ecos Menonita, from its beginning in 1975, reflected the growing concern for cross-cultural issues within and outside of the Mennonite

Church.

Cross-cultural conventions were one way in which Hispanic Mennonites expressed their concern for their relationship with Anglo Mennonites. Cross-cultural conventions were held by

Hispanic churches in 1972, 1975, and 1978.23 In April 1978 a cross-cultural convention was held in Elkhart, Indiana, with the expectation that only 20% of the attendees would be Anglos. The motive for the convention was, according to coordinator Federico Rosando, “to raise awareness about minority groups.”24 While in 1987, one Anglo woman questioned if she was even capable of, “worship[ing] with . . . the black and the Hispanic?,” Hispanics seem to have been quicker to want to improve the integration of ethnicities within the church.25 The convention, and the stated purpose, indicate an early Hispanic Mennonite concern for cross-cultural awareness (in

23 “Convención “Cross-culture,”” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 3 (July 1978): 3. 24 “El motivo era dar visibilidad a los grupos minoritarios.” Federico Rosando as quoted in Unknown author, “Convención “Cross-culture,”” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 3 ( July 1978): 3. Trans. Cari Holliday and Jordan Penner. All following translations are by the author alone. 25 Yvonne Stutzman, “Invasion of our comfort zones,” Gospel Herald 80 (May 1987): 309. 11 comparison to Anglo Mennonites) and a divide between the dominant Mennonite culture and minority Mennonites.

Although the pages of Ecos Menonita do not often betray great feelings of disenfranchisement or discontent with the dominant Mennonite culture, some Hispanic

Mennonites certainly began to speak out about their unequal status long before the larger

Mennonite Church structure took notice. In a 1975 editorial, José Ortiz suggested that Hispanic

Mennonites were not treated as equals.26 Keeping with the Chicano movement, Hispanic

Mennonites were also becoming aware of unequal treatment in America in general. One writer said that, “In the decade in which we live it is evident that the Hispanics in the United States

(including the Hispanic Mennonites) are subjugated by certain oppressive ideologies that obstruct the future of the Hispanic people in North America.”27 This sort of language has only recently become a part of the idiom of the Mennonite intelligentsia. Writing about oppression and power, even within the Spanish language publication Ecos Menonita, was relatively rare.

Writing about inequality of Hispanic Mennonites by other Mennonites was even rarer. This awareness grew along with, and as a result of, the beginnings of a more concerted search for an

“Anabaptist vision”-a term which seems to have primarily meant for Hispanic Mennonites holding the peace position, an emphasis on community, disregard for material possessions, and a strength of faith comparable to the Anabaptist martyrs- by the Hispanic Mennonites.

While the Hispanic Mennonite churches continued with cross-cultural work within the

Mennonite Church, awareness of the large divisions, particularly in the realm of Anabaptist theology, between the population of the dominant Mennonite church culture and Hispanic

26 José Ortiz, “El Verano Del ’75,” Ecos Mennonita 1, no. 3 (November 1975): 3. 27 “En esta década que vivimos es palpable que los hispanos en los Estados Unidos (incluyendo los menonitas hispanos) están siendo subyugados por ciertas ideologías opresorass/esclavizantes que obstruyen el futuro del pueblo hispano en Norteamérica.” Samuel Lopez, “La paradoja de la Iglesia Menonita hispana en Estados Unidos, Un ensayo de reflexión,” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 1 (January 1987): 3-4. 12

Mennonites grew significantly. Awareness of this divide sparked in some Hispanic Mennonites a desire to better acquaint themselves with Anabaptist theology and values. It also sparked interest in Anglo church leaders who had not previously paid attention to the condition of Hispanic

Mennonite churches. The drive to develop a theology and identity strongly rooted in Anabaptism among Hispanic Mennonites drew the Anglo and Hispanic Mennonites together and caused both groups to begin thinking relationally.

In 1983 César Vidal Manzanares wrote about “Other paths that threaten the Anabaptist vision.” He noted that, “In recent years the recuperation of an Anabaptist Vision has become a matter of special importance in the theological field.”28 He cited the lack of a strong peace position and an increase in “strong materialism and economic individualism,” which he felt lay in contrast with a genuine Anabaptist vision.29 He also claimed that, in the name of gaining new members, churches had cheapened their evangelical witness, “cleaning it…of what seems to us the hardest to accept.”30 Worry about the loss of an Anabaptist vision was most certainly present in the Hispanic Mennonite community.

In 1987, during a meeting of the General Committee of the Mennonite Church, Samuel

Hernández, then secretary of the “Junta General para Asuntos Latinos” (General Committee for

Latino Concerns) said that, “we are not in danger of losing our Anabaptist-Mennonite identity; the danger is in never having acquired it.”31 Despite Hernández’s pessimism, the fact that he raised these concerns shows that some leaders at least, were trying to develop an Hispanic

Mennonite theology and identity rooted in Anabaptist values. Because he was speaking with

28 “Ha resultado de especial importancia dentro de la labor teológica de los últimos anos la recuperación de una vision anabautista.” César Vidal Manzanares, “Otros Camninos amenazan la vision anabautista,” Ecos Menonita 15, no. 6 (December 1989): 8. 29 “fuerte materialismo e individualismo económico” Ibid., 8. 30 “limiándolo de acquello que nos parecía más duro de aceptar.” Ibid., 8. 31 “No estamos en peligro de perder nuestra identidad menonita-anabautista; el peligro consiste en nunca haberla adquirido.” Samuel Hernández; quoted in “Junta General confronta el asunto de la “identidad menonita,” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 3 (July 1987): 3. 13

Mennonite Church leaders from different sections of the denomination, it is also possible that he was hoping to shock Mennonite Church leaders into addressing this problem. Previous literature from the Hispanic Mennonites shows there was concern by Hispanic Mennonite leaders for this issue long before Hémandez’s dramatic statement. Falcón, for example, wrote about the lack of

Anabaptist theology from 1932-1982 as a basic aspect of Hispanic Mennonite congregations.32.

Perhaps even more importantly, Hernández’s dramatic statement, which was made to the General

Committee of the Mennonite Church and appeared in the English language publication the

Gospel Herald, likely had the effect of pushing the English speaking Mennonite Church to take a more active role in the development of the Hispanic Mennonite churches.

Hispanic Mennonite leaders also urged Hispanic Mennonites themselves to learn about

Anabaptism. Smauel López, in an essay published in three parts in Ecos Menonita wrote, “I sincerely believe that our Anabaptist-Mennonite history has much to teach us. We should study, evaluate, and apply it.”33 In another effort to promote Anabaptist-Mennonite identity Ecos

Menonita published various informational articles on the Mennonites and their Anabaptist roots.

In an April of 1990 article Juan Martínez explained the historical roots of the Mennonite Church

(MC), the General Conference (GC), and the Mennonite Brethren (MB).34 As he explained historical roots Juan Martinez pointed out the large degree of ethnic homogeneity among

Mennonites, writing that, in 1990, 70% of General Conference Mennonites could trace their family back to Russia- a point of increasing consequence for Hispanics trying to gain true acceptance into North American Mennonite culture.35 Martínez’s article points to the increasing

32 Falcón, The Hispanic Mennonite Church, 196. 33 “Creo sinceramente que nuestra historia anabautista-menonita tiene mucho que ensenarnos, estudiémosla, evaluémosla y apliquémosla.” Samuel López, “La paradoja de la Iglesia Menonita Hispana en Estadus Unidos, Un ensayo de reflexión,” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 2 (April, 1987): 5. 34 Juan Martínez, “Por tres caminos diferentes,” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 2 (April 1990): 8. 35 Ibid., 8. 14 efforts by Mennonite leadership to strengthen Anabaptist-Mennonite identity among Hispanic

Mennonites.

Similarly, a Cornelius J. Dyck article entitled “Who are the Mennonites Today” seems, in the context of its publication within Ecos Menonita, to be aimed at creating a better understanding of the dominant Mennonite culture among Hispanic Mennonites. Despite the title, the article focuses on Mennonite history. Though Dyck mentions the new worldwide multicultural dynamic of Mennonites in 1990, he does not mention the rapidly growing Hispanic

Mennonites in America.36

Gaining an Anabaptist identity, however, was never meant to supersede an Hispanic-

Mennonite identity. As the cover of the April edition of an Ecos Menonita in 1990 explained,

“The differences between the three groups [MC, GC, MB] are historical differences, as they are also theological differences. The history is something of the past for us to remember, but also something that does not directly concern us as Hispanics.”37

In short, confronting the issue of the lack of an Anabaptist theology within Hispanic

Mennonite churches and exploring the theme of cross-cultural relations brought Hispanic

Mennonites closer and more involved with the larger church structure and community. The desire to embrace an Anabaptist identity and make it their own made them also turn their focus outward away from issues of internal organization. This change in focus led to a greater concern within the larger church culture and leadership towards issues of racism and the growing multicultual aspect of their congregations.

THE DOMINANT CHURCH CULTURE TAKES NOTICE 36 Cornelius J. Dyck, “Quiénes son los menonitas hoy?” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 3 (June 1990): 9. 37 “Las diferencias entre los tres grupos son diferencias históricas, como también son diferencias teológicas. La historia es algo que reconocemos, pero que no nos concierne directamente como hispanos.” Juan Martinez, “Lo que nos une, y lo que nos separa,” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 3 (April 1990): front page and 3. 15

As Hispanic Mennonites brought their worries about cross-cultural matters and

Anabaptist theology out to the wider church, the dominant church culture slowly became concerned with multicultural issues like that of racism and ethnocentrism. In August 1989, the

General Conference (GC) and the Mennonite Church (MC) came together for a joint gathering under the theme of, “Many Peoples Becoming God’s People.”38 Out of this gathering emerged an important resolution in the history of the Hispanic Mennonite Church-the current title of the

Hispanic organization as a part of the Mennonite Church USA. This resolution concerned racism. It addressed the increasing multiethnic make up of the church and considered racism to be a problem within the church (instead of just in a broad sense). It sought to confront racism in three ways: It reaffirmed and hoped to reenergize efforts against racism in American culture; it asked the churches and church people to look for and root out racism within the church; and it celebrated the growing multicultural makeup of the North American Mennonites.

The 1989 statement reaffirmed statements against racism from the 1960s. This statement declared that, “We commit ourselves anew to witness and work for racial justice in our communities.”39 It also recognized, “with sorrow,” that we they were “part of a society established by invading the lands and the rights of earlier residents and by importing and enslaving other human beings.”40 These statements firmly placed the MC and GC Mennonite churches on the side of minority groups. Still, this gathering of Mennonites asked the church to go further and look at, acknowledge, and confront racism inside their own churches.

The joint statement of the GC and MC churches advised that certain measures be taken to confront racism within the church. “Where congregations are predominantly of one race,” the statement read, “initiatives should be taken to foster fellowship with congregations of other racial 38 “Racism Resolution,” Mennonite Church USA Historical Committee & Archives. 1989. http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/racism.html 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 16 heritages.”41 The statement also confessed that, “church institutions…have not always escaped our society’s pattern of institutional racism,” and further asked the church to take “affirmative action” to correct these wrongs.42 This resolution paved the way for Hispanic leaders to gain a voice within the larger Mennonite organizations.

Although Hispanic Mennonites and other minority groups had existed for many years before 1989, the authors of the statement, after naming the many languages in which Mennonites worshiped, noted “That some of these worship languages seem unfamiliar to many of us is merely a measure of our new beginnings toward a church of many peoples.”43 It is, of course, interesting that it says, “new beginnings,” as if the multicultural aspect of Mennonites was a totally new thing. This language illustrates not only that in 1989 the church leadership was starting to work at its relationship with minority groups (like Hispanic Mennonites), but also that these groups had gone largely unnoticed before.

The statement on racism brings to light the fact that the Mennonite Church and the

General Conference had come to realize that racism was an issue within their own churches, not just a broader issue in American politics. Traditionally homogenous Mennonite churches were recognizing that they lived in a multicultural church, and that the multicultural element was growing. The statement opined that, “Our theme is an expression of our ethnic diversity and thus a cause for celebration.”44 Here, we can see church leaders not just asking the church to stand against racism in public and to encourage multicultural efforts within the church, but to celebrate the growing multicultural character of the church. This marked the beginning of an escalation of administrative concern for the relationship between these distinctive cultural elements within the

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 17 denomination. The statement was also a part of the growing push to merge the Mennonite

Church (MC) and General Conference (GC) churches that was later fully realized in 2001.

Continuing in the spirit of the 1989 resolution, the Mennonite Church and the General

Conference churches seemed to approach the idea of merging with the idea that they would work hard at intercultural relations within the new church. Iris de León-Hartsthorn, current director of intercultural relations for the Mennonite Church USA (MC USA)-the Church formed of the MC and GC merger- said that she felt like Mennonite Church USA was created, “with that commitment [to strengthening inter-racial/cultural relations].”45 The intercultural relations position itself was created with the formation of MC USA. Since merging in 2001, the newly fashioned Mennonite Church USA has shown a greater commitment to work at issues regarding minority groups, particularly Hispanic Mennonites.

When the merger between the General Conference and the Mennonite Church occurred in

2001, the push for greater cross-cultural relations and anti-racism was evident. The delegate workbook contained a large section on anti-racism entitled “Anti-racism Vision and Goals for

2000-2010.”46 This section highlighted the ways racism might express itself through the language used by the Mennonite Church USA, addressed systemic racism (calling for guidelines for hiring practices, equal access to programs, and full participation in boards and reference groups), personal racism, and called for anti-racism training for church leaders.47 The Nashville 2001 conference also set up a three phase implementation plan for realizing the church’s anti-racist agenda.

45 Iris de León Hartshorn, interview by author, Phone interview by author, 5 June 2007, notation. 46Anti-racism committee: Ron Byler III et al, “Anti-racism Vision and Goals for 2000-2010,” in Delegate Workbook: Nashville 2001 (Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2001), 119. 47 Ibid., 119. 18

The inclusion of anti-racism as an issue of discussion during the formation of the

Mennonite Church USA reveals, as Iris de León-Hartshorn believed, that the new church tried from the beginning to eliminate racism. This impacted, of course, the Hispanic church because they represented a group negatively affected by racism within MC USA. The emphasis on anti- racism represented both an effort by the leadership of the Mennonite churches to reach out to a minority population and a growing outward focus of the Hispanic Mennonite church to gain more equality within the Church.

The content of the discussions at the MC USA Charlotte 2005 conference around the issue of racism is revealing of the contemporary attitudes toward racism within the church. At the conference, delegates responded to the issue of racism with “frustration, hope, anxiety, embarrassment, defensiveness.”48 The minutes from the conference also contritely stated that the delegates had, “a lack of understanding of racism.”49 Coming more than fifteen years after the

1989 joint statement on racism, the conference minutes generally reveal a lack of progress on anti-racism. As one delegate exclaimed, “[it] seems like we want them (racial/ethnic groups) along for the ride, but never steering!”50 One racial-ethnic minority delegate put the issue bluntly,

“If you want us in your church,” the delegate demanded, “stop setting us at the table without equal voice and privileges.”51 Nevertheless, the contentious discussion at Charlotte revealed that, as Iris de León-Hartshorn said, “now the struggle is at both ends,” meaning that both sides are now confronting the issue of ethnocentrism and racism within the church.52

Concerns around immigration helped inspire Hispanic Mennonites to increase their role and say within the church. The minutes from the Atlanta 2003 convention reveal that the

48 “Summary of Delegate Table Discussions at Charlotte 2005,” compiled by Kenyetta Aduma Twine, in Minutes from MC USA Delegate Assembly Charlotte 2005 (Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2005), 41. 49 Ibid., 41. 50 Ibid., 42. 51 Ibid., 42. 52 Iris de León Hartshorn, interview by author, Phone interview by author, 5 June 2007, notation. 19 resolution on immigration was created, “in response to a call from Hispanic groups.”53 The

Hispanic Mennonite Church (which was formed with at the GC/MC merger) clearly felt more strongly the importance of an immigration resolution. The Hispanic Mennonites’ clear role in creating the resolution on immigration is an indicator of their greater influence within MC USA.

While the immigration resolution reflected the growing comfort of Hispanic Mennonites within the MC USA, it was also important because it indicated that the rest of the church must have listened. The language of the resolution showed a desire on the part of the authors of the statement to convince the dominant North American Mennonite culture of their historical similarity with the new immigrant population. The resolution asserts, like the 1989 statement on racism, that what new Hispanic immigrants face today had many parallels to the experiences of

European immigrants of decades past.54

The Mennonite Church USA leadership seems now to fully appreciate the possibilities for learning that lie within the Hispanic Mennonite population. At the very least, it has embraced the idea of truly becoming a multicultural church. Jim Schrag, executive director of MC USA explained that, “Shifting from a 300-year-old base of Eurocentric identity to a multiethnic identity, while difficult, is inevitable.”55 And that if this does not occur the church will end up,

“like a withered leaf on a dying branch.”56 Comments like these reinforced the need for the church to become more unified and underscored the urgency of doing so.

Mennonite Colleges are also realizing the value of diversity on their college campuses.

Bethel College (Kansas) instituted the “Bethel College Project” (BCP) which, while its overall purpose was to generally enrich one’s experience at Bethel College, dealt primarily with

53 “Atlanta Resolutions: Churchwide statements reviewed by the Atlanta 2003 Delegate Assembly,” in Atlanta 2003 Minutes (Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2003), 27. 54 Ibid. 55 Jim Schrag, “Embracing a multiethnic identity,” Beyond Ourselves 6, no. 1, (Winter 2007): 15. 56 Ibid., 15 20 shortcomings in terms of racial diversity.57 Further revealing the new emphasis on diversity, the course in which participants enrolled in was entitled the “Diversity Seminar.” While a student authored report showed some doubt as to the full support of the project at Bethel College,58 John

Sheriff, executive vice president for institutional development at Bethel College, said that multicultural education on the Bethel campus is now a big part of the “mindset and goals of every administrative level.”59 Similarly, Goshen College recently received a grant which will open up, as Goshen president James Brenneman explained, “great avenues to help make higher education accessible for Latino students in our community.”60

The Mennonite Education Agency (MEA) highlighted racial/ethnic concerns saying that,

“One key issue is funding for the church’s Racial/Ethnic Leadership Education (RELE) programs.”61 Funding has dropped severely for these programs in the last few years and the MEA makes the case for increased funding saying that, “Learning to appreciate and embrace our increasing diversity will strengthen us.”62 The 2007 San José national convention also featured a bus tour through the Central Valley of California to learn about immigration issues. Rather than a heady and disconnected discussion on racism, the relationship between the Hispanic Mennonites and the dominant MC USA culture is becoming more of a dialogue on the problems of the relationship itself, with both sides actively trying to reach out and create a more unified church.

WHY NOW?

57 Student Steering Committee, Student Steering Committee Report, Part I: Assessment of the Implementation Committees of the Bethel College Project and Recommendations (N. Newton: Bethel College, 2007), 7. 58 Ibid., 7. 59 John Sherriff, interview by author, 21 September 2007, N. Newton KS, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 60 James Brenneman; quoted in Evrett Thomas, “Church schools have great fiscal years,” The Mennonite 11, no. 2 (January 2008): 19. 61 Mennonite Education Agency, “Mennonite Education Agency,” in Delegate Assembly Workbook: Live the Call! !Vive el llamado!: San José 2007 (Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2007), 145. 62 Ibid., 145. 21

The question still remains, however, as to what forces finally pushed the Mennonite

Church toward taking issues surrounding the new multicultural makeup of the church seriously.

What is the history behind the “immigration resolution” outlined above? The 1989 joint resolution on racism showed a commitment (whether truly kept or not) to work against racism within and outside of Mennonite churches. Statements from church leaders and within discussions at churchwide conventions showed a growing concern among Anglo and Hispanic

Mennonites over power inequalities between ethnic groups in the MC USA. In 1975 José Ortiz could wonder if Hispanic Mennonites were invited to conferences as “ornaments” without causing a stir.63 While in 1975, Ortiz’s concerns seem to have been ignored, concerns about power distribution are taken much more seriously today. The causes for greater awareness and concern for issues of underrepresentation of the Hispanic Mennonite churches within the

Mennonite Church, and later in the MC USA, arose primarily as a result of the greater strength of the Hispanic Mennonite churches themselves in terms of numbers and internal organization, a growing consciousness in the United States about Hispanic immigration, and a push by the

Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) to take race relations and immigration as an issue of justice that needed to be dealt with.

I have already summarized the organizational growth of Hispanic Mennonites in

America. Rafael Falcón gave a thorough view of this process from 1932 to 1982. The huge organizational and numerical strides made by Hispanic Mennonites have to be considered the most important answer the questions posed above. Without organizational strength, Hispanic

Mennonites would not have been able to challenge paternalism in the church, inspire MCC to work with them on immigration issues, demand greater and more meaningful representation in church leadership and raise other concerns about the relationship between Hispanic Mennonites

63 “adornos.” José Ortiz, “El Verano Del ’75,” Ecos Mennonita 1, no. 3 (November 1975): 3. 22 and the wider Church. They would likely have remained a small aspect of Mennonites’

‘missionary’ work in the United States. This organizational and numerical growth, however, also coupled with greater awareness of Hispanics in American popular culture to put the relationship with Hispanic Mennonites on the permanent agenda.

The growing strength of the Hispanic Mennonites in the United States paralleled the increased attention given to immigration and Hispanics in American popular culture. The presence of Hispanic persons and themes in Hollywood films reflected a growing awareness of

Hispanics in America. Hollywood films have also helped to reveal the general feeling toward

Hispanics in America through time. Furthermore, Carlos E. Cortés wrote that films, “have also provided audiences with informal, often unintended education on immigration.”64 The education received and the growing consciousness of immigrant groups, especially Hispanics, in America helped cause the growing alertness to issues of racism and ethnocentrism within Mennonite churches.

For many years popular Hollywood movies rarely portrayed anyone with brown skin.

When Hollywood movies did so, however, their characters were never fully developed and often used simply as villains. Allen Woll wrote that “In the early 1980’s major film studios seemed to avoid Hispanic-themed films like the plague, because they assumed that audiences would not attend motion pictures of this nature.”65 By the late 1980s, however, studios and directors,

“revealed a newfound interest in expanding Hispanic-American credits on screen.”66 In the 1980s the depiction of Hispanics on screen began to go beyond the stereotypical “greaser” image and fill roles with much more depth of character. Many of these movies also revealed the struggle of

64 Carlos E. Cortés, “Them and Us: Immigration as societal Barometer and Social Educator in American Film,” in Hollywood as Mirror, ed. Robert Brent Toplin (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993), 53. 65 Allen L. Woll, “Hollywood Views the Mexican-American: From The Greaser’s Revenge to The Milagro Beanfield War,” in Hollywood as Mirror, ed. Robert Brent Toplin (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993), 41. 66 Ibid., 51. 23 being brown-skinned in the United States and brought to the attention of millions of white viewers the social and economic inequalities faced by Hispanics in America. These films also, as

Cortés wrote, informed and contributed greatly towards the growth in the discussion about immigration in the United States. The growing awareness in America of immigration issues

(including the contentious debate that surrounded them) and greater understanding of Hispanics logically forced Mennonites to consider these issues as it related to their own church.

As discussion about immigration from Latin America in the United States and among

American Mennonites grew, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) became the first branch of the Mennonite churches in America to actually confront the issue of racism. MCC not only took on its usual role of service by trying to help new immigrants in the United States, but began to push white American Mennonites to pay more attention to the growing Hispanic population in the United States. This push to fulfill the needs of immigrants in the United States also had the effect of making the dominant Anglo portion of the Church more aware of the growing multicultural characteristic of American Mennonites themselves.

The Mennonite Central Committee has an intriguing relationship with the North

American Mennonite churches. Though it was formed by the various North American Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches it hardly operates at their beck and call. MCC has a concern for peace and justice, and constantly tries to promote peace and justice concerns to the wider church body. Bob Buxman, former MCC West Coast director, who sees Anabaptism as being intricately tied up with peace and justice, explained that MCC tries “to nudge them [churches] towards an

Anabaptist theology.”67 At an MC USA delegate assembly, Daryl Byler, Director of the MCC’s

Washington office, encouraged Mennonites to speak to government “because it’s part of our

67 Bob Buxman, interview by author, 9 November 2005, N. Newton KS, notation. 24

Anabaptist theology and practice.”68 Byler went on to stress a historical basis for Mennonite activism, quoting Menno Simons, who did not hesitate to speak to government. These MCC leaders believed that once the Anabaptist theology is taken seriously, an active concern for peace and justice will follow. The immigration issue quickly became a justice issue for MCC. It therefore decided to not only push the Mennonite churches to take action on immigration issues in the United States, but also brought attention to the growing Hispanic Mennonite population.

In the 1970s, with the urging of the increasingly vocal Hispanic Mennonite population,

MCC began to work for justice in the field of immigration. Even among Hispanic Mennonites, however, immigration was not immediately an issue that garnered a lot of attention at the higher levels of their organizational structure. Rather it grew over time as problems of internal organization were resolved. In January of 1977 a meeting took place of mostly Hispanic

Mennonites from around America to talk about theology. According to the report in Ecos

Menonita, however, immigration concerns became a primary matter of discussion. Ecos editor

Arnoldo J. Casas wrote that the immigration issue “had been a theme untouched by our

Mennonite communities,” but one that “finally was seen as a theme that was closely affecting many of those present.”69 After the ice was finally broken and Hispanic Mennonites began to officially concern themselves with this important subject matter, the immigration issue began to take hold among Mennonites of all colors.

Before describing how Hispanic Mennonites began to work with MCC to confront immigration issues, it would first be prudent to briefly gain an understanding of the relationship between immigration concerns and issues as they concern Hispanic Mennonites themselves. The

68 Daryl Byler, 6 July 2005, in a speech to MC USA delegate assembly. http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/Speakinggovernment0705.pdf 69 “Este ha sido un tema que no se ha tocado dentro de nuestras comunidades menonitas.” “pero finalmente se vió era un tema que estaba afectando a muchos de los presentes muy de cerca.” Arnoldo J. Casas, “Consulta teológica en Laurelville, Pennsylvania,” Ecos Menonita 2, no. 3 (January 1977): 12. 25 immigrant nature of the Hispanic Mennonite Church has had a profound impact on its identity and development. Understanding immigration laws, facing discrimination, dealing with issues of acculturation, and struggling to achieve economic stability (to name a few) all weigh heavily on the immigrant persons that make up much of the Hispanic Mennonite population in America.

The struggle to navigate a safe pathway through all these challenges has made the

Hispanic Mennonite Church a necessity for the immigrant church member. This immigrant dynamic has defined it as a church of, and for, immigrants. It is therefore important to understand Hispanic Mennonites in the context of their immigrant experience. A 2007 MCC US

“listening project” designed to assess American Mennonite attitudes and understandings of immigration found that, “New immigrants are finding hope in new immigrant churches.”

Meanwhile, MCC found that for white churches “immigration is a lower priority.”70 The listening project also allowed immigrants to attest to the struggles that brought them to join the church. One woman said that “sometimes [bus] drivers refuse to give me transfers or open doors for me because I’m Latina” while another remarked that “officers abuse their power and treat people badly.”71 Struggles arising from their skin color and immigrant status seep into the workplace also. One Mennonite explained, “I am being exploited, but I can’t complain because of my immigration status.”72

The importance of immigration issues for Hispanic Mennonites brought them to call on

MCC to work on the side of the immigrant. As early as April of 1977, Hispanic Mennonites and

MCC directors began to come together to discuss the possibility of setting up programs to address justice issues surrounding immigration to the United States. The conference looked especially at immigration’s effects on Hispanic Mennonite churches themselves. In a meeting of 70 “MCC US Immigration Listening Project: What the Church is Saying,” project coordinator, Rebeca Jiménez Yoder (2007), 8. http://secure.mcc.org/mccstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=514 71 Ibid., 10. 72 Ibid., 11. 26

Hispanic Mennonite leaders, Betsy Beyler of MCC and the prominent leader Lupe de Leon, organized a seminar on the theme of immigration.73 Once again, the Mennonite history of displacement and immigration became a selling point for setting up an MCC office for immigration concerns. Belinda Bustos wrote that the Anabaptist story and Mennonite immigration was used as the, “opening of the discussion of a theme [immigration] that causes so much controversy in our Mennonite circles.”74 Bustos’ allusion to controversy is a reminder of the reason the MCC, of all of the Mennonite Church institutions took the lead on immigration.

The meeting in 1977 must have been well received, because in February of 1978 the

MCC immigration office was formed in Washington D.C. The MCC administered office functioned to acquire information about immigration legislation and to pass that information on to church congregations. “Furthermore,” the news release from the office stated, the office would

“work to create awareness among the non-Hispanic groups.”75

With the Washington DC office in place, MCC and Hispanic Mennonites slowly pushed this justice issue into Anglo Mennonite consciousness. Carlos Velez Neuschwander, who came as a consultant for the MCC immigration office in Washington D.C. in 1982 explained that, “the fact that MCC…has made this position available, demonstrates its interest in this sector of the population. Furthermore, the fact that the Hispanic churches have demonstrated such uneasiness is evidence of their worry for their own people and the immigration office.”76

73 Belinda Bustos, “Imigración es el tema,” Ecos Menonita 2, no. 4, (April, 1977): 5. 74 “el comienzo de la discussion de un tema que causa tanta controversia dentro de nuestro ambiente menonita.” Ibid., 5. 75 “trabajará en crear conciencia dentro de los grupos no hispanos.” MCC Immigration Office, “Centro de Inmigración Menonita Hispano,” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 2 (April 1978): 7. 76 “El hecho de que MCC…ha hecho possible esta posición, demuestra el inerés que ellos tienen por este sector de la población. Además, el hecho de que las Iglesias hispanas han demostrado su inquietude evidencia su procupación por su propia gente y la oficina de inmigración.” MCC Immigration Office, “De la oficina de inmigración, Washington D.C.,” Ecos Menonita 8, no. 4 (October 1982): 10. 27

The MCC office quickly went to work developing immigration resources, working directly with Hispanic Mennonite constituents, and raising awareness of immigration issues in traditional Mennonite churches. In 1979 the Mennonite Hispanic Immigration Service (MHIS), as it became known, began doing casework and developed a bond fund for detained

Mennonites.77 The office also quickly began work on informing constituents about immigration issues, releasing a brochure entitled, “Undocumented Aliens: Myths and Realities.”78 Perhaps

MCC’s most radical action, however, came in 1984 when MCC, despite government opposition, began working with the “overground railroad.” In 1984 they assisted more than 40 Central

Americans to reach Canada, where the refugees were accepted.79 MCC also took an activist stance on a proposed immigration Bill in part because MCC estimated there were 1,000-1,500 undocumented persons in MCC’s parent churches.80 MCC had become well aware of how significant matters of immigration were for a growing demographic in the church. It began to act on their behalf and work to bring immigration issues onto the radar screen of the larger North

American Mennonite culture.

In 2003 the years of work by Hispanic Mennonites and MCC came to fruition in the form of an MC USA statement on immigration that strongly affirmed MCC’s prior work on immigration. The statement’s strong support of immigrant rights was meant to push members of

Anglo Mennonite churches (who were less connected to this issue) to feel concern for and join the struggle for the rights of immigrants. The document states unapologetically that,

“Immigrants-documented and undocumented – are members of many Mennonite Church USA

77 Lynn Roth, “U.S. Ministries (USM): Mennonite Hispanic Immigration Service (MHIS),” in MCC Workbook (Akron: MCC, 1979), 188. 78 Harold Penner, “U.S. Program: Mennonite Hispanic Immigration Service (MHIS),” in MCC Workbook (Akron: MCC, 1981), 187. 79 Harold Penner, “U.S. Program: Immigration and Refugee Program (IRP),” in MCC Workbook (Akron: MCC, 1984), 204. 80 Harold Penner, “U.S. Program: Immigration and Refugee Program (IRP),” in MCC Workbook (Akron: MCC, 1983), 198. 28 congregations.”81 To further the connection to the dominant culture of MC USA, it states that

MC USA, “has roots in seventeenth-century churches planted by immigrants from Europe.”82

This argument, that emphasized the historical similarities between Mennonites and new immigrants, not only encouraged Mennonites to not support anti-immigration laws, but also asked Mennonites to step out of the ethnocentric attitudes that continued to prevent Mennonite

Church USA from being a truly multicultural church. Perhaps the strongest language for a church, of which Heidi Regier Krieder has said, “There’s still… a lot of stereotypes, prejudices, or just ignorance about things,”83 comes at the end of the resolution. The final phrase of the statement firmly resolves that, “because God has called us to welcome the sojourner, and because of the richness that immigrants bring to Mennonite Church USA, we commit ourselves to action with and on behalf of our immigrant brothers and sisters.”84

MCC’s role in pressing immigration issues and so also bringing attention to Hispanic

Mennonites and their underrepresented position in the church, is evident in the fact that MCC is listed second among groups who collaborated to write the statement. Indeed, listed as the first

“resource” for creating the statement was the MCC Immigration Office.85 When MC USA adopted a churchwide statement that placed it so firmly on the side of the immigrant it was the result of years of work by the Hispanic Mennonite churches, which pushed for the formation of the MCC immigration office, and MCC itself. While the increasing importance of the immigration issue and the Hispanic population in American popular culture made Anglo

81 “Mennonite Church USA Churchwide statement on immigration.” Mennonite Church USA Historical Committee & Archives, 2003; reprint, 2006. http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/statement_immigration.pdf 82 Ibid. 83 Heidi Regier Krieder, interview by author, 7 June 2007, N. Newton KS, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 84 “Mennonite Church USA Churchwide statement on immigration.” http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/statement_immigration.pdf 85 Ibid. 29

Mennonites more cognizant of immigration issues, the leading role in the authorship of the statement that Hispanic Mennonites took was made possible because of its earlier organizational developments and change in focus. Not only had the Hispanic Mennonite Church long lost its need to focus on internal organization, but it was now a major part of church function.

TODAY’S CHALLENGES

Despite this long course of advancement, there are still many challenges facing Hispanic

Mennonites in their relationship with the rest of the MC USA. Both sides of leadership seem to agree that there are problems that need work, and that creating a more unified Church is desirable. But as Gilberto Flores argues, “The Anglo portion of Mennonite church needs to move from good intentions, intelligent documents, assertive theological statements into concrete actions”86 Back in 1989 the Mennonite Church and the General Conference churches joined together and promised to work hard against racism within their organizations. Today those goals still need to be met. Pastor Juan Montes described their discrimination within MC USA by saying that, “we are in some corner of the MC USA, especially the Hispanic churches.”87 Pastor and MMN board member Heidi Regier-Krieder, regarding inequalities within MC USA, admitted that, “there’s still a long way to go.”88 In the book Road Signs for the Journey: A

Profile of Mennonite Church USA, based on a sociological study of Mennonites, Conrad L.

Kanagy wrote that he, “heard deep frustration with a church that seems to be ignoring those on its margins.”89 Though all these people are speaking of the dysfunction of the current relationship between Hispanic Mennonites and the dominant church culture, the amount of material and

86 Gilberto Flores, email correspondence with author, 28 June 2007. 87 Juan Montes, interview by author, digital recording, Reedley CA, 6/26/07, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 88 Heidi Regier Krieder, interview by author, digital recording, N. Newton KS, 6/7/07, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 89 Kanagy, Road Signs, 120. 30 people that are addressing the issue shows once again the concern of the MC USA leadership

(white and Hispanic) and intellectuals like Kanagy for building a multicultural church.

Now that the church as a whole is trying to fully incorporate the Hispanic congregations and accept the gifts they offer the church, the barriers that prevent this are no longer internal issues like education, but larger, more general differences. The problems that prevent better unification and solidarity within MC USA revolve around economic inequalities, cultural and language differences, and member apathy. The relationship between the Hispanic Mennonite

Church and the broader Mennonite Church USA is facing new challenges that touch to the core the discourse on North American Mennonite identity.

Though economic inequalities between the Anglo culture of MC USA and the Hispanic culture have lessened, they are still a root problem in the relationship. Economic differences not only cause possibly harmful differences in their own right but in how it effects education and by extension, belief systems. Hispanic churches tend to simply be less well established due to their newness and weaker financial position. Kanagy’s study notes that while 86 percent of MC USA

Mennonites own their own home, only 65 percent of the racial/ethnic sample own their own homes.90 Mauricio Chenlo, director of the Hispanic Church Planting Academy wrote that often after being with Hispanic Mennonites he has “reflected on how we could share more resources with these churches.”91 Gilberto Flores identified “leadership development and accessibility to higher education” as primary challenges for Hispanic Mennonites.92 Many Hispanic pastors are bi-vocational, and lack the time to go and receive training.93 This also makes it harder for pastors to attend church conferences, thus lessoning the voice of Hispanic Mennonites within church

90 Ibid., 117. 91 Mauricio Chenlo, “Globalization: Engine for evangelism or cultural imperialism,” Beyond Ourselves 6, no. 1 (Winter, 2007): 7. 92 Gilberto Flores, email correspondence with author, 28 June 2007. 93 Juan Montes, interview by author, 26 June 2007, Reedley CA, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 31 structures. Juan Montes commented that many Hispanic Mennonite churches simply cannot afford to hire educated pastors who can demand higher salaries.94 Education, as a result of economic discrepancies, still remains a problem for Hispanic Mennonites.

Today, however, the education challenge for Hispanic Mennonites is not that they do not have enough highly educated persons to lead their churches, but both affording those educated persons and that they remain less educated as a whole than white Mennonites. This education discrepancy causes more differences between Hispanic Mennonites and the non-Hispanic (and dominant) culture of MC USA. The latest membership profile of MC USA found that 38% of

Mennonites have college degrees (which is much greater than the general American population), compared to just 12% of Hispanic Mennonites.95 This education difference is also related with economic inequalities (since attaining a college degree can be expensive) and with the larger amount of time white Mennonites have spent in the United States.

J. Howard Kauffman and Leo Driedger, authors of The Mennonite Mosaic, found that among Mennonites, education correlated quite negatively with fundamentalism.96 This may correspond with the fact that the most recent membership profile (out of which came Kanagy’s book Road Signs for the Journey) found in the racial/ethnic sample that there was a higher belief and even experiences of “charismatic gifts of the spirit.”97 The racial/ethnic sample was also more likely to believe that the Bible is to be taken literally.98 These differences in beliefs and theology can negatively affect relations between persons. That these differences can be seen so widely across the board between Hispanic and Anglo Mennonites raises the possibility of prejudice against groups or persons as a result of beliefs. Pastor Juan Montes of Reedley,

94 Ibid. 95 Kanagy, Road Signs, 60. 96 Kauffman and Driedger, The Mennonite Mosaic, 83. 97 Kanagy, Road Signs, 98-99. 98 Ibid., 100. 32

California also reflected on having seen these same differences of belief and religious practice between the dominant Mennonite culture and the Hispanic Mennonite culture at his own church in Reedley, California. It is Montes’ opinion that the educational and belief differences will be settled with time. As more and more young people from the Hispanic population go through college, he believes, they will relate more closely with the Anglo Mennonites.99

Besides economics, there is perhaps a bit of apathy towards the subject among the majority of Mennonites. Kanagy writes that, “while denominational leaders may call the church to pay attention to those on the margins, members are clearly not committed to the issue.”100

Kanagy believes this is because many white Mennonites are simply unaware of the minority populations within MC USA. Heidi Regier Krieder would seem to agree, lamenting that,

“There’s a big lag between what some people have encountered and experienced… and the people who are farthest away from that.”101

Finally, Mennonites face what Juan Montes referred to as “barriers of language and culture.”102 The strong cultural roots of American Mennonites and relatively recent immigrants can make it harder for the groups to identify well with each other. The MCC immigration listening project noted a Mennonite person recall regretfully that, “We have invited Hispanic brothers and sisters to share church and have found the language barrier to be too high.”103

Montes, guided by his personal experience working at a church that is actively addressing cultural issues, a church with both English and Spanish services, believes that it is the next

99 Juan Montes, interview by author, 26 June 2007, Reedley CA, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 100 Kanagy, Road Signs, 121. 101 Heidi Regier Krieder, interview by author, 7 June 2007, N. Newton KS, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 102 Juan Montes, interview by author, 26 June 2007, Reedley CA, digital recording, Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton. 103 “MCC US Immigration Listening Project: What the Church is Saying”. project coordinator, Rebeca Jiménez Yoder (2007), 9. http://secure.mcc.org/mccstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=514 33 generation that will tie the separate cultural groups together.104 For this generation, however, language is a more acute problem because it makes it so that Hispanics, as Montes says, “cannot communicate very clearly with MC USA.”105 Although attempts to work at this have occurred and translation has been provided at conferences, these barriers of culture and language feed the lingering presence of racism and ethnocentrism within MC USA.

The cultural challenges faced by Hispanic Mennonites in the United States are many and unique. José Ortiz gave expression to these challenges when he wrote that, “Being Mennonite as well as Hispanic requires… function[ing] in not only two but three cultures.”106 In fact, in many ways, Hispanic Mennonites are still trying to figure out what it really means to be an Hispanic

Mennonite. In 2005, Saulo Padillo, then a student of Goshen College, wrote that, “a fully integrated identity for the Hispanic Mennonite Church remains an elusive goal.”107 One could argue that even ethnic Mennonites face problems in understanding their identity, but for an

Hispanic Mennonite, the problem is much larger. Integrating an Hispanic identity with a

Mennonite identity is essential for the improvement of relations between Hispanic Mennonites and the rest of the MC USA.

Although cultural issues of identity are important, there are still problems in the relationship that have to do with power. Gilberto Flores argues that a primary item that needs to be addressed is MC USA’s need to, “Understand and identify the systemic issues connected with ethnocentrism.”108 In order to better the relationship between Hispanic Mennonites and Anglo

Mennonites, the reasons for the inequalities in the power relationship must be understood.

104 Juan Montes, interview by author, 26 June 2007, Reedley CA, digital recording. 105 Ibid. 106 Ortiz and Graybill, Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite, 11. 107 Padilla, “Hispanic Mennonite Identity,” 2. 108 Gilberto Flores, email correspondence with author, 28 June 2007. 34

As a result of the early inward focus of the Hispanic Mennonite churches, it strengthened organizationally, gained a structural identity (if not necessarily a satisfactory Hispanic

Mennonite identity) and improved in areas of education. As Hispanic Mennonites gained in numbers and education, and the broader Mennonite Church came to confront racism within itself, the focus of Hispanic Mennonites shifted outward towards confronting problems in their relationship with the larger church. Today Hispanic and Anglo Mennonites wrestle with issues of culture and language differences and the continuing inequality of power distribution within the

Mennonite Church USA. Hispanic Mennonites face many of the same challenges today that they faced when Rafael Falcón wrote his history of Hispanic Mennonites in 1986. However, these challenges are now seen in the context of the relationship between Hispanic Mennonites and the larger body of the MC USA. They need to be addressed in order to improve this relationship and secure for the future a vibrant and missional Mennonite presence in the United States. 35

Bibliography

Brenneman, James. Quoted in Thomas, Evrett. “Church schools have great fiscal years.” The Mennonite 11, no. 2 (January 2008): 19.

Bustos, Belinda. “Imigración es el tema.” Ecos Menonita 2, no. 4 (April 1977): 5.

Byler, Daryl. 7/6/05 in a speech to MC USA delegate assembly. http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/Speakinggovernment0705.pdf

Casas, Arnoldo, J. “Consulta teológica en Laurelville, Pennsylvania.” Ecos Menonita 2, no. 3 (January 1977): 12.

Chenlo, Maruricio. “Globalization: Engine for evangelism or cultural imperialism.” Beyond Ourselves 6, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 7.

“Convención “Cross-culture,”” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 3 (July 1978): 3.

Cortés, Carlos E. “Them and Us: Immigration as societal Barometer and Social Educator in American Film.” In Hollywood as Mirror. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993.

Dyck, Cornelius J. An Introduction to Mennonite History, 3d ed. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1993.

______. “Quiénes son los menonitas hoy?” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 3 (June 1990): 9-10.

Falcón, Rafael. The Hispanic Mennonite Church in North America: 1932-1982, trans. Ronald Collins. Scottdale PA: Herald Press, 1986.

Flores, Gilberto. “Hispanic Mennonites in North America.” Mennonite Life, 56 no. 3 (Sept. 2001). http://raven.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2001sept/flores_article_pf.php 36

______. “Church as an Instrument of Hope.” in Anabaptist Visions for the new Millennium: A Search for Identity. Eds. Dale Schrag and James Juhnke. Ontario: Pandora Press, 2000.

Güete, Marco. “Report of Hispanic Mennonite Church.” in MC USA Delegate Assembly Workbook, Atlanta 2003 (Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2003).

Hernández, Samuel. Quoted in “Junta General confronta el asunto de la “identidad menonita.” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 3 (July 1987): 3-4.

Kanagy, Conrad L. Road Signs for the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA. Scottdale: Herald Press, 2007.

______.Graphic summary of results of the 2006 MC USA Membership Profile. Acquired from MC USA Great Plains Office, Newton KS.

Kauffman, J Howard and Leo Driedger. The Mennonite Mosaic. Scottdale: Herlad Press, 1991.

Lapp, John A. and C. Arnold Snyder. eds. forward to, A Global Mennonite History, vol. 1, Africa. Alemu Checole and others, Kitchener, Pandora Press, 2003.

Lopez, Samuel. “La paradoja de la Iglesia Menonita hispana en Estados Unidos, Un ensayo de reflexión.” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 1 (January 1987): 3-4.

______. “La paradoja de la Iglesia Menonita Hispana en Estadus Unidos, Un ensayo de reflexión,” Ecos Menonita 13, no. 2 (April 1987): 4-5, 8.

Manzanares, César Vidal. “Otros Camninos amenazan la vision anabautista.” Ecos Menonita 15, no. 6 (December 1989): 8.

Martínez, Juan. “Lo que nos une, y lo que nos separa.” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 3 (April 1990): front page and 3.

______. “Por tres caminos diferentes.” Ecos Menonita 16, no. 2 (April 1990): 8.

MCC Immigration Office. “De la oficina de inmigración, Washington D.C.” Ecos Menonita 8, no. 4 (October 1982): 10.

MCC Immigration Office. “Centro de Inmigración Menonita Hispano.” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 2 (April 1978): 7.

Padilla, Saulo. “Attempts and Challenges to the Development of a Hispanic Mennonite Identity.” Term paper, Goshen College, 2005.

Ortiz, José and David Graybill. Reflections of an Hispanic Mennonite. Intercourse PA: Good Books, 1989. 37

Ortiz, José. “El Verano Del ’75.” Ecos Mennonita. 1, no. 3 (November 1975): 3.

Penner, Harold. “U.S. Program: Mennonite Hispanic Immigration Service (MHIS).” In MCC Workbook. Akron: MCC, 1981. 187.

______. “U.S. Program: Immigration and Refugee Program (IRP).”In MCC Workbook. Akron: MCC, 1984. 204-205.

______. “U.S. Program: Immigration and Refugee Program (IRP).” In MCC Workbook. Akron: MCC, 1983. 198-199.

Rosando, Federico. Quoted in “Convención “Cross-culture.”” Ecos Menonita 4, no. 3 (July 1978): 3. Trans. Cari Holliday and Jordan Penner.

Roth, Lynn. “U.S. Ministries (USM): Mennonite Hispanic Immigration Service (MHIS).” MCC Workbook. Akron: MCC, 1979. 188.

Schrag, Jim. “Embracing a multiethnic identity.” Beyond Ourselves 6, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 15.

Stutzman,Yvonne. “Invasion of our comfort zones.” Gospel Herald 80 (May 1987): 309-310.

Woll, Allen L. “Hollywood Views the Mexican-American: From The Greaser’s Revenge to The Milagro Beanfield War.” In Hollywood as Mirror. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993.

CHURCH DOCUMENTS

Anti-racism committee: Ron Byler et al, “Anti-racism Vision and Goals for 2000-2010.” In Delegate Workbook: Nashville 2001. Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2001. 119-120.

“Atlanta Resolutions: Churchwide statements reviewed by the Atlanta 2003 Delegate Assembly.” In Atlanta 2003 Minutes. Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2003.

“Mennonite Church USA churchwide statement on immigration.” Mennonite Church USA Historical Committee & Archives. 2003; reprint, 2006. http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/statement_immigration.pdf

Mennonite Education Agency. “Mennonite Education Agency.” In Delegate Assembly Workbook: Live the Call! !Vive el llamado!: San José 2007. Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2007.

“Racism Resolution.” Mennonite Church USA Historical Committee & Archives. 1989. http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/racism.html 38

“Summary of Delegate Table Discussions at Charlotte 2005,” compiled by Kenyetta Aduma Twine, in Minutes from MC USA Delegate Assembly Charlotte 2005. Elkhart/Newton: MC USA, 2005.

Mennonite Central Committee. “Mennonite Central Committee U.S Statement: Immigration Legislation in Congress, March 24, 2006.” 2006. http://mcc.org/us/immigration/advocacy/2006%20Immigration%20statement%20- %20short.pdf

Interviews: Buxman, Bob. Interview by author, 9 November 2005, N. Newton KS. Notation.

Flores, Gilberto. Interview by author, E-mail correspondence, 28 June 2007.

León-Hartshorn, Iris de. Phone interview by author, 5 June 2007. Notation.

Montes, Juan. Interview by author, 26 June 2007, Reedley CA. Digital recording. Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton.

Regier-Krieder, Heidi. Interview by author, 7 June 2007, N. Newton KS. Digital recording. Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton.

Sherriff, John. Interview by author, 21 September 2007, N. Newton KS. Digital recording. Mennonite Library and Archives, N. Newton.

. 39 40

Tomales for Zwieback

At the Reedley First Mennonite Church, if you come on the right Sunday, you might just hear an interesting sound. That is the sound of songs such as “Tú has venido a la orilla” (“Lord, you have come to the Lakeshore”) or “Santo, Santo” sung in both English and Spanish at the same time. It is, perhaps, not the most perfect blend. Sometimes, one cannot help but be reminded of the confusion of Babel. Yet in many ways, it symbolizes a new direction for Mennonite churches. That is a direction towards a multicultural and non-ethnocentric understanding of the term “Mennonite.” At the Reedley First Mennonite Church, pastor Juan Montes (of the Spanish speaking service) says that, “We don’t feel here that FMC is dominant to us…We work here with the consensus”109 In Reedley, different from the Church as a whole, the challenge lies mostly with overcoming the language barrier and blending two distinct cultures. The blending of the two services (the Spanish and English service) has been the veritable focus FMC/PIM for the last several years. Today, they hold about 7 or 8 joint services a year and enjoy potlucks together complete with, you guessed it, both Tomales and Zwieback. With the efforts at making FMC/PIM feel, in reality, more like one church body, have come questions. What does it tell an Hispanic Mennonite to hear a white Mennonite speak of Mennonites in terms of their grandmothers zwieback? Does maintaining a Mennonite ethnic identity automatically exclude Hispanics? And if it does, does this exclusion automatically turn into racism or ethnocentrism, or even just the perception of one or the other? And if Ethnic Mennonites seek syncretism with Hispanic culture, is this a beautiful blend or terrible sacrifice? Though Mennonites are increasingly absorbing American culture (to the demise of Mennonite culture) many are still very connected to their Mennonite roots. These roots form an in-group. People whose last names are the same, who share similar rural roots, eating habits, who have similar family histories. Those who can play the “Mennonite Game” and those who cannot. Is it possible then, to completely and utterly destroy an us/them dichotomy? Even if all traces of systemic racism were to be erased there would still be two distinct groups where every member could refer to an “us” and a “them.”

What does it mean to be a multicultural church? Do churches need to join together, do all churches need to follow the Reedley example and have Spanish and English services? Obviously not. But can systemic issues of racism really be solved if Anglo and Hispanic churches are separated by not only culture and language, but by geography as well? It’s easy to get mired down in questions.

109 Juan Montes, interview by author, digital recording, Reedley CA, 6/26/07. 41

12% of Hispanics have a college degree, while 38% of Mennonites,. 60. “Mennonites are also more highly educated than Americans as a whole.”60 and of Protestants as a whole 23% of Hispanics have not completed High School

Page 61, make less money. “One-third of Racial/Ethnic households earned under 25,000 and nearly two-thirds less than 50,000, compared to 15% of white Mennonites who earned less than 23,000 and 45% who earned less than 50,000. (Kanagy, 60)

Though we can see that the Mennonite Church USA became worried about racism within it’s organization, does this necessarily translate into a more integrated church? HOW DOES ANTI-RACISM CONNECT WITH HISPANIC MENNONITES Talk about effort to mitigate racism and stuff and then talk about how still problem

. JUAN SAYS SOMETHIN LIKE THIS

The church begins to confront racism

CONFRONTING ISSUES OF MULTIETHNICITY

Partnerships between congregations…that’s kind of the shift that we’re seeing is just a lot of different kinds of group and networks working together.: 30 min Regier-Krieder Because many bi-vocational Hispanic leaders, can’t just go off to conferences and everything. “I think there are a lot of economic issues that are involved” “In the whole area of immigration… I think we should be looking to those churches to help us discern what the churches response should be, help us see different perspectives.” But Juan would say, just need multicultural heart. Bivocational problems for Hispanic leaders still 30 min “Well trained rooted Anabaptist leaders?” “I THINK we’ve made progess, we’ve had more exposure, more encounters with different kinds of people, but we have a long ways to go. THeres a big lag between what somepeople have encountered and experienced… and the people who are farthest away form that th.” “there are still so many people within the church who haven’t had a chance to encounter people who speak different languages or who haven’t changed attitudes, haven’t learnd information.” “There’s still… a lot of sterotypes, predjudices, or just ignorance about things.” “there’s still a long ways to go.” “the average person in the pew may not… many just wouldn’t they live within their homogenous group or just don’t have encounters or don’t think that theres a problem.” “It’s more than just individual attitudes. Intalking about racism we talk about structures or systems that are 42 built in a way that benefit some people and don’t benefit other people.” “even if it’s not our intention to shut out certain people, if that’s what’s happening, there’s a problem.” If ppl don’t get materials etc, what’s that about is it economic? “we have to look at those systems and programs.” “the percentage of ppl of color who participate in VS or as mission workers in the programs of MMN… is lower than the percentage of people in the church.” Acronyms in full Same thing in education, school Retirement communities “personal encounters and exposure is important.”

QUESTIONS TO ANSWER When did Mennonite Churches really start trying to print stuff in espanol? Prove true that now there is focus to inocorperate each other?

Why did this change from just living separate Immigration issue Growth and stability Resolution of problems Education problems. (Now institutions set up for education-now that started easier to continue to build more) prove more literature in Espanol. Paternalism- now trying to change, economic dependence

But still face problems in the form of language barrier,

“Anglo Mennonites had been outsiders themselves in North American society, yet they found it hard to welcome eother outsiders to their grouip. “Where we stand, Anglo Mennonites used to stand,” José reflected. “But some people have forgotten.” 46

“In MC USA church we have executive leadership… they were very clear with the Anglo churches that the people of color, the minority group, the associate group …. We are in some corner of the MC USA, especially the Hispanic Churches” 5min “Barrier of language and culture… and this is one of the more difficult things we have because we cannot communicate very clearly with MC USA.” “higer education” is another problem Pastors who get educated can’t be afforded my the Hispanic church. 9-10 min

Academia Mennonita Entrenamiento- to plant churches in United States The first thing we need.. is understanding one to another, understaniing history, understanding culture, understainding immigration, understanding language. When we understand that full issue, we can live in peace.” “We don’t feel here that FMC is dominant to us” “We work here with the consensus”23min Go to another place “see ovserve…understand, give some instruction.” “dialogue, conversation, and make map from now to the future” “we’re unique.” 43

“this is a good example for the church that are available to try planting or working with muliticultural church.” 5 and seven years “when say we are ready too be a multicultural church, we willlet the children of the Hispanic people come to the library and touch our history books.” “Learn to agree and disagree.” “our dream for the next 20, 30 years is, to see Suzy in wedding with Valdimar.” “this is a new generation, they are not thinking… they are more American.” “keep working with the immigrant people, but the more focus is to see…pastors from the new generation.” “multicultural heart, the heart is the most important issue for planting the church.” Don’t need Hispanic person for Hispanic church “time will decide the future of these things” these things are ethnic backround, roots. “with the pass of the time we will loose the roots.” His worry is to “make clear the values of the gospel…peace andjustive, discipleship, family.” This is the most important thing

Disconnect between church leadership, and church members on issue (membership profile, what says in San José, and Hiedi interview) “the multicultural group or the associate group, we are in some corner of the MC USA… especially the Hispanic churches.” Atlanta workbook. “In response to a call from Hispanic groups.” 58. why make statement on immigration.

At Atlanta 2003, however, anti-racism was not an issue to be worked on. Though they were in the midst of their anti-racism implementation plan, talked about in Nashville 2001 in regards to the formation of the MC USA, progress on anti-racism was not reviewed. This is not to implicate a lack of dedication towards anti-racism on the part of the church leadership. The primary issue at the Atlanta gathering involving Hispanic Mennonites was the adoption of a statement on immigration

Still the churches’ primary source for information comes when church members that return home from assignments across the globe. Bob Buxman, Former West coast director of MCC operations says that MCC is always trying to build relations with the Church.110 The MCC staff likes to get out and into various churches, working and speaking at a level that the congregation will accept.

Meaning that if a congregation will not be supportive of some more peace and justice issues that

MCC works with, for example at the Washington office, or fair trade, they will shift more towards talking only about relief. However, The Mennonite Mosaic, which was a statistical look

110 personal interview, Bob Buxman, 11/9/05 44 at Mennonite beliefs and theology claims that, “No doubt, volunteers who return from such services make members at home more aware of the needs of the world and encourage others to enter service programs.”111 Those that return from long term service, Buxman believes almost always come back further to what would be called the left, more likely to support controversial programs like Christian Peacemaker Teams and more willing to speak to government. These testimonial’s have the biggest impact on the church, and often lead the church towards a stronger, more activist stance on peace and justice . Must prove

Heidi Regier Kreider, Associate pastor or Bethel College Mennonite Church has said that

MCC speakers increases churchgoers awareness of the world, and the ways that they are connected with churches around the world.112 Bringing the church to a stronger stance on peace and justice is something that the MCC greatly desires. Bob Buxman, MCC West Coast director, who sees Anabaptism as being intricately tied up with peace and justice says that MCC does,

“overtly and covertly try to nudge them [churches] towards an Anabaptist theology.”113 Once the

Anabaptist theology is there, Buxman believes, concern for peace and justice will follow. For

Bob, this concern for peace and justice leads towards activism, and speaking to the government.

Daryl Byler, Director of the Washington office, said at the MC USA delegate assembly that

Mennonites should speak to government, “because it’s part of our Anabaptist theology and practice.”114 Byler went on to quote Menno Simons, who did not hesitate to speak to government. Buxman and Byler would both like to lead the church towards a more activist outlook, as Buxman often ponders the question of “how we [MCC and the Church] can be a catalyst for Justice.”115

111 Howard Kauffman and Leo Driedger, Mennonite Mosaic (Scottdale Penn: Herald Press, 1991) 112 personal interview, Heidi 11/14/05 113 personal interview, Bob Buxman, 11/9/05 114 Daryl Byler, 7/6/05 in a speech to MC USA delegate assembly. http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/Speakinggovernment0705.pdf 115 Ibid 45

An article

1987 “Creo sinceramente que nuestra historia anabautista-menonita tiene muco que ensenarnos, estudiémosla, evaluémosla y apliquémosla.” April

Realization among Anglos that they had a multicultural church and needed to compart with them Anabaptist theology.- Abril 1987 good article

July 1987- “No estamos en peligro “

Abril 1988 “Punto de Vista”

1983- “Otros caminos amenazan la vision anabautista”

. Flores’s statement represents a realization that Hispanic identity from the perspective of the wider church did not match up with the self-identity and pride found earlier amongst

Hispanic Mennonites. The fact that Flores’ article was printed, however, shows that these problems were on the radar screen for the Mennonite Church and that there is a growing awareness within the Hispanic community of the injustices within the church. The issues surrounding paternalism and economic dependence are complex, and their affect currently will be discussed later in this history.

In light of the history of the Mennonite Church and the Iglesia Mennonita Hispana, the

2007 meeting in San José was a step forward for Mennonite Church USA because discussions surrounding Hispanic Mennonites moved beyond the issue of racism. While racism was the focus at previous conferences, at San Jose, the manner of considering problems better incorporated and equalized the relationship between Hispanics (and Racial/Ethnic groups generally) and the dominant MC USA culture. 46

Pg 22 right after where I placed Jim Schrag quote. If I can prove this it would be good to put it back int.

Several acknowledged that efforts to reach out have been tripped up by lan- ••••••••• 9 guage. One said, “We have invited Hispanic brothers and sisters to share church and found the language barrier too high to know what to do next.” Another said, “It’s a challenge to enter into (other) cultures due to white privilege and Mennonite culture.” Some expressed the sentiment that it’s simply awkward to be with people you

The 2006 membership profile revealed that attitudes towards immigration were much more positive among the Racial/Ethnic sample than within the rest of the church. Thirty-nine percent of the “Racial/Ethnic” sample rated immigration as a very good thing (compared to fourteen percent for the rest).116 Since, at the time of the profile, Hispanic Mennonites were the largest minority group within MC USA, we can assume that they encouraged this strongly positive position on immigration. Besides this, first on the list of groups that helped to write the resolution was the “Iglesia Menonita Hispana” (The Hispanic Mennonite Church).117

It is easy to think that the church should indeed turn to Hispanic Mennonites to take the lead on the issue of immigration. MC USA turned to Hispanic Mennonites in the formation of the resolution on immigration. Regier-Krieder believes Mennonites “should be looking to those churches to help us discern what the church’s response should be, help us see different perspectives.”118 Leaders within the Hispanic Mennonite Church, however, are willing to challenge those who might hold this assumption. Marco Güete, past moderator of the Hispanic

Mennonite Church and current associate conference minister for the Western District

116 Conrad L. Kanagy, Graphic summary of results of the 2006 MC USA Membership Profile, (acquired from MC USA Great Plains Office, Newton KS), 71. 117 “Mennonite Church USA Churchwide statement on immigration.” (Atlanta: 2003) http://www.mennoniteusa.org/NewItems/delegates/statement_immigration.pdf 118 Heidi Regier-Krieder, interview by author, digital recording, N. Newton KS, 6/7/07. 47

Conference, wrote for the Atlanta delegate workbook in the Hispanic Mennonite Church section that all Mennonites, “have a tremendous challenge in reaching out to the Hispanics in this country.”119 Güete’s statement echoes a sentiment expressed to me by pastor Juan Montes of the

Primera Iglesia Mennonita (Reedley First Mennonite Church). Montez argued that, contrary to some beliefs, in order to reach out to Hispanics, one does not need to be Hispanic, but merely needs to have a “multicultural heart.”120 The multicultural heart, he said, will be what brings the church together. Whatever one’s opinion about the amount of attention and opinions readily available concerning the immigration issue shows that it has brought increased attention to

Hispanic Mennonites from Anglos and has made Hispanic Mennonites take a deeper look at their standing within the Mennonite Church USA.

119 Marco Güete, “Report of Hispanic Mennonite Church,” in MC USA Delegate Assembly Workbook, Atlanta 2003 (Newton: MC USA, 2003), 148. 120 Juan Montes, interview by author, digital recording, Reedley CA, 6/26/07.

Load more

  47

Copy Link