This week I’ve been discussing some of what I’ll be sharing at the Summer Celebration at David Lipscomb University in Nashville. I’ll be speaking on the Spanish track on July 1 and 2, talking about “One Body, Two Languages.” Specifically, I’ll be talking about what Latinos and Anglos can learn from one another. (Be sure and read this post to know how I’m using those terms)
In the second class, I’m going to talk about what Latinos can learn from Anglos. There will be some of the obvious things, like punctuality. I’ll also talk about involvement in church and participation in church leadership. Most Latin countries have a strong influence from the Catholic church. Historically, they have not focused on participative church structures. In other words, you mainly go and watch. You aren’t even typically expected to give; these churches receive money from taxes and other sources. The idea of stepping up and being an integral part of a congregation is new to many Hispanics.
The other big point will be about language. It can be a delicate topic, but I’m going to remind them that the future of the church in the States will be written in English. The future of the Hispanic churches in the States will be written in English. Some research suggests that 96% of Hispanics born in the U.S. are functional in English. A large percentage use in English in the home. Many don’t speak Spanish. Some 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics don’t even understand Spanish.
With continued immigration, there will be a need for churches to provide services in Spanish. But the future of the church in the States will be in English. It’s not the job of the church to preserve a heritage, to help keep a language alive. The job of the church is to reach out, reach up and reach in, in whatever language that needs to be done.
Several anthropologists have stated that “Latinos unite against something more than they unite for something”. They rally around disasters, injustice, etc., to work against the impact on hurting lives…with the effect of helping ease the pains. The positive fruit is felt “for the friends and in the friends” but it started out as “against” the disaster. That is, groups are seemingly formed from some sense of adversity. We “Anglos” feel quite comfortable in a call towards unity as a primary focus. We like to have “groups” for their intrinsic worth in existence.
Secondly, group unity/identity come from bonds against “the other”–even though these help to show who we are. I think that with reference to “church”, this one is more difficult. We trend toward downplaying “our” truth as we don’t want to become sectarian. Yet, it is sometimes seen as a sense of insecurity because we can not seem to be content with who we are..doctrinally. The impact is felt in a difficulty towards group commitment.
And a comment about time relationships: Anglos come from a Protestant work ethic framework where time is linear and “forward” means progress and utility and management. Latinos come from circular time where life is cyclical and time is relational. I live with both tensions because I want to “start on time” with regard to relational issues. However, friendships and relational settings should not be placed on a stopwatch measure. These will take their good time in happening. Maybe we Anglos could learn something about these implications when we apply time management to church?