www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Our Churches and Nationalism

Dear Friends,

Does it seem that our Eastern Churches are somehow more predisposed to being nationalistic in terms of their cultural outlooks?

If so, why is this so?

And how does this hurt our Churches' outreach efforts as well as simple self-preservation in North America?

Alex

Slava Isusu Hristu! Er.. Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think ethnic identities characterize a substantial number of Eastern Catholic parishes in the US. Sometimes the ethnic flavor attracts; other times, it detracts.

I think it hurts reaching anyone (i.e., the person on the street) seeking Christ, as the "ethnic" flavor makes them feel like a perpetual visitor.

Christopher

Interesting perspective. And I agree.

What causes some problems, however, is trying to establish an 'indigenous' Church in North America. As pluralistic societies, we have borrowed from the cultures of the main groups who have come across the oceans.

Much of our North America culture defines "churchy" in certain ways (stained glass, steeples, gothic architecture, pipe organs, etc.) along with the attendant mythologies (mostly medieval imagery of horned devils, full-bodied angels, etc.) and their non-Christian corollaries of witchcraft, spells, horoscopes, etc. There is, in addition, a rather different understanding of church structure, with a greater role for the "big church" as opposed to the parish community.

As Eastern Christians, we confront these realities. Being 'ethnic' allows us to enjoy the historical treasures of our patrimony, but it becomes a real problem when, for example, we are confronted with the most recent interpretations of Halloween. While Christian in origin ("All Hallow's Eve"), it has devolved into some sort of celebration of the bizarre, confrontation with death, and good/evil. What do us Easterns do when encountering this? It is surely not even remotely a part of our patrimony, but, on the other hand, it confronts us in our daily world. Do we join with our Western Christian brethren and try to 're-baptize' it (if you will) or do we just ignore such Western stuff and in this (and other) situations, try to remain insular?

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

The question you raise is certainly tied into the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to preach Christ from within their own theological perspectives to the people and culture of the West.

Some have said that the "God is dead theology" came from an overemphasis on the Crucifixion of Christ without the balance of an emphasis on His Resurrection.

IF that is true, then the Resurrectional optimism of the East has much to say to the West that is so caught up with death and the values of death (of which pro-abortion attitudes and the dark values of Hallowe'en etc. are just symptoms).

In addition, the East's emphasis on the Beauty of God and a non-utilitarian approach to God in our adoration of His Majesty and for His sake alone contrast with the West's more utilitarian attitude.

So, I would say that we have a "rite" and a responsibility to bring the negative aspects of western culture to Christ the Light-Giver, the Life-Giver and the Lover of Mankind.

Alex

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

All Churches are "ethnic' in one way or another. They could be ethnically Greek, Armenian, African-American, Eastern European, Latin, etc. They could also be ethnic WASP. I am wondering why it is an issue only when the ethnicity of a Church is not Waspish is it then considered "ethnic.' I bet that non-ethnic is defined as the closer one approximates white Anglo American cultural patterns. Now why do they have to be considered the universal base line to be measured against? I sometimes read books by some of these WASP converts to Orthodoxy. I notice them, more times than not, complaining about something being "too ethnic' in their newfound faith. It sounds all too familiar, it reminds me of the complaint, made by the same crowd, against "multi-culturalism' and even "too many immigrants in America” types.

There is nothing wrong with an "ethnic church' and there is nothing wrong with nationalism so long as it is cultural nationalism (like avoiding Halloween) and not a political nationalism that rationalizes injustice and seeks to oppress others.

I also don't see how being "ethnic' makes it impossible to reach others outside the Church. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has converted scores of Jamaicans and African Americans. I might also add that these Jamaicans and African Americans many times learn to speak Amharic and can conduct the liturgy better than MOST Ethiopians. "Ethnicity' is not an issue for people of African descent since they are re-claiming an authentic African culture as was stolen from them in slavery. “Ethnicity” only seems to be a negative issue to those who are xenophobic (or are otherwise immigrants, ashamed of their heritage, and trying to out America Americans).

God Bless You All

Aklie Semaet

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Aklie,

Gimme a break. This is valid topic that doesn't need your typical, bleeding heart, anti-conservative, anti-white man ramblings. It is true that ethnicity plays a more major part in Eastern churches then it does in the West. The reason this isn't a topic in the "WASP" churches is that "WASP" churches don't care what ethnicity you are. The first time I went to a Byzantine church, I was asked if I was Ukrainian. When I answered in the negative, I was laughed at and asked why I was there. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen at Roman Catholic churches. True, the majority of congregants at St. Patty's RCC are going to be Irish; but they don't exclude Russians, Slovaks, Hungarians etc. It isn't an issue.

So why not discuss this issue in a civil manner and leave the political diatribes at the door.

Columcille

I am keenly interested in this discussion for personal reasons in the first instance (I am non-Ukrainian in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) but also for cultural reasons.

On the first score, I have struggled somewhat with the feeling of being a perpetual visitor, but people have been very kind to me and welcoming. Starting to learn the language only helps in this regard!

As for the larger cultural question, this is something that bears thinking about. I am convinced that the Eastern Churches have an especially important role to play precisely by being fully and faithfully Eastern in a Western context, and by resisting any and all efforts to "modernize" or adapt to our culture of efficiency. (I have an article on the connections between Western economies of efficiency and Eastern liturgies of plenitude and repetition coming out next year if anyone wants to read it.)

Christians in the West have lost, or have actively destroyed, much of what the East, blessedly, has retained. In the first instance, this includes beauty. Beauty as one of the three transcendentals has been actively undermined, particularly in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, and with its destruction there has been "collateral damage" to the other two transcendentals, viz., the good and the true. I think in an age as meretricious as ours that people are starved for beauty and will respond to it when they find it. (Not everyone will respond, of course, because many people are vulgar and coarse and have not been taught to love beauty, but even they can come over time to appreciate it.) This hunger, with very few exceptions, cannot be fulfilled except in Eastern liturgies in our day. So that, I think, is the most important role for Eastern Churches in a Western context today: to celebrate beautiful liturgies--and lead beautiful lives!--so that the contemporary emmissaries of our world will find and be moved by it as those of Prince St. Volodymyr did in 988.

In this process, I think that the celebration of beautiful liturgies will be a powerful evangelistic tool. But it cannot stand alone, and one of the factors inhibiting us in this role is the "ethnic question." I think it inhibits us internally and externally: internally, it prevents us from being concerned to reach out to non-Greeks or non-Ukrainians or non-Russians, et al. Many tend to think that the Church is for their family and friends who are from that background and nobody else. But a Church, of course, by definition is Catholic and so for everybody. So we must overcome this notion.

Externally, many come across churches with ethnic identifiers in their advertising and are immediately possessed of the idea that this is not for them since they are not Ukrainian or Egyptian or Russian or whatever and as a consequence do not set foot in the Church. This is a handicap that we must remove! Now in removing it I do not want for a minute for people to feel like their heritage is being downplayed or denied. We only come to the universal through the particular, and so our introduction to the entire Catholic Christian world is necessarily going to be through a particular group and place.
Yet it must be clear that such a particular group is, perforce, open to everyone! Only when these two hurdles are overcome, it seems to me, can we look forward to Eastern churches being effective tools of evangelization and thus moving beyond their present gentrification--as seems, sadly, to be happening to many parishes in Canada where the old guard is rapidly dying out, replaced by nobody because all the children have moved away and nobody would think to invite the neighbours in!

CLABA ICYCY XPICTY!

The Church and her disciples take the Apostolic faith and translate it (without change) into culturally acceptable terms for the time and place. Sometimes, this will completely and radically confront culturally acceptable behaviour. The theologically rich language of the Chrysostum liturgy, the style of music and prayer offer a wonderful witness to the Truth in secular North America and Western Europe. On the other hand, it might not resonate with many because the music, body language and even language isn't native or natural.

Preaching Christ is all important. Reaching the maximum number of people on the street in the US or Canada requires consideration of language, acceptable body language, and emotional expression. Worship and spirituality formed in another time and place will reach a limited audience: those it appeals to, and those who feel it natural.

The danger, though, happens when people see their church as a segment of culture, not as the body of Christ. For instance, here's a quote from a book I'm reading: ""We are also religious here," said Daniel. "That is mother, like all the old folk. And I do not object. These religious pictures have been carried through the Turkish bondage, handed down for centuries. They mean something. They continue to tell us we are Slavs."" [S. Graham, "St. Vitus Day," (New York, 1931), p. 75]. Replace the Slav with any identity: English, French, Armenian, Romanian, whatever. People may come to church to exercise a cultural identity, but we need to witness Christ and the Church Universal.

God bless!

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Columcille,

This is valid topic that doesn't need your typical, bleeding heart, anti-conservative, anti-white man ramblings.

That was cute, even if it was ridiculous. “Bleeding heart?” Well at least you didn't call me a liberal so I am not that offended (plus no ones heart "bled' more than Christ). Also, I don't know why you accuse me of being anti-white, maybe that is just your straw man, and I am not going to get caught up by responding to it.

As far as the wider topic is concerned, yes it does matter what ethnicity, even what race, you are in the Wasp Churches. You say it does not matter. Are we talking the same WASPs here? The Southern Baptist for long had an official ban on inter-racial dating and marriage. If I recall they recently rescinded the official policy but of course in practice it remains. They also supported slavery. Didn't Jimmy Carter leave his Church because they refused to admit an African American into their congregation?

How did this phenomenon of a Black Church and a White Church start anyhow? Richard Allen, the founder of the African Episcopal Methodists Church (the first formally established African American Church, sometime before the American Revolution) along with the other Black Methodists left the White Methodist congregation of which they were members. Why? Along with all the other problems they were told to go to a separate section of the Church to pray.

Look, I am a simple Orthodox. I do not follow all of the many debates between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I don't care to. I just stay loyal to my Church and defend it if necessary. But to the extent that I do follow African American or Latino Catholics, I notice that they have the same issues and attitudes about ethnicity as African American and Latino Protestants. They often belong to Catholic congregations that are almost completely Black or Latino. I can imagine many African Americans not wanting to be part of a WASPish conservative convert Catholic congregation anymore than they would want to be in a congregation of rightist evangelicals.

Then you complain about being asked if you were a Ukrainian? So what?! They miss their country, if not the actual place then at least the culture and community. If you were in the Ukraine you would probably be happy to see other Americans. If you had to live there for a while you would probably attend the Catholic Church that had the most American Embassy staff and contract workers in it. If you did not know, I study archaeology. I can not count the amount of times that I have been in some country on an excavation and some WASP, hearing my Californian accent from a distance, came running up to me talking about how relieved they are to find another American, and how uncomfortable and even "scared' they were when they thought they were alone. So once you look at it in that perspective you can see that everyone, including Americans, get into the ethnic enclave stuff in different circumstances.

No, I do not believe that the Irish Catholics would bar non-Irish from attending their Churches. But neither would any of the Eastern or Orthodox Churches either. There is no official policy in any of the Orthodox Churches that say no nationality besides their own can be members. Maybe some insensitive people at the Ukrainian Church asked you what you were doing there, but I bet it wasn't the Priest or any of the elders.

And yes the Catholics do have their own ethnic polarization practices. Look in Ethiopia. In northern Ethiopia the Catholics are similar to many of the Byzantines on this page in that the Northern Ethiopian Catholics are basically Ethiopian Orthodox in communion with Rome. Their Liturgy is in Ge'ez and is the same as that of the Orthodox, even the Church building is the same structural type as that of the Ethiopian Orthodox. Now in the South the Vatican employed a completely different practice. They introduced Latin language and European culture. To this day, Ethiopian Catholicism is divided between the North and the South and this has introduced numerous political and social problems. Both sides have had polemics, discussions, and conferences to hash out their differences (by the way, since some of the leadership on the Latin side are foreigners, these discussions were in English and are available in print if you care to follow up). Invariably the biggest critics of the "ethnic practices' of the Ethiopian Catholic Church are Ethiopian Catholics.

God Be With You

Aklie Semaet

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Adam,

You make a good point.

Another thing that the West is infamous for is reducing the Church into a Sunday service. But Christianity is a way of life. It is integrated into everything that Orthodox cultures do, the way we eat, drink, talk, etc. It is manifested in the culture as a whole. In Ethiopia, when someone asks you “how are you doing?” or “good morning?” it is rude to just respond by saying “good” or “ok” you have to say dehna Egzabiher yimisgin (I am good, thanks be to God). When someone does something courteous for you, you don't respond with a dry “thank you” (amesiganalow) but with “God Bless You” (Egzabiher yistiling). Different Saints have associations organized in their honor and each member hosts a feast for the other members on that particular Saints day in rotation. As it is, this culture is preserved in a Church. These Churches, when in North America at least, are called "ethnic.' But as your experience indicates ethnicity is not necessarily a barrier. Language and culture can be learned.

As far as feeling like an outsider, all I can say is that is what pioneers are for. You have to keep doing what you are doing and bring others like yourself and in time things will change. But they change only by practice not by theory, so it is a matter of making the future not complaining about the present.

God Be With You

Aklie Semaet

Dear Aklie,

Forgive me, but I have to agree with you here .

I like your distinction between "cultural nationalism" and "political nationalism" - brilliant and we are both in favour of the former.

The efforts of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church to reach out to African Americans and African Canadians has resulted in a rich harvest for Christ.

We also have converts who learn the liturgical rubrics and even language and are more enthusiastic about it than the cradle Byzantines.

Speaking from within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, I do wish that our people would be more open to others and make them feel more at home, if only on the language score, although we have parishes now where English is used.

Ultimately, even with the language issue addressed, the Ukrainian Church is a Byzantine Church that is imbedded in a particular culture which is everywhere present. Those who join this Church, and others, will at least need to "not be offended" by that culture, even if everything is done in English.

Historically, the Churches of the Orthodox East have been the only institutions among the oppressed peoples who could maintain the national culture. Some liturgists, such as Donald Attwater, have said that the Eastern liturgical life is also, at one and the same time, a full expression of the entire national culture of the people. And I believe he is right on.

The Hispanic and African American Catholics in the U.S. had, at one point, actually applied to Rome to have established their own Latin Particular Churches, each headed by their own Patriarch! I think they were taking their cue from our Patriarch Slipyj who was popularizing the issue at the time.

I have seen many African-Canadians join our Ethiopian Church up here and they've picked up their Amharic and even Geez, although English is used in the sermons and other places, as Fr. Messale informs me.

Everything about the EOTC is African and is a celebration of the African cultural/spiritual identity.

To become a member of the Ethiopian Church is to participate not only in the liturgical spirit of that Church, but also, and necessarily, in the cultural patrimony of Ethiopia and Africa.

Alex

Interesting, I had never heard the "God is dead" movement discussed from this perspective.

The proclamation that "God is dead" was uttered by the 19th C German philosopher Nietzsche not as an overemphasis on the Crucifixion but as his way of saying that there were no moral absolutes, and God was irrelevant and useless (in a sense "dead"). (His father was a Lutheran minister.) This led to Nietzsche's concept of the overman or superman, independant and individualistic,who creates his own values and happiness in this world.

More to the point of this thread that Eastern Churches are more predisposed to being nationalistic in terms of their cultural outlooks. I have not experienced this nationalism with regards to the Ruthenian Church, possibly because there is no such nation as "Ruthenia"
.

Yet immigrant people tend to hold onto the culture of the "Father/Motherland" because the native-born people in the new country are not exactly welcoming. It is certainly much easier for that first generation immigrant to seek out those who share the same culture and language, than risk being hurt or embarrased by the indigenous population. This is not restricted to the Eastern Churches. We all know of Roman Catholic parishes that were formed along ethnic/national lines. In downtown Phoenix,AZ there are two churches about a mile from eachother, St Mary's Basilica and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The IHM church was founded by Mexican-Americans in the early 20th C. because they were restricted to having Mass celebrated in Spanish (the homily) in the basement of St Mary's.
This prejudice tends to diminish as ethnic groups assimilate into the "mainstream".

Unfortunately, what has happened for Eastern Catholics in the US, assimilation into the "mainstream" has sometimes meant assimilation into the Roman Catholic Church. IMHO, the challenge for our Eastern Churches in North America is to share the liturgical and spiritual patrimony of the Christian East in a "language" that is relevant, without making "ethnic culture" a litmus test. St Paul, the "Hebrew of Hebrews", understood that the Gospel transcended cultural divisions:

"and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (1 Cor. 9:20-22)

[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

Alex,

I suppose it may be different in different parts of the country but our Church is not ethnically isolated.

Dan Lauffer

But there are some negative aspects with assimilation as well. The Ruthenian Church in the U.S. has become Americanized to the point of abbreviating the Divine Liturgy along the post-Vatican II trend of the Latin Catholic Church in the U.S. Why some the litanies were thrown out, abbreviated, antiphons abbreviated...doesn't make sense.

Why has the Ukrainian Catholic Church kept a fuller usage of the Divine Liturgy? Perhaps it is partly due to the fact that more "ethnic" parishes are by nature more conservative and resistant to change...as is also perhaps evident in the fact that there are still Julian Calendar Ukrainian parishes in the U.S. but I don't know of any Ruthenian parishes still on the Old Calendar. Also perhaps the Patriarchal nature of the Ukrainain Catholic Church has something to do with it?

Ethnic is not necessarily all bad. Sometimes it is precisely the ethnicty that attracts, but we must be welcoming. Sometime it is ethnicity that preserves, as well. Preserving is fine, but we don't want it to mummify...

And the language issue is a big one. Even with an immigrant majority in a parish, some English needs to be used in order to attract those not within the ethnic enclave.

Adam - I can sympathize. Even though I am the fourth generation son of Austro-Hungarian Empire immigrants, they have belonged to the Latin Church for three of those four generations. I went back when I was 25, and now am a subdeacon awaiting diaconal ordination in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. My mother still doesn't really understand why I have done this. Both of my sons have since been baptized by immersion, chrismated, and received the Mysteries in the Ukrainian Catholic Church as infants and my wife, who is Irish, is more Ukrainian than I am now. She has gotten into the vishivka (embroidery) and other folk traditions.

Part of my attraction was the rediscovery of a rich ethnic tradition, which was no longer directly my own, but which was made accessible to me. I don't know if it had been a strictly "American" experience if I would have had the same response. Obviously not, or I would have stayed with the Latin church.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Dear Bisantino,

Yes, I wouldn't claim that the "God is dead" perspective came directly from an overemphasis on the Crucifixion, but only indirectly, by way of a cultural influence.

This occurs in the way the West has traditionally celebrated Passion Week and the Crucifixion that seems to dominate the Easter Services, while Easter Sunday appears to pale by comparison. The East celebrates both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection at one and the same time in all its prayers.

The style of decoration of Latin Churches also tends to give them the "feel" of a tomb rather than the light-filled and optimistic feel of an Eastern Church. The Church of the Holy Resurrection in Jerusalem is so called by all Eastern Christians, but it is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Latin Catholics.

Alex