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

Dear Randolph,

Your wife is Irish, eh?

Thank God for the Irish in our Church!

As you know, the Irish Celtic missionaries appeared before St. Olha and left their indelible spiritual imprint on Kyivan Rus' spiritual culture ever since.

The determination, strength of character and devotion of the Irish in our Church through the centuries has enriched us as a people.

My love for the Eastern traditions of our Church was first inspired in me by an Irishman.

Erin Go Bragh!

Alex

It has been my understanding that the role of ethnicity has always played an important role in the Eastern traditions. When Sts. Cyril and Methodius brought Christianity to the Slavs, they taught them about Christ in Slavic languages and in a way that developed Slavic national identities through language and tradition. The Eastern Church seems to marry the idea of ethnic identity with religious identity (I am Greek therefore I am Greek Orthodox); an approach that has drawn some criticism. Personally, I think it's pretty dang smart. The same approach was taken in Georgia, etc.

In the Western Church, Christianity was brought as a function of Rome. When a group was Christianized, the new converts (or at least their priests) were taught Latin and the traditions of Rome.

One can see this tradition continuing in Protestantism. I've had acquaintances go to Poland and Russia, spend three to four months there and not learn how to say "Dobry Den" because they were "witnessing with drama." The converts they receive are quickly Americanized. The same is true of the Hispanics converted to Protestantism here in the States.

That's not to say that Roman Catholics don't have parishes with strong ethnic identities (Protestants generally do not, although there are quite a few Korean, Chinese, etc. Baptist churches; and then there is Texas where Baptists have worked very hard to marry the Texas identity to Baptist identity, which has even worked with many Hispanics), but it wasn't made as central a role as it was in Eastern Christianity.

North America doesn't need a written language and those living in North America don't share common traditions and already have a national identity (even among the so-called WASPS - btw, why do we say white Anglo-Saxon protestant? has anyone ever seen a black Anglo-Saxon?).

In North America we are in competition with alternate views. We can't marry being American (or Canadian) with being Byzantine Catholic, at least not anytime soon. I'm not sure we would want to if we could. We must take a different approach.

I think the most effective approach here is discourse and action. Discourse in that we understand our faith, can explain it logically and coherently, and can answer objections from other groups; and action in that we live our faith in our communities.

Will ethnic identities in a Parish cause us to be unattractive to outsiders? It can if we ignore the "action" part of our calling. We can use ethnic identity to show what our faith has done for a group collectively and to show our hospitality. If you hear someone asked if they are Ukrainian at your church and they say "no," make sure you make them especially welcome.

Will there eventually be thoroughly Eastern churches which are traditionally "American" (whatever that is)? I think there are some Orthodox churches that fit that bill. I'm not sure if I've seen one effectively done by Byzantine Catholics.

If one's ethnic and religious identity are connected, and that is a valid part of the expression of Eastern Christianity, why would one want to destroy the bond? Can one remove the ethnic identity of an Eastern church without losing an important facet of the faith and practices of that church? Can a church retain what it has learned as an ethnic group while "de-ethnicizing" itself?

[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: Cizinec ]

[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: Cizinec ]

You can't expect to "have your cake and eat it too!" Eastern Christian Churches were always established (in the homeland) as national churches
that have strong cultural and ethnic ties. Ethnic and cultural ties play a roll in each Particular Eastern Church and it is what makes our interpretation of Christianity unique. I feel bad for the numerous ethnic Roman Catholic Churches that were built by specific ethnic groups (Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croatians, etc.) that have been forcibly "clustered" into non-ethnic macro-parishes in the former "ethnic belt" of the Northeastern states with those in Pennsylvannia leading the way. What a double standard, while closing ethnic Roman Catholic Churches built at the turn of the 19th century because Roman Catholic bishops in the U.S. don't feel they serve a useful purpose anymore yet at the same time in the South and South Western states Hispanic Roman Catholics "are allowed" to have ethnic parishes! I feel bad for the 2nd generation hypenated-Americans who are no longer allowed to have any of "their" ethnic culture be part of their church life. That really is a shame! We Americans are so pretentious that we can't tolerate other "living" ethnic cultures in our society unless a church can make some money by selling "prirohi or Spagetti" at their annual homoganized parish pinic. That really is a shame!

Ung-Certez (ethnic and proud of it!)

Oops, that should be PIROHI, sorry for typo.

Ung-Certez,

Does that mean that "our interpretation of Christianity" is just for "our" ethnic group? How do you deal with those who are not ethnic? Do we ignore them because they will dilute our churches? Do we force them to accept the identity of "our" ethnic group if they want to join our church?

What if a Hispanic person visited your church? Would you say that "our interpretation of Christianity" came from our ethnicity, from which the visitor had not come and was, therefore, not entirely welcome to take full part?

What is our primary mission? Is it to proclaim the gospel or protect our ethnic identity? Should we do both? If so, how?

How about if recent immigrants from Ukraine (many are here since the fall of communism) should find his way to New York Hispanic Roman Catholic Church, how would they welcome him and make him feel welcome if they neither speak Spanish or English?

Ung-Certez

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I feel uncomfortable with the phrase "our interpretation of Christianity...." Perhaps "implementation" would be a more accurate description of what happens when witnesses spread the one Good News to many cultures, people, societies, and nations? The many small "t" traditions particular to different cultures should testify to the one Truth.

Preaching the Gospel is our mission. Everything else is secondary and will pass along with this world. Language and other culturally acceptable triggers are the tools.

Regarding recent arrivals from Ukraine, many UGCC parishes here in the Northeastern US seem to be using Ukrainian, and appropriately so: there parishes are filled with Ukrainian speakers! Isn't this akin to the growing number of Spanish-speaking parishes in RC parishes? Whatever language will reach the seeker and allow the seeker to praise the Holy Trinity.

God bless,
Christopher

The marriage of ethnic identity and religious creed is powerful, but it is also dangerous. Taken to extremes, it is a path that leads not only to the diminishment of the efficacy of the church in general but to grave institutional and personal error.

I am rather new to this discussion group, and have felt it my place to read rather than open my mouth on any particular issue. However, I feel strongly about some of the topics being discussed in this thread and want to "put my two-cents in' regarding these matters.

I am Croatian and Hungarian, and have for most of my life straddled East and West. How you may ask? I was baptized RC, and was raised with knowledge of both Eastern Rite and Roman Rite liturgical expression and theology. I am currently a member of a Byzantine (Ruthenian) parish. My immediate family, however, were members of a Roman Rite Croatian parish, and later a mostly Irish parish during my childhood and adolescence. I have always felt drawn to the Eastern expression, and that is what I finally chose. As a child, its attraction was visceral. It was also, in many ways, superficial. I believed that the Roman Rite, and its attendant theology, was antithetical to my Slavic/Hungarian Eastern European upbringing. Ah… the power of nationalism.

This attitude was crystallized while attending the mostly Irish parish with my parents. We looked like everyone else for the most part, but we were in many ways foreigners. One should never ignore the degree to which the cultural attitudes of parishioners can affect the life of a parish, the homilies of the pastor, or the particular bent of the religious education you receive in its school.

Byzantine Croatians, for those of you not in the know, are also the religious/ethnic frankensteins of the Balkans. To Dalmatian and Hercegovinian Croats, you are not true Croatians. To Serbs, well…you are, at best, extremely misguided and lost brothers. Once again, the power of nationalism at work. There really is not much difference between the two. Linguistically speaking, this is very much the case. Historically and culturally, there are greater differences. But again, these are minutae.

Anyway, ethnic nationalism can be a useful tool. It can be used to gain converts, to foster pride and interest in the church. When it becomes inextricably mingled with religious belief it is the instrument of evil. You have Croatian clergy during WWII baptizing Serbs before they are killed en masse. You have Serbs doing the same. You have the justification for the Bosnian War and the Kosovo pogrom. On American soil, you have mistrust and the perpetuation of ethnic animosity, as well as alienation leading to the attenuation of the ability of the Eastern or Western churches to gain new blood and life through converts.

The answer: there is none; or, perhaps, that all things are best with love and in moderation. As unsatisfying or simplistic as this might be, we must let individual situations dictate. I am very proud of my ancestry and its traditions. I prefer to be part of a community that shares in them. It is simply an issue of comfort. Would I fully take part in a Melkite or Coptic church, if no Ruthenian were available? Certainly, since my faith is my faith; but I might feel like a bit of an outsider. I guess it would depend on how the people there treated me. Would I be welcomed, or would their own ethnic identity be used as a wall to prevent feelings of full membership on my part? Lead with love and consideration. The theology and liturgical expression of our churches is partly the product of our own ancestral cultures. It can never be ignored. It is why we are Eastern, and not Western.

[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: Sivi Sokol ]