www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Role of culture in the East

Dear Friends,

We've often discussed the relation between the Eastern Church and ethnic culture here.

Sometimes we make assumptions based on our own personal and community experiences in this respect - I do it all the time, and perhaps I shouldn't.

So why was there such a strong relationship between our Eastern Churches and the ethnic culture in history?

And why does it continue today where this relationship persists?

Is that relationship the main reason why our young people leave to go to "mainstream" Churches?

What are possible resolutions between those who favour the maintenance of this relationship and those who say it should end for the sake of our Churches' survival in the future?

Alex

Dear Alex,

It was the answer to just such a question that I desired in a previous thread related to this question of yours that I started some time back.

I, for one, feel at home in the Indian Orthodox Church. The Syrian patrimony has been preserved, as well as inculturated, and all is well. But I suspect that the average North American with no ties to India would feel the same way at first (although there are a few who have come to us, even as clerics). I suspect that I'd feel the same way, at least at first, if I decided I wanted to cross over to the Melkite Church or the Armenian Church...different cultural atmosphere there, even without the food and dance and language and stuff. There are different saints, different traditions, and other things that go way beyond some of the simpler externals, and it can be intimidating. I'm generally a nervous person when it comes to dealing with new situations, so it is no wonder to me that I still have yet to visit a church of the Byzantine tradition. I know what it's like to be on their side looking at the stranger in your midst...I don't want to feel like I'm sticking out like a sore thumb.

This sort of thing can get in the way of spreading the Gospel, because it closes off others who aren't of our respective ethnic backgrounds, and prevents them from seeing the pearl of great price which we possess.

In one sense, that's where the Roman rite has done some of it's best work, however that may have been accomplished. When I look at a Roman liturgical calendar, I see feasts for various Roman martyrs, and other European saints, and rarely any others. As an aside, my favourite feast day name is "Saint John by the Latin Gate"...I have yet to figure out what that was. In its own way, it closed off those not of the European persuasion.

But with Vatican II, there has been a renewal of the calendar. Many of the same saints are there, but now, you get your Rose of Lima's and your Charles Lwanga's and your ancient saints and modern saints, Europeans and Asians and South Americans and Africans and North Americans and everyone else. It's all inclusive like that. There is room for greater inculturation, so long as the substance of the Roman rite is preserved. It works. I know from my own experience that I've never felt awkward in a Latin church the way I would feel awkward in a Russian church...that veyr strong sense of universality is there, and I've always felt at home with Romans.

So can a more than average emphasis on culture hamper efforts at preaching the Gospel? I think so.

Then again, culture can also be a plus, when emphasised properly. Different people approach God in different ways, and this is true for cultures as well. Perhaps there are Mexicans out there who don't respond well to the life of the Gospel as preached by Latins because that type of spirituality doesn't do it for them, but that of the Greek Orthodox does. That spirituality was developed by that culture, and if someone adapts well to that spirituality, then perhaps they adapt well to the mentality of that culture as well, and then that's the best pathway for them. There wouldn't be Western converts to an obscure and ancient Indian Church in America today, no matter how few and far between they are, if this sort of thing wasn't true.

So I don't think culture has to have a negative effect on evangelisation. I think the key is in the approach. How do we emphasise culture in such a way that we don't prevent them from hearing the central message of Christ? Where do we draw the line, if at all? How do we strike a balance that emphasises, for example, Ukrainian culture and spirituality, and at the same time, appeals to your average Swede?

I don't know, I was hoping you might...

Dear Catholicos,

The question you raise would be simpler to answer if "culture" and "religion" were more disjointed and less integrated than they are in our respective traditions.

In discussions on culture, here and elsewhere, one often hears a very "minimalist" approach to culture, referring to its sum total as the food we eat, the dances, and other aspects of the external material culture.

Somewhere along the line two things have been forgotten - 1) Material culture is just the outward expression of inward values and 2)our Eastern Churches have completed incarnated the Message of Christ into the local and national cultures of the peoples whom they have served for centuries.

There is definitely such a thing as a Christian Indian spirituality and a Christian Ukrainian spirituality and so on.

The "culture" is an integrated amalgam of both secular culture symbolism and values together with religious values.

It is, to my mind, impossible to separate one from the other today.

And why would anyone want to? To try and do so would be an attempt at impoverishing the Church, and I think Maximus raised this point earlier on another thread.

But how can we relate this to the North American mainstream - the $64,000 question?

Some see it in terms of "basic surgery" that is to say, remove the language, the ethnic food and some other ethnocultural accretions, and replace them with mainstream culture. Then, voila, everyone is happy, the young people will come back to the Church etc.

And I think this is very naive in the long run.

O.K., one takes out the language etc. But does this make the domed Byzantine Churches any more "native" to North American cosmopolitanism?

Do the flowing robes of our clergy say "no more ethnic culture" to people, in effect, "We are now part of the mainstream too?"

Our Eastern Churches, even when divested of their ethnic cultural heritages, are still part of a "foreign" if you will, cultural and religious system that will continue to be perceived as such by the mainstream.

If we want our Churches and spirituality to gain acceptance by the mainstream, we don't necessarily have to become LIKE the mainstream in so doing.

That, I believe, is the major mistake committed by many who want to "adapt" to the surrounding society.

To do so would make us resemble the other faiths and churches in North America so much that why would you want to join the Eastern Churches when you don't get anything "different" than what you already have with the western Churches?

I see our relationship to the mainstream precisely in the way in which we preserve our Particular distinctiveness in terms of culture and spirituality, how much "other" we are, rather than "brother."

Of course, we need to adapt in terms of language et al. But even the Pope has issued a plea for the continued study of Latin in the Western Catholic Church.

The seeds of discontent in cultural terms are not with us, but with the bland cosmopolitanism of North American society.

People want commitment, belongingness, something of the exotic etc.

They can find all these things and more in the Eastern Churches.

Those who leave our Churches do so because they want to become more "like everyone else."

And yet our converts who come to us want to be "just like us" and not like everyone else.

Alex

Alex,

I think you hit the nail right on the head (or the head right on the nail).

Here in my city we are fortunate to have both a Ukrainian and Ruthenian church. Some Ukrainians have come to the Ruthenian church because their children could go through the liturgy, but had no idea what was being said in the liturgy or what the priest said in his homily.

Unfortunately, I think our Ruthenian church has allowed the pendulum to swing too far the other direction. The lack of ethnic identity in the church HAS diminished the traditional Ruthenian spirituality that I loved in other churches.

My previous parish had two people with Ruthenian or Ukrainian ethnic identities, but the rest of the parish embraced the "foreign" spirituality, which then became expressed in "ethnic" ways. This happened without anyone worrying about it. I'm not even sure any of us noticed it. It began with the way we celebrated Easter and Christmas, and then on to other things.

Unfortunately, that leaves those of us not genetically "whatever the church is" open to the charge of "ethnic counterfeit," which does happen in many parishes. Fortunately, I can fall back on my wife, but some don't have that luxury.

I don't think ethnic identity is a bar to outsiders (except for language), but ethnic elitism can be. It's all a question of balance. When you find one just right, it's just right!

Dear Cizinec,

Yes, balance, the via media!

Language is a barrier and we need to make people feel welcome and enable them to relate to the spirituality that is not only our patrimony, but something we are called upon to share with all of North America.

And my wife can always fall back on me as well. (Religion is so much fun, isn't it? )

Alex

Wow, that's quite remarkable. I thought it was a generally accepted fact that such a thing no longer exists! Not in this country, because we're so Heinz-57 that even the cradle Byzantines have like at most one great-great-great grandparent who was Greek Catholic... and not in the old country, because the reality there is either Ukrainian (i.e., nationalism passed off as religion), or Slovak (i.e., Ortho-phobic and hopelessly Latinized).

Not that it has anything to do with spirituality, but I'd guess that if you asked 100 American Byzantine Catholics where Uzhhorod is, 75 of them would say "somewhere in Czechoslovakia [sic]," 5 of them would give the correct answer, and 20 of them would never have heard of the place.

Cizinec, could you describe more what you're talking about?

Dear RichC,

"Could you describe more what you're talking about?"

A religion class once praised me for being so clear and down to earth.

They then put this same question to me .

Alex

RichC,

Don't forget people who think that our liturgical language and the language they speak are "Slovak"! That came as a surprise to my (really) Slovak fiancee! She couldn't read the texts! ha ha

anastasios

The question of culture is tricky, since, in a way, each rite, Latin rite included, has some cultural element to it. Traditionally, the Roman rite liturgy is certainly very Western-European in its orientation. I certainly would not begrudge that since I can relate to this culturally and see the inherent value in that heritage. Hence, I would be a hypocrite to say that the Eastern churches are misguided to have their own cultural emphases as well.

So the preservation of this is not a bad thing at all, just as it isn't for the preservation of the Roman rite traditions.

That being said, one thing I have myself experienced, and I know of many others who share this, with regards many Eastern rite parishes, is that one can have a very difficult time fitting in if one isn't of a particular cultural background of the parish. It can be a bit of a stumbling block for certain.

However, there are two ways to look at this issue. One way is to say the problem is with the ethnicity of these parishes. However, I don't think that is strictly the problem. I think the problem is rather one of negation. I think the crux of the issue is not the presence of ethnicity in Byzantine and Oriental churches, but rather the *lack* of a more culturally "North American" or "European" Byzantine parish for Catholics who are culturally Western (ie. born and raised in Western Europe or North America and raised according to that culture).

The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great certainly needn't be tied to the cultures, customs, and language of an Eastern European/Middle Eastern nation to retain their Eastern ethos and spirituality. Likewise, ikons certainly can and do transcend ethnicity as well, along with the traditional Eastern Church design and architecture. Obviously we all know that the Eastern spirituality and theology also transcends ethnic boundaries. So why not apply these as is and basically come up with a parish more rooted in this particular culture? It certainly seems in keeping with the tradition of the East to adapt to the language and culture it finds itself in. Really, I don't think it means adding things that are essentially European or North-American, but rather taking the liturgy, ikons, art and spirituality of the East as is (without any particular ethnic accretions) and then putting it into the English language.

I think it is the lack of such parishes (or even just a Sunday liturgy of such an emphasis at an existing Byzantine/Oriental rite parish) which is more the issue. Both type of Byzantine parish/liturgy can coexist.

Locally I know one of the big attractions, from the Eastern Orthodox side of the coin, is the Antiochian Orthodox church. There are plenty of Orthodox churches in my area, including a gorgeous Greek church (an even bigger one is being built; Cathedral sized) and a phenomenal Russian Orthodox church. But in terms of congregation, including a large number of youth and people who drive in from different areas, it is the relatively unimpressive (by comparison; it is still rather makeshift) Antiochian church which is flourishing. I have often heard this attributed to the fact that all their liturgies are in English and they have the sort of focus I mention.

This may be your most important statment on this topic Alex. And of course you relize that this is the future of the world - to become "like everyone else", but then that "like everyone else" is more US of A American brand at this point. But then at the same time because of American diversity one could make the argument that the US of A American brand is nothing but some of everybody else. I'm sure you would understand all of this better then I being that your a doctor in sociology.

I wonder how many of us wear our traditional ancestrial garbs, or do we dress like predominatly of the fashions out of Western Europe. I think this is important because this globalization of culture has already begun some time ago. I doubt you would find to many Japanese walking down streets of Japan in the traditional native wear of Japan during the 18th century.

On one hand all of this could be argued to be good. On the other hand all of this could be argued to be bad. When Fray Domingo de Soto began his work on International law - did it pre-suppose a certain superiority of his values i.e. Western values? I don't know, I know realy nothing of the man or his work. Did De Soto just apply universal moral norms of the 5 great religions? Whatever, this "like everyone else" has pulled the plug on certian tribal customs of beheading our enemies and keeping the head as a trophy of sorts. And what of eating our fellow humans? But this "like everyone else" has also the danger of making global life rather boring... or so I think so. It also has the danger of placeing more importance on materialism and in some ways may in danger family values that in all honesty maybe nothing more then cultural values, but cultural values that have held and sustained nations through triumphs and tragedy and has in it's own ways protected the *familial* hearth. I don't know again, but these are some things that come to my mind.

Over-all, with *balance*, I give the globalization of the world now and more so to come - thumbs up.

And as long as this is expressed in a fruitful way that honors where we came from, connecting us to our spiritual fathers of the past, I give the thumbs up also when it comes to this "like everyone else" in the Church. But to honest I am not very pleased in the way it has been worked out thus far over-all. But that doesn't mean it can't be better worked out for the future.

An Orthodox Christian's Declaration�

I am a Hellenic nationalist.

This means that I proclaim my nationality. My whole thought and action belongs to it.

I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of people who are linked by blood, united by a faith, united by a language, and subject to the same general fate.

I love these people and hate only those that stand in the way of the greatness and happiness of my people.

The nationalistic movement, which I am a part of, views its goals as the liberation of our people within and without.

It aims to give our people domestically those forms of life which seem to be suitable to its nature and to be a benefit to it as the expression of its nature.

It aims thereby to preserve the character of this people and to further cultivate it through the systematic fostering of its best men and best virtues.

It aims for the creation of a government in which the needs and interests of the Hellenes, supersede the demands of foreigners.

It fights for the external freedom of this people, because only under freedom can this life find that form which is serviceable to its people.

ER

Golden Dawn and the Renaissance of Greek Nationalism and Liberty in the 21st Century.


__|__~~~~~~~~~~~
| ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A translation in English by Rudyard Kipling in 1918.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE HELLENIC NATIONAL ANTHEM

We knew thee of old,
Oh, divinely restored,
By the lights of thine eyes
And the light of thy Sword

From the graves of our slain
Shall thy valour prevail
As we greet thee again-
Hail, Liberty! Hail!

Long time didst thou dwell
Mid the peoples that mourn,
Awaiting some voice
That should bid thee return.

Ah, slow broke that day
And no man dared call,
For the shadow of tyranny
Lay over all:

And we saw thee sad-eyed,
The tears on thy cheeks
While thy raiment was dyed
In the blood of the Greeks.

Yet, behold now thy sons
With impetuous breath
Go forth to the fight
Seeking Freedom or Death.

From the graves of our slain
Shall thy valour prevail
As we greet thee again-
Hail, Liberty! Hail!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greek Liturgy

http://ww2.goarch.org/live.ram

www.live.goarch.org/live.html [live.goarch.org]

[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Dear Ephraim,

Thank you for posting this declaration. I have saved a copy for contemplation and will post a response soon. I agree in part, but with reservations.

The Anthem is inspiring, and is an historic document, dating I guess from the struggle against the Turks in the 1800s? It seems to have inspired the Greek people to freedom.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Maximus,

Forgive me a sinner!

I may hold a doctorate in sociology, but your post is "doc-worthy" in and of itself, Friend!

Insightful, inspirational and meaningful - you get an A+++ from me!

Alex