When we are no longer ethnic

What will happen to our churches when a majority of the membership does not have an ethnic lineage similar to the ethnic jurisdiction to which the church belongs?

I was at a Greek festival yesterday. It was a church to which I had never been, but desired to support it. I am not Greek, but I love all things "ethnic." In reading the program for the festival, it was noted that the ethnic makeup of the parish was 40% Greek, and 60% non-Greek. This made me think about future years. This church has been growing mostly through converts. These converts most likely do not convert because the church was Greek, but because the faith was Orthodoxy. What will happen though if or when this parish becomes Greek in name only? What will happen to the Greek festival when the church has only a token number of Greeks, who may be too old to teach the children the dances, or play in the Greek band?

I was reminded of my though when I came across an article on the internet about this same Greek/non-Greek split in a Greek church in Mississippi. The parish council president said "We have more converts than Greeks." The priest of this church is a new priest and a convert. When will these churches, who are attracting converts and currently have more converts than Greeks, lose their Greek heritage or traditions?

This phenomenon in the Orthodox Church in the USA and other non-traditionally Orthodox countries, may not be new, but it is certainly a issue that will become far more wide spread. As the Orthodox Church gains recognition within the USA, it is inevitable that many churches outside of major metropolitan areas will trend towards fewer first, second or third generation immigrants. The first-wave of Americans that will enter these churches will certainly be indoctrinated in the ways of the ethnic traditions and festivals. But what will happen in two or three generations of Americans? Will these churches be able to maintain traditions when there is not an explicit cultural connection to the tradition?

There is already precedent for this "loss" in the churches in America. How? Language. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is imperative that the language of the Church is the language of the people. But how many churches started in America with services completely in Greek, Arabic, or Russian? How many still exist? Why this change? Because the Bishops and the priests saw that people who had never spoken Greek or Russian or Arabic were entering the church, and they too needed to be served by the church by teaching about God in the language they understood. To me, this is the great beauty of the feast of Pentecost. Not only did Jesus save me through His death and resurrection, but He desired that all nations be baptized. Speaking the languages people understood was the first step.

There are people in these proud ethnic churches that lament that their children do not know the language of their ancestors. That they do not care for the traditions they have held. This is the first sign. True, there will always be those that greatly love their heritage and will seek to instill at least some aspect of it in their children and neighbors. But will it be enough to keep the Greek festivals?

In the two parishes of which I have been a member, both were under the jurisdiction of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese or North America. Essentially a church of Arabic ethnic heritage. In the first church, it was started by mostly converts, and I was gratefully a member at the founding of the church. There was only one or two "Arabic" families in this church when it was founded. They were overwhelmed by the number of convert families that founded the church. We also had as many Russians and Greeks as Arabs. We had a convert priest that artfully and enthusiastically included as many ethnic traditions as possible, even traditions from cultures that were not part of our church. This was and is a glorious thing! As converts we felt connection through the traditions to the ancient church. The wonderful traditions also had an effect of reinforcing the spiritual understanding that was the catalyst for the tradition.

The second parish of which I became a member and am currently a member, has no ethnic members: 100% convert. There is a sadness for me that I do not get to learn about how people of other cultures approached Orthodoxy, just by participating in their traditions. There is a sadness that we do not celebrate St. Barbara's day with the traditional cookies. Or celebrate St. George Day. Or celebrate St. Nicholas day with a particular tradition.

Our church does have its own traditions, but these traditions, as lovely as they are, are limited to our church (or to the nearby churches). What is great about the Greek or Arabic or Russian traditions, is that they span churches, nations, peoples, and languages.

I hope that as a church in America, we never lose the various ethnic traditions, and never lose sight of the fact that they can be used to bring Orthodoxy to life. Maybe in typical American fashion, our churches, no matter what ethnicity or lack thereof, will investigate and encourage church traditions that we have been given as a gift. In addition, maybe in two or three generations, we will have a set of traditions that are typically American Orthodox, that will reflect our shared heritage.

The "New" Kosovo

It is with extreme sadness that I learn that Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state. I am not sad that people may get the right to better control their own government. I am not sad that people may get the right to live in peace. In normal circumstances, these would be great achievements. President Bush stated that independance and recognition will bring peace to the Balkans. I am not sure which history book he is reading, but it is not the one I read.

Now granted, I am not a history major, nor do I have a particularly great understanding of the Balkans. I do know that by meddling in another sovereign country's territory is not going to be particularly well thought of. Siding with a relatively modern ethnic majority in a particular piece of land, land occupied for a very long time by another ethnic group is surely not going to bring peace.

And what peace are we talking about anyway? Peace in Kosovo? Who will get peace? Who is making war? Serbian's aren't making war since the NATO bombing. So ethnic Albanian's can't be the one to need peace. How about the ethnic Serbian people that live in Kosovo? Are they committing atrocities? It would be hard to imagine 10% of a particular population committing atrocitites on 90% of the population, at least not for very long. Rather, let us look at the majority of ethnic crimes being committed in the Kosovo region. Hundreds of churches have been destroyed or badly damaged. Ethnic Serbs have been forced through violent intimidation to abandon areas where ethnic Serbs have lived for hundreds of years. Monasteries which have a population of monks that feast on prayer and love for mankind, have been destroyed and the monks have been scattered. Peace for whom? If there was to be a peace, it should have been for the Serbs.

Little does President Bush, and the rest of the major European countries (except Spain) realize what precident has been set. Imaging Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and other states or regions that have a large population of Spanish as the primary language residents. Even more think of those residents that have never wanted to become American citizens, or have been blocked from becoming citizens. Are they people without a country? In 50 years will they resemble the Albanians that fled from their homeland to a country that could house them in relative peace and modest prosperity? If so, what if they demand a homeland. What if they demand a government that understands them, or is representative of their ethnicity? What if a majority or a super-majority of a region of the USA votes for independence from the USA? The precident says that they should be granted that as a right.

Someone may counter that this is not the same thing as in Kosovo. The Serbs lost the "moral authority" to govern Kosovo because of violence against the ethnic population. Does anyone remember the US civil war? That population (the Southern states) may not have differed ethnically from the other, but this argument isn't really about ethnicity. It is about the right of a people to decide who should govern them. The North could be Serbia desiring to keep its territory and protect its ideology. The South could be Kosovo and its people the ethnic Albanians trying to keep their ideology. This precedent would indicate that the North should have let the South govern its affairs and allow them to become independent.

The European powers that supported independence for Kosovo do not themselves have issues with ethnic separatism (at the moment, but just think about the influx of ethno-religious Muslims immigants). Spain, on the other hand, has some issues with this. Will the Basque in Spain see this as their chance to gain autonomy or independence? Spain is understandably reluctant to support another ethnicities independence when that precedent can be used against them sooner or later.

The United States of America is in a little different situation. It has a huge population of people that wish to maintain very strong ethnic ties to their homeland. A desire I certainly understand and in general support. However, I also support the concept of the current territorial integrity of the USA. There are many people who do not. This gives them quite a wonderful wedge against the USA on the world political scene.

The precedent set is not really a precedent, but actually a continuation of a very old axiom, "might makes right." This is also known as the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rule." Can anyone guess what happens when these axioms or rules are exercised? War. War of all stripes. Rather than gaining peace, the USA has victimized a people. It has alienated ethnicities, spread distrust, and solidified the necessity of alliances not previously needed.

With all due respect, Mr. President, "peace in the Balkans?", you must be insane! While I would like to be wrong, I am certain that this line will go down as Bush's most foolhearty statement ever made.

Now, when are we going to start bombing our NATO ally, Turkey since I believe that they have lost the moral authority to govern the Kurds?

Historic Churches

One thing I like to do is find stories around the web talking about Orthodox goings on. Some items are good, exciting, and have positive sentiments. Others are not so happy.

This article is kind of sad. It talks about the "oldest Russian Orthodox Church in North Carolina" that has only 4 members left (4 rather old members). One of my personality traits is that I am (overly?) sentimental. A church with a history from 1932 will soon have no one to care about it.

There is an organization that is mentioned in the article called "Partners for Sacred Places." While I don't know anything about this organization, it would be nice if there was something especially for Orthodox places of worship in the US and maybe more importantly other countries.

I find it immensely sad that centuries old churches in countries that may no longer have an thriving Orthodox population are in great disrepair. One one hand I see that times change, populations move, politics of a land change and so churches are abandoned. On the other hand, these churches are holy temples, consecrated to the service of God. Faithful people put great effort into building the community, both physical temple and spiritual life, only to have the community no longer with faithful members.

I suppose the ultimate questions are: should we put money into buildings that would not benefit the spiritual development of anyone? Or is the beauty of the physical manifestations of faith of universal support to the faithful throughout the generations?

Divine Liturgy and Us

Wow, two posts in one year! Lets just say that its been a hard year all over.

This morning I happened to find a notebook on my desk. My wife was not up at the time and the notebook had my handwriting in it. I investigated the notebook and the first few pages were just throw-away notes. Then I got to a section that I had written more than 10 years ago.

These were notes I took when I went to the first clergy seminar that Bishop JOSEPH holds each year in his diocese. The first one was held 10 or 11 years ago, and although I am not major order clergy, I was allowed to attend (as are several other people who are not priests or deacons). The first pages of these notes were very sparse, and I was disappointed that I did not write more details. But then I got to pages that had more filled in. The notes were still sketchy, but at least they had some information that I could apply directly to my life. I thought I'd share a few of them here (if only in case I lose this notebook again).

1) We must transform ourselves from reading service books to praying the prayer.


2) Unless we become the subject of the prayer, it becomes a ritual. I f we pray ritualistically we have no salvation.

3) Because the service is holdy, we must perform the service in good spiritual mind and in seriousness.

4) Faith without knowledge may lead us into superstition. Knowledge without faith will lead us into secularism.

5) Our salvation is most important to His Grace (Bishop JOSEPH).

These points were made by a well-respected priest of the Antiochian Archdiocese to priests and deacons of the Los Angeles Diocese (well this talk actually pre-dates the formation of the diocese).

As a current choir director, though a very poor choir director, I have realized how hard it is to be the "responsible party" for some aspect of the service. I try hard to have the choir's parts of the service go well, well enough that people could forget about the choir. This doesn't happen often enough for me, but I try. The problem with all of this effort, is that I am concentrating on the rubrics or the ordo, but I am not concentrating the service itself. Certainly there is grace in being part of the workings of the liturgy, but at the end I am exhausted and left feeling I have missed the liturgy. I feel I am not fulfilling point 1 above.

Another interesting statement is point 5. Remembering that these statements were directed to priests, I think that statement that surounded this point was that priests need to work towards salvation so that they can lead others to find salvation.

Re-virginized ?

There is an article from Reuters that I saw on Yahoo today: "Muslim women in France regain virginity in clinics"

There are such quotes as: "She had her hymen re-sewn, technically making her a virgin again." And, "They have had sex already but are expected to be virgins at marriage..."

It is understandable the pressure that these women and girls have placed on them to conform to a certain cultural expectation. But this entire idea is disingenous at best and spiritually deformed at worst. I do not claim to know the understanding of Muslims regarding viriginity in Islam. However, my guess would be that it has something to do with the spiritual benefits of chastity. Hopefully I am not naive and that it does not have something more to do with possessiveness.

What I'd like to know is when the idea was formed that "intact hymen = virgin." Physiologically, it could be used to test if a woman has had intercourse in the past. But this test is highly flawed to begin with as there are a variety of reasons a hymen may not be intact unrelated to sexual intercourse. I pity the poor women in the past (and today) that were falsely accused of loose living simply because her hymen was not intact.

Being a virgin is like having never seen a movie. Once you have gone to a theatre and seen a movie, you can never again truthfully say that you have not seen a movie. Once you step out of the movie theatre, there is little that anyone can do to prove that you have seen a movie, but the fact still remains. Hymenoplasty may perfectly conceal the fact that a woman has had sex, but it can't change the fact that she has had sex.

Again, I can understand that a woman feels the need to conform to her culture's expectations. But let us not confuse terminology regarding a physical manifestation with one that is metaphysical or experiential. So the first quote is plain wrong. The only way you can technically be a virgin is if you are actually a virgin. Having a hymen or not does not change that, technically, physically or otherwise.

Thus clearing up the confusion, and having some idea of a definition of virginity, that is not related to some physical manifestation, I'd like to address the second quote. If someone is expected to be a virgin and are not, how is surgery going to change that fact. What is the purpose? To trick an unsuspecting husband? To "protect" unsuspecting parents and the family? What is the real purpose of virginity and why it is so essential the Muslims culture? If it is so important, what are the stumbling blocks for women retaining their true virginity?

Now I don't write about Islam, I write about my understand of Orthodox Christianity. We can learn about our own issues by seeing how others deal with the similar issues. In my 13 odd years of being a convert to Orthodoxy, I have come across a variety of understandings of chastity and virginity. It is a remarkable large topic for something that seems to simple in its definition. I'll summarize them below:

Complete, unconditional: This understanding is that all sex before marriage is unacceptable, both for males and females.

Boys will be boys: This understanding relates that it is hard to control boys' "hormones." It proscribes little if anything for males, but that sex before marriage is completely unacceptable for females. This could also be called "sowing the wild oats" and other euphamisms. But as a friend so crudely noted, "Who do you think they are screwing?" Apparently not someone of marriage material.

You can't fight it: This understanding is that teenagers and young adults are so sexually excited that we, as parents, aren't able to keep them from having sex. So we might as well not stigmatize them.

Now these three understandings are generalizations, but not by much. And also remember I have heard these positions by practicing Orthodox Christians. Now it is my understanding, belief that total, complete chastity was the only acceptable practice. That is, virginity until marriage. Unfortunately the reasons behind virginity are not clearly taught to the faithful. All we get is this strange "heaven" or "hell" understanding. If you're a virgin your "good," if not your "bad." This is a strange simplification of the truth reasonings behind virginity and chastity. So much more could be written, but I've already vered off my original post. So I'll save it for another post, hopefully soon.