A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY
|
|
|
| Volume 6 Number 26 - Tuesday, June 29th, 2004 |
A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY |
|
• Search
Engine
•
OCN
Website
|
The Orthodox Christian News Service |
|
|
Do Our Paradigms Inhibit Our Growth? “To get to the Promised Land, you have to negotiate your way through the wilderness.” (a) By Robert John Klancko “ As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” Genesis 8:22 [emphasis added by author] If our Orthodox Christian Church is to grow and prosper here in North America, are there institutional roadblocks that prevent such success? Such roadblocks can stem from complacency and also from insensitive attitudes regarding the American environment in which we live. For example, an ethnocentric focus creates barriers regarding those who do not qualify as members of the particular ethnic group. It may be time to reassess our parish level mission and goals in order to foster greater parish growth and more stable parish finances. Such an introspective evaluation may aid in identifying what should be continued, what should be eliminated and what should be begun. The foundation “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the chief cornerstone.” Ephesians 2: 19 - 20 The Christian Orthodox Church’s initial outreach, in the latter part of the 18th century on the North American Continent, was that of a Christian Orthodox missionary witness; a witness which was a dynamic missionary presence with clergy from ‘Holy’ Russia immigrating to Alaska with the objective of spreading the word and belief in Jesus Christ. These pious fathers knew that in order to be successful the Church had to meet the needs of the indigenous peoples and to be successful had to find a common ground with them. Liturgical and educational books were translated into their languages – the lingua franca – of the areas served and their customs were incorporated into the daily life of the church. It was recognized that although this was a Russian mission, the Church was an Alaskan entity. The experience on the east coast in the latter part of the 19th century was much different. Immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Levant came to these shores looking for a better life. As they congregated in their respective ethnic ghettos, they formed brotherhoods and sisterhoods for mutual aid. These organizations became the forbearers of their religious institutions. As their life became stabilized they began to create institutions that would complete their existence in this new land. So out of these brotherhoods emerged fledgling parishes which sought clergy from the former homelands across the Atlantic. As such, their churches were not established as those of Alaska were – to serve indigenous peoples – but they were created to serve a particular ethnic enclave. This led to the creation of ethno-centric parishes, which were in some cases so exclusive that they served only peoples from certain ‘old country’ villages. It might be argued that these ethnic enclaves served a positive purpose in this country where it was, at times, not popular or prudent to be anything but a white Anglo-Saxon in stature and presence. In order to survive, this mutual support of one’s ethic family was an important foundation. The pendulum has swung in a mighty arc in the last 60 years, and such extensive ethnic support systems perhaps are not so needed today as they were in the past. In part, this can be attributed to the dilution of ethnic blood lines in the ‘American Melting Pot’. This is the legacy that we have inherited today. The foundation of our church here in North America today, is based upon ethno-centric parishes and ethno-centric jurisdictions – all jealously guarding their traditions, languages, music, and culture. This is even more problematic because many of the bishops are foreign born and if they speak English, do so with very thick accents. Few are American born and educated and even fewer are converts who understand the generic American religious mindset and experience. There was an opportunity “Celebrate the Feast of Harvest with the first fruits of the crops you sow in your field.” Exodus 23:16 As the North American Church developed between 1890 to 1915, (a period of accelerated growth), it was essentially united under one church administration, that of the Russians. At the turn of the century the Russian Orthodox Mission moved its headquarters from San Francisco to New York. Under the Russian Bishop (and subsequently Archbishop) there were Russian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek and Syro-Arab parishes. In fact the first Orthodox Bishop consecrated in North America was Bishop (Saint) Raphael Hawaweeny an Arab clergyman who had been educated and had served in Russia. The Russian Church Administration at the end of 1915 had Russian, Carpatho-Russian, and Syro-Arab Bishops along with an objective of translating its service books into English (the Florence Hapgood translation as a primary example). Unfortunately, due to World War 1, the fall of the Russian Monarchy, and nationalistic fervor as witnessed in the League of Nations, this fragile alliance of ethnic churches disintegrated and all fled the unified nest – so to speak – each to chart its own pathway and future independent of its other ethnic brothers and sisters. This is the legacy that we have now inherited and a legacy that is the foundation of the present Church here in North America. What is our present status – basic facts and observations ? “Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.” 2 Corinthians 9:10 First of all consider our numbers. According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research there are barely 1,200,000 practitioners of the Christian Orthodox faith here in the U.S.A. Although estimates as high as 6,000,000 have been quoted, these are only estimates, the Hartford Study was an exhaustive investigation that entailed visits to the various chanceries and calculations verified by various means. If this 1,200,000 is correct and knowing that the population of the U.S.A. is 293,000,000, then, in simplistic terms, there is a 1 in 293 chance that one of our children will marry in the faith. About 40% of our parishes were founded before 1915, many by our great grandparents. However, considering for argument purposes that the parishes were founded by our grandparents instead and that because of our melting pot here in the U.S.A. only one of our parents were of the original ethic group, so we are then 50% say Russian, and we all marry outside the original Russian ethnic group our children are therefore 25% of the original ethnic group. Now, if our children marry outside of the original ethnic group, our grand children will be 12.5% of the original. The ethnic and also the religious line can in 4 generations become substantially diluted. This is a fact that many of the original parishes now have to face. The basic questions that now need to be answered are; in which group – parents, we, children, grandchildren did English become the dominant language and only snippets of the ‘old country – mother tongue’ remained in the vocabulary and when we were assimilated into American society? The Hartford Study goes on to say the following about church growth; “ There are three demographic sources of growth: immigration, the offspring of church members, and Anglo-American converts. In nearly all the Orthodox jurisdictions, new immigrants are roughly as important for membership growth as are the children of existing members, and in many cases immigration is still the major source of church growth. With the offspring members there is a desire to assimilate into the dominant American culture and drift away from the language and customs, and to a large extent from the Orthodox faith of their parents.” This statement infers that our ethnocentric status quo is more amenable to the immigrant (the flow of which may begin to wane in light of 9/11 security issues) than it is to our youth, who were nurtured to a point but whose societal and assimilation needs are not met by the church as presently structured. The relevant point is whether we can and should rely on immigration to grow, and if we do, is our missionary role to witness the faith here on American soil is diminished? Placing such an emphasis on serving the immigrant community through preservation versus serving the immigrant community through enabling their assimilation into American ways, language, business and culture seems to be perhaps the ‘weakest link’ of our presence and mission. A focus on assisting in the learning of the English language, the obtaining of employment, the socialization within and outside the parish, and the learning of the basic Americanization facts leading to citizenship perhaps are more important goals, than just to preserve the ways of the ‘old country’ while sacrificing all else. Perhaps we need a more concerted focus on our youth and their identity with the church. There is one parish that has been the focus of some study. In the 60’s it had a Sunday School of 250, the parish was 2,500 strong – two liturgies on Sunday filling the 550 seat church for both. Now, it has a Sunday School of 25, has just under 300 parishioners – mostly gray-haired and bald, barely 100 come to a single Sunday liturgy. In all respects, based on baptism and marriage data it should have 6000 members – alas it has lost generation after generation of its youth. Most of them leaving due to mixed marriages or desires for a more American, (this connotation meaning where American ways – networking, community outreach, modern financial practices, communication, etc. were practiced to a more active and effective extent), church structure. Also lacking was a more welcoming and loving parish experience for their nonmember spouse. Basic observations “This righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes from through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. These is no difference for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:21-24 Before proceeding further, this basic question needs to be addressed. What is the essence of our faith? Examining the world Christian Orthodox Church, we see that a phlephony of liturgical languages are used – Arabic, Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Romanian, Ukrainian – to name a few. So, to serve the liturgy entirely in English, on American soil, where English is the lingua franca is not a canonical issue. Lingua franca is the norm in the ‘old country’ so why shouldn’t it be so here? If the preservation of a mother tongue is so important, why aren’t language classes being conducted in all of the ethno-centric parishes? In fact, there aren’t even English as a second language classes being held either! Proceeding from ethnic group to ethnic group, there is a divergence of customs in the liturgy and the various feast day celebrations. The essence and core is always the same, but the execution and ambience differ. So there is a liturgical flexibly that reflects the various cultures in the faith. One such difference is in the music used. The ancient Znamenny chants, to the Byzantine chants – Greek and Arab, to the choral works of Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov are all found in our repertoire. Therefore does it not make good sense to employ American music for the America faithful? Refer to the popularity of John Tavener in Great Britain today. This modern composer, born in 1944, has been a prolific composer of Eastern Orthodox church music, and has even been commissioned by the Royal House of Great Britain to compose music reflecting Prince Phillip’s Greek Orthodox heritage. Is American Christian Orthodoxy, truly American and structured for the American psyche or is it a relic of the ‘old world presence’ and if so should it be? Is the ‘old world’ liturgical language and liturgical music essential to the faith, or does the faith transcend all of this? To answer this query it is necessary for us to define ‘just what is the essence of Orthodox Christianity’, and ‘what makes for a solid, well functioning Christian Orthodox American Church. Notice the precise location of the words. It must always be remembered that we are Christians, we follow Christ. Orthodox is the branch of Christianity to which we profess, and America is where we live and who we are. We do not place our ethnicity before Christianity – because Christianity transcends all ethnicity. This is a fundamental concept that is lost on many of our faithful who place their ethnicity above all else. For example, to many ethno-centrics an American of Greek heritage who is an American Orthodox Christian is not considered to be the same as a Greek Orthodox Christian residing in America. So are our parishes here to preserve the faith, preserve an ethnic ethos or both? Of the three is there one of penultimate importance over the others? This is where introspective reflection and evaluation is beneficial and important. Also are we here to maintain a safe ‘old world’ haven for immigrants or a vehicle to enable their assimilation into their new home country? What is the American church experience? “I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.” John 4:35 If we live and function in North America, and there is a 1 in 293 chance that our children will marry in the faith (simple statistics), then what is the paradigm of this ‘American’ who will experience our form of worship. Will this person relate to us in a positive manner or not and why? So, let us examine a generic American church. The church physical edifice is modestly ornate to plain. Emphasis is placed on cushioned pews – which are used extensively during the service - using modern and well functioning audio systems that enable even a mouse in the corner to hear the clergy. In addition, air conditioning has become a design standard. Although some may have expensive organs, the emphasis is to put the capital expenditures into making the active religious experience user friendly, and ensuring that the worshipping environment, is parishioner comfort friendly. In comparison, our churches are stranded capital intensive. The non parishioner comfort embellishments – icons, murals, chandeliers, brocade vestments etc. require substantial amounts of capital, capital which is not in active use to make the religious experience parishioner friendly (in 21st century terms). These turn many of our churches into museums of beautiful art, however substantial additional monies are needed to make the building parishioner friendly, if such modern (western cultural) amenities are considered important. These amenities include, state of the art public address systems, comfortable pews that are actually used, and air conditioning. Remember that some, in fact, wishing to hearken back to the ‘old country’ experience have designed their churches to be pewless. So, to the typical American, entry into one of our churches is a ‘culture shock’ and if they are required to stand for hours in non air conditioned space, unable hear what is going on – is it probable that they will want to return? Consider also that the generic American church uses English as it liturgical language. Its music is of the melodic western character, many times accompanied by an organ, and its music can easily be sung in the car to and from church – e.g. A Mighty Fortress is Our God, Jesus Loves Me, Silent Night, Onward Christian Soldiers, etc. Many of these hymns being common in both, the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches a like and many also are heard on radio and T.V. We sing a-cappella, which is fine – many of the rock and roll hits of the 50’s and 60’s were sung a-cappella. However, our music and words are unfamiliar to the generic American. Our words, as beautiful and they are, are complex and many times convoluted and not in clear, direct, simple English. Additionally, English is not the norm in many of our churches, and if it is used – it is not used 100%. Therefore there is a need to facilitate the non-linguist’s understanding of what is being said or sung. In fact many of our translations are so stilted and convoluted that they present challenges to the most literate of our membership. Also, we make little, if no, attempt for any of our music to reach the American media so our hymnology is not part of the generic Americans’ musical experience. Even our faithful are ignorant of such facts as; the 1812 Overture was based a hymn of the church – O Lord Save Our People, or that the Russian Easter Overture was based on Christ is Risen from the Dead, or that the Carol of the Bells is of Ukrainian origin. As a consequence, our Russian scores may provide a modicum of familiarity to the generic American and can be accepted, however our Byzantine (Greek and Arabic) chant can evoke very limited tolerances. One of our learned clergy has observed “The Byzantine chant in its simplest, least melismatic, forms can have a very memorable pulse and melody. I know many children under five who sing Byzantine arranged hymns. The problem with Byzantine chant (getting over the “Byzantine” element of its quivering and nasal flourishes) is execution/performance.” Another major difference is that the American experience is of active participation in the service, with the congregation singing and reading. Many of our congregations are passive observers of a religious pageant (as if they were stuck between the clergy and the choir, waiting for someone to actively involve them in some way). There is little if any connection between the clergy and the congregation, except for the participation of the choir. The American is conditioned to be more of an active liturgical participant. Congregational sing in our churches is limited to perhaps 5% of the North American parishes (in particular the Carpatho-Russian and a few convert and western rite parishes). The generic American church places a high degree of emphasis on communication; their congregations, are given copies of everything that will occur and be said during the worship service . In contrast, our pew liturgical books are many times sorely wanting as are our weekly bulletins, for many usually do not contain that essential information which will enable the congregation, the choir, and the clergy, to always be ‘on the same page’ using the same text. There are usually many word changes, inserted prayers, and additional hymns, not to be found anywhere. Such liturgical confusion does not engender a positive, worshipper-friendly environment. In addition, the generic American church supplies a free yearly directory of members and associates. The net result is that the generic American churchgoer, easily becomes culturally challenged by our churches, and many times we exhibit an insensitivity to their feelings which adds to their confusion and dismay. The generic American is trying to be a full participant in a church service where as the faithful are content to be passive observers and in a church where Christian fellowship, as they have experienced it, rarely exists. In the mind of many of our laity, the ‘if it was fine for my grandparents then it is fine for us’ thinking prevails as the ascribed ‘modus operandi’. This may not be prudent missionary thinking and may, in fact enable the creation of additional institutional roadblocks to parish growth. In fact, a classic statement that has been heard many timesin some of the OCA parishes I have visited is “ Our kinda people don’t do that”. Of course the question is begged – what is the definition of ‘our kinda people’? What should we do? “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” Matthew 9: 37-38 The answer to this question is not a simple one. First of all, the mission of the Orthodox Christian parish in American life needs to be determined. Is it its mission to outreach to the community at large and to be an active witness to America or is its mission to preserve an ‘old world’ expression of faith and to continue to embody an ethno-centric ethos that appeals solely to the immigrant or is it a compromise between the two? Secondly, has the parish performed a long range planning evaluation and has it defined what the projected parish demographics will be 10, 20, 30 years from now and where its parishioners and resources will be coming from? This allows for proactive planning to be implemented. Thirdly, does the parish know and recognize what needs to be done to nurture and grow its congregation or just to preserve the status quo? Is it accepting of these facts? Is it implementing new programs to serve the changing needs of the parish? Is it performing an evaluation of what it needs to cease, what it needs to maintain and what it needs to begin in order to remain and maintain viability and vitality. Lastly, does it have a plan for its future? Does it know where it wants to be in 30 years, or 50 years and how will that goal be accomplished, or does it exist issue to issue, putting out fire after fire? Perhaps the key to all of this is whether it can be recognized if there is actually a disconnect that needs to be remedied. To be successful it is important to be proactive and not reactive. The Hartford Study seems to indicate there is a reason for some concern. My research on a History of the Eastern Churches of Connecticut indicates that Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic are both experiencing a drastic decline with 14 parishes having closed in the 20th century and many of those 70+ (Eastern Rite Catholic, Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedon) remaining are in many cases experiencing membership declines. Many leaders of these communities with whom I have discussed this issue do not believe there is a problem. Perhaps this is the greatest obstacle, for unless the need is recognized, a strategy of remediation cannot be formulated. It is necessary for us to have a unified vision of our roles and mission here in North America and a plan as to how we will fulfill them. Whatever the ultimate action taken is, it should be based a careful, prayerful evaluation of the facts and desires reflecting the soul of the individual parish. If we however continue as we have in the past, being reactive instead of proactive, it is quite probable that we will become as the Shakers have – merely a memory. We must therefore decide whether maintaining ‘old country’ ways provides us a comfortable refuge for our faith and this is what is needed, or is this comfortable refuge eroding our faith, for if we are comfortable where we are, are we truly living and experiencing our faith – if our faith is our life, shouldn’t we active seekers instead of just passive acceptors? “I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.” Revelation 2:19 Where do we go from here? “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding: in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your path straight.” Proverbs 3:5-6 This is also not a simple question to answer. Of course prayer is an essential element, for without it where would we be? However, along with prayer, we do need to have a vision for the future, for as in the title of the popular management book – If You Don’t Know Where You are Going, You’ll Probably End Up Somewhere Else. It does appear that we may be going somewhere but our path is not very straight and our mutual goals appear to be divergent. Every Diocese, every parish should have a vision of where they expect to be 10, 20, 50 years from now and a strategy of how they will get there. This vision/mission needs to be coordinated with a united ‘national’ one – such as one that can be developed at a Ligonier Conference. This type of planning and application of modern management principles may be a radical concept for a church, especially our church which has placed such an emphasis upon the spiritual aspects of life and not the mundane administrative. What much of the data is indicating is that many of our parishes are regressing in membership and for the most part are small in size. Growth on the whole is stagnant except for new immigrants (Greek predominantly) and aggressive evangelization (Antiochians). The key to our sustainability is quality training – training of not only our diocesan leadership but also our local parish leaders. These stewards of our present and future need the administrative, management, and planning tools necessary for them to be effective in fulfilling the responsibilities we place on them. They also need to be on the same page regarding their responsibilities and how to function effectively and efficiently, focusing on the same ultimate goal. Perhaps what the first step should be is two levels of training. One level would be training of our Bishops and Diocesan leaders in such a visionary planning process. The other level would be the training of parish leaders in a similar process. Both levels would share a common vision of what their “Mission” is. This connotation of ‘Mission’ being the future plan of the ‘Church’ which both would hold in common. The Diocese would set generalistic goals and objectives and the individual parishes would evaluate their options and create their own future vision under this framework. Will it succeed; will we succeed? Perhaps the question to be asked is ‘if it is not tried, will the church become a viable, vibrant voice here in North America fifty years from now, or will it be a quaint religious anomaly? It is clear that we must be proactive in our endeavors here in North America in order to create a church institution of lasting significance, outreach, mission, and salvation. May God bless us all – amen. “If you want something to happen, make space for it.” (b) (a) You Can Negotiate Anything, Bantam Book Company, New York, 1982 p. 15 (b)
If You Don’t Know Where You are Going You’ll
Probably End Up Somewhere
Else, Argus Communications, Illinois, 1984
p. 34 |
|
Home • Archives • Search • Submissions • Support Us |
||
|
Orthodox News, PO BOX 6954 |
