Long-Term Challenges for Greek Orthodoxy in America

Published by The National Herald, May 30, 2005

Greek Americans are once again embroiled with the financial and leadership problems of the Greek Orthodox Church in America. Important as those immediate issues are, serious discussion also must begin on the larger core problem behind each new crisis. Is the primary mission of the Church in America to spread the Orthodox faith, or to preserve Greek ethnic identity? The two mandates are not incompatible, but the strategy most favorable for each is less favorable for the other.

A logical form for Orthodoxy in America is an American Orthodox Church which has English as its major language and whose ethnicity is American. Such a Church would ultimately want to be headed by its own patriarch, rather than the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. The prospect of such an American Orthodox Church would have seemed preposterous 50 years ago. Today, however, that movement exists and has already attracted numerous Greek Americans. Thus, the issue is not if there is going to be an attempt to create an American Orthodox Church, but how the Greek Orthodox Church in America will respond. Will Greeks, who are the single largest Orthodox denomination in America, take the lead in the formation of the new hierarchy or not?

Some years ago, Archbishop Iakovos took tentative steps to move the Greek Church into leadership of American Orthodoxy. Given that the movement was well grounded theologically and already had momentum, Iakovos judged it better for Greeks to lead, rather than be left out or follow at some later date. Nonetheless, he moved slowly, as he understood that such an institution could only weaken the ethnic nature of Greek American society. He was properly wary of going too far or too fast. But even his cautious initiatives were fiercely resisted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese has since not attempted an activist role in the movement for an American Orthodox Church.

Without making any formal declaration, the Greek Orthodox Church has opted for maintaining its ethnic Greekness. That being the case, a thoughtful, dynamic and programmatic approach to deepening Greek culture needs to be developed. The problems are manifold and well known. In America, some 80 percent of all marriages in the Greek Orthodox Church involve a non-Greek. Third- and fourth-generation Greek Americans are rarely fluent in Greek. A number of congregations are already so small that they share priests with each other, or with other Orthodox jurisdictions. Thus, any serious attempt to maintain Greek culture in America through the Church requires a well-educated priesthood, at once comfortable with ethnically diverse parishioners yet committed to preserving Greek ethnic identity in America.

One of the major purposes for creating the Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology complex was to provide priests familiar with American conditions. But the reality at Holy Cross, for at least a decade, has been ongoing chaos. A five-page summary of a recent retreat of Holy Cross faculty lamented that the standards for admission are too low, and that students graduate regardless of how poorly they perform. What kind of future can a Greek-oriented Church in America expect if it can not produce a stream of highly qualified priests? A genuine reform and renaissance at Holy Cross ought to be a top-drawer priority of the Archbishop.

Priests can come from other venues, of course. The Church in America is hierarchically tied to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but neither this patriarch nor his predecessors have been able to get the Halki Theological seminary reopened since the Turkish Government illegally closed it in 1971. With Turkey seeking membership in the European Union, the continued closure of Halki should be politically untenable. Suppression of religious institutions is incompatible with EU regulations and standards.

We also happen to be in a political era in the United States during which religious pluralism in Muslim nations is a stated priority of the current president. This is an opportune time to persuade the Bush Administration to make reopening Halki a priority in its dealings with Turkey. Greek Americans can be much louder and more vociferous on the Halki issue than homeland Greeks or the Greek remnant in Turkey. Such a non-controversial political offensive would also give younger Greek Americans a taste for political activism. The Archbishop is the logical leader for such an effort.

Another alternative, of course, is to draw priests from Greece. Should that become a dominant pathway, however, some parishes might well conclude that if preserving Greekness is the main mandate, and if the priests are coming from Greece, then perhaps switching affiliation to the Greek hierarchy might be better than continued affiliation with Constantinople. This, in effect, would create a third crack in what is now a unified Church.

The Church leadership seems content to let events unfold at their own pace and react only when there is a crisis. The danger in this strategy is that, over the course of the next decade, the religious and political currents now evident will likely result in the disintegration of various parishes. In large cities like New York or Chicago, the numbers are large enough to allow competing parishes to survive. That is less likely in areas with smaller Greek populations, where divisions could result in one or both groups failing. Half of the 50 states have total statewide Greek populations under 10,000 and 15 states have total Greek populations under 3,000.

All available options carry risks. Should the Church undertake a vigorous program emphasizing Greekness, there will surely be a loss of some members to American Orthodoxy and a loss of some fourth-generation Greek Americans who may become alienated by a church which is felt to be too Greek. This strategy also has the disadvantage of keeping the American Church tied to an overseas patriarch who is not intimate with the realities of the United States.

But acting on that option puts the Church at the heart of the project to maintain Greekness in America, and reaffirms the historic tie to Constantinople, the navel of all Orthodox Churches.

If, on the other hand, the Church were to take a leadership role in American Orthodoxy, a kind of first among equals, it would surely lose a number of parishes with an intense Greek identity. On the positive side, the Church would find it easier to retain Anglophonic Greek Americans and converts. Nor can it be denied that an American Orthodox Church would be larger than a strictly Greek Church, and thus in a position to command more influence and prestige in America. As the final step in ethnic assimilation, such a Church would also be free of the problems resulting from ethnic out-marriage.

Although taking either position has serious downsides for the Church, remaining passive is far riskier. Passivity means that, ultimately, there will be a fracturing of parishes into two, three and possibly more factions. This long-term outcome would be more devastating to both Orthodoxy and Greek identity in America than the actions of forces openly hostile to Greeks or religious pluralism.

The Archbishop needs to understand that passivity is not a viable option, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, currently embroiled with controversies in Greece and Jerusalem, needs to understand his American base is not as stable as it may seem from afar.

Prof. Georgakas is Director of the Greek American Studies Project at Queens College - CUNY and Consulting Editor of CINEASTE magazine.



Volume 7 Number 22 - Tuesday, May 31st, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY