[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146675#msg146675 date=1319636778] But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
The problem with this is, how do you account for John using the 'Logos' concept in his gospel to speak about Christ? The idea of the 'Logos' is an entirely pagan concept:
Logos (play /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason,"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]
Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" as relates to persuasive public speech in the field of rhetoric.[5] The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.
After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 40) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[6] The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[7] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.
Although the term "Logos" is widely used in this Christian sense, in academic circles it often refers to the various ancient Greek uses, or to post-Christian uses within contemporary philosophy, Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.
St. Paul often uses pagan language, thought and rhetoric when he preached in Athens and it is found in his letters. The Fathers also made use of pagan philosophies to reveal Christian truths. How do you account for that? Why such a rigid view when it comes to things that are pagan and of pagan origin which can be clearly 'baptized' and used in Christianity? Isn't that a bit close-minded and Islamic to an extent? To resist all things that are perceived to be 'different'?
Jeremy has done a good job of addressing most of your points, but I want to revisit the idea that our hymns are not of pagan origin. I would be very interested to read your thesis on the subject, as you are certainly more well versed in this area than I am. However, you readily admit that Mark did not bring Jewish religious music and hymnology with him when he came to Egypt to preach the gospel. As such, at the root of everything in our hymns is something pagan, there must be. The ancient Egyptians were nothing if not religious. They most certainly had developed hymns and songs dedicated to their gods. It seems only reasonable that these hymns and songs and tunes would be re-worded and 'baptized' to be more suited for Christianity. For instance, I had heard that the hymn 'Golgotha' which is chanted at the burial on Good Friday was derived from a pagan hymn for the burial of the pharaoh. Now, maybe that is an unfounded claim made by Ragheb Mouftah that you mentioned, but I could see it as being plausible and, to be frank, quite appropriate. To the ancient Egyptians, the pharaoh was a god. How appropriate to change 'baptize' a burial hymn for a pagan 'god' and use it as the burial hymn for the One True God.
The idea that we must be resistant to all things pagan and that they are incompatible with Christianity is just blatantly wrong. The history of Orthodoxy speaks against it. Let the first few verses in Hebrews be our guide here:
[quote=Hebrews 1: 1-4]God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
I absolutely disagree. I refer you to Cephas' wonderful post regarding the Orthodoxy of "baptizing" pagan-rooted or pagan-associated things (and further it by pointing out the obvious that everything was at one time pagan).
As regards language, I think you are on the wrong track because your stance ignores the reality of semantic shift, particularly as befits this process of "baptizing" the festivals, languages, and other markers of a culture in the process of its Christianization. Again, I agree with Cephas that this is right to do, historically grounded, and entirely Orthodox. Moreover, notwithstanding your objections, there are numerous examples where this process has been so completed, to abandon words with "pagan" origins would make the expression of Orthodox Christian tenets in various languages much more difficult, perhaps impossible. For instance, did you know that the Trinitarian formula as used in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses a word for "God" that, outside of that context, means "idol"? Bisma Ab, wa Wolde, wa Menfes K'iddus, Ahadu Amlak (God, but literally "idol"), Amin.
Are you going to tell the Ethiopians not to proclaim the Trinity because of this word that everyone understands means GOD (due to semantic shift from its original meaning), just because it also has a pre-/non-Christian understanding as well? I think this is incredibly narrow-minded thinking. I'm sorry, I just don't agree at all.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146675#msg146675 date=1319636778] But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Of course, I know everything was at one time pagan. What I am trying to say is that if a word or phrase still has pagan connotations, it can be dangerous to simply assimilate into Christian language hoping for a semantic shift. I am not talking about words that have already undergone a semantic shift. Your example of Logos would not mean "psychology" to most people nowadays, Orthodox or not. The same with "Amlak". It doesn't mean idol to the Ethiopians. Since the semantic shift has already occurred, we need not concern ourselves with etymological origin. If, on the other hand, the semantic shift has not occurred and someone insists on these pagan words, we are left with a dangerous situation. Why say "The Logos is God" if Logos is understood by everyone as psychology? We are not trying to say "Psychology is God", we are saying something else. In addition, if there is another word that completely removes any previous pagan semantic meaning, why choose the word that still has pagan meaning hoping a semantic shift or a baptism occurs in the audience's mind? In the process of trying to communicate a Christian thought, if we are incidentally transmitting pagan thought, should we not make a conscious effort to avoid the pagan words and use an alternative?
What I was trying to illustrate is that if we have a Christian vocabulary, or a Christian musical style, or Christian holidays, why introduce and insist on pagan words, music, or actions that at the best distract the Christian meaning and at worst unknowingly convert people to paganism. Would anyone argue to musically re-write our Coptic hymns with an Arab music style in an attempt to baptize 20th century Arab music? In other words, would anyone advocate the use of Christian Coptic words on Arabic music (for example, if an Arab musical tune used for Muslim funerals was applied to Golgotha)? I wouldn't. Because the semantic association of Arab music is Islamic. There has been no semantic shift to associate this music to Christianity. And the association may result in the opposite effect - Golgotha becomes associated with Islam. In addition, there is nothing necessarily wrong with an alternative tune to Golgotha (say for example fixing Golgotha to the tune of Amazing Grace) as long as it is not associated with non-Christian themes. In the end you have to ask yourself, what's the point? Why is it so important to baptize the Amazing Grace tune when our current tune is perfectly fine? I hope you can see the parallelism to the Thanksgiving festival argument.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Of course, I know everything was at one time pagan. What I am trying to say is that if a word or phrase still has pagan connotations, it can be dangerous to simply assimilate into Christian language hoping for a semantic shift. I am not talking about words that have already undergone a semantic shift. Your example of Logos would not mean "psychology" to most people nowadays, Orthodox or not. The same with "Amlak". It doesn't mean idol to the Ethiopians. Since the semantic shift has already occurred, we need not concern ourselves with etymological origin. If, on the other hand, the semantic shift has not occurred and someone insists on these pagan words, we are left with a dangerous situation. Why say "The Logos is God" if Logos is understood by everyone as psychology? We are not trying to say "Psychology is God", we are saying something else. In addition, if there is another word that completely removes any previous pagan semantic meaning, why choose the word that still has pagan meaning hoping a semantic shift or a baptism occurs in the audience's mind? In the process of trying to communicate a Christian thought, if we are incidentally transmitting pagan thought, should we not make a conscious effort to avoid the pagan words and use an alternative?
This makes no sense. Semantic shift is not something "hoped for", but is accomplished by the consistent use of the word/association of the word with the new/extended concept. So you cannot HAVE semantic shift such that would make "Logos" or "Amlak" appropriate to use in Christian contexts while avoiding them in favor of "pure, non-pagan" words. I'm sorry, my friend, it just can't work that way. You say "Logos" or "Amlak" are fine because they no longer have the pre-Christian meanings but are understood in a Christian way, but you completely disapprove of and seemingly want to actively avoid the very means by which they came to be acceptable for Christian use in the first place.
Similarly, to bring it back to the actual topic of this thread: Thanksgiving or any other national holiday, if it is to be a bridge to the mostly non-Orthodox western world, must be participated in by Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox way. It is a cop out and an insult to say that because "the Americans" by and large celebrate it in a way that is contrary to Orthodoxy, therefore we should avoid it, as well as all the other things in Western society that are not Orthodox (ahem, paging TITL and her "avoid Western Christmas" stance). This is essentially removing yourself from the very people you should like to witness to. You are shooting yourselves in the foot in a big, big way if you think this way. I write this not to castigate you for your principles, but because I have the vantage point that you do not have, because I am an outsider coming into the church, who is Western and not Egyptian and will not become Egyptian through baptism, and would not want to anyway. If you want to witness to people like me, non-Orthodox people who are seeking the Orthodox faith, you must be able to see Western celebrations as able to be baptized into the Orthodox faith not any less than certain vocabulary has similarly been Christianized. Why do you recognize one and not the other? One has already happened, proving that it more than just possible to Christianize non-Christian aspects of culture; one has yet to happen, and you bizarrely claim that it should not happen because to do so we would be "embracing" paganism or some such nonsense. I am going to be blunt and tell you that I find this not only inconsistent and hypocritical and unhelpful, but frankly quite stupid. It is so utterly ahistorical, so contrary to the history of Christianity as it has spread throughout the world, I am at a loss as to how to come up with a more charitable interpretation of what you might mean. You know better than this, my friend; you have proven it by recognizing the reality of the Christianization of certain vocabulary. Why you flee from the same regarding other things, especially other things that previously HAD some Christian understanding attached to them, is a mystery to me. Please, I am asking you as a Westerner who does not want to assume the worst of someone who is sincerely defending their faith as best as they can, rethink your stance in light of what you know is true. If "Amlak" can come to mean "God" through semantic shift, then Thanksgiving can come to be consistent with Orthodoxy (not made an official church holiday, but celebrated as Christians should celebrate it). The key in both situations is Christianization, and the key to that is active engagement, not running away from anything that might seem "pagan" as though it is not possible to (re-)Christianize a post-Christian society. Our faith is stronger than that, is it not?
The Orthodox faith is over 2000 years old. The modern, Western cultural outlook is about 200 years old. I know which one I am placing my faith in. You should too.
To the contrary, ukhty, it is very wrong to show such disdain for the potentially Orthodox people around you. Would it so pollute the "purity" of your faith to spend time with Western friends around their Christmas, and recognize it as a Christian holiday so long as they celebrated it as such? Meaning, not giving in to "Santa Claus", but recognizing St. Nicholas. He punched Arius in the face -- if that's not Orthodox, I don't know what is! :)
I am once again very, very disturbed to find these anti-American/anti-Western stances expressed here, especially under the guise of protecting or safeguarding Orthodoxy. I will avoid the dreaded comparison to those who follow the "I-word" religion, and instead state it outright: You and Remnkemi are making no sense right now, and if the good people at St. Bishoy's Coptic Orthodox Church here in Albuquerque had expressed such views to me upon meeting me, I would not have recognized their confession as being a form of Christianity that I could even potentially be a part of.
What's my "Western Christmas" stance again? lol Is it not to celebrate Nativity the American way (shopping, drinking, singing Christmas carols, and teaching Santa)? If so, then yeah I don't agree with that.
I'm a little confused as to why this thread drifted to two sides again. I thought we were all in agreement?
We were until certain posts pitted "Americans" against Orthodoxy as a matter of some sort of metaphysical struggle by which the "American way" of doing things is forever corrupting and so can never be baptized without fear of corrupting the faith with the "paganism" that is apparently inherent in the West by virtue of it not being Orthodox (nevermind the fact that this is through no fault of the majority of its citizenry, and by actively withdrawing from them and disdaining them you yourself do nothing to help the situation, but make Orthodoxy seem like a non-option for anyone whom God has not blessed to have born in or descendant from Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Syria, Eritrea, or Armenia).
An idea which I see you are in agreement with.
I am through with this thread and this messageboard. I would not want my presence here to negatively impact your pure and holy faith. May God have mercy on me and forgive me, a sinner. I have been born of Western parentage and heritage, to my ever-lasting fault.
All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right that we advertise the Western idea of Christmas in our church. It's a Holy and Major feast that lasted for over 2000 years, and I don't understand why we have to corrupt it by Santa and shopping instead of glorifying our Lady, St. Mary?
I don't get why you disagree with me, and why you're offended. I'm American too, and I love my country and the converts in my church. I look up to the Americans in my church more than I do the Egyptians... but what's that have to do with changing our Church to adapt to Westernism?
Jeremy, I apologize for offending you. I never thought or suggested that we should exclude converts or potential Orthodox followers. I have no disdain for America since I am also American. I was never trying to show how Americans or American culture can't be baptized into Orthodoxy. I was simply warning people to not mix sinful actions with Christian reasons. This is not a blanket statements that a metaphysical America and all American holidays are sinful. It is obvious that I am the sinner here. Please don't prevent us from learning from you.
Jeremy, I apologize for offending you. I never thought or suggested that we should exclude converts or potential Orthodox followers. I have no disdain for America since I am also American. I was never trying to show how Americans or American culture can't be baptized into Orthodoxy. I was simply warning people to not mix sinful actions with Christian reasons. This is not a blanket statements that a metaphysical America and all American holidays are sinful. It is obvious that I am the sinner here. Please don't prevent us from learning from you.
Thank you for your uncompromising and well explained defense of traditional Coptic Orthodox Faith and practice. I have departed my decadent Irish RCC, of birth and heritage, for about thirty years, have been seriously seeking an Orthodox home for 25+ years and have apparently been misplaced in the Coptic Church for 15+ years. Since all vestages of my native Irish Orthodox Church are long dead, I have the benefit/ burden to keep seeking a new Orthodox faith home, without the guilt of failing to struggle to death for the uncompromised faith and practice of my fathers. Native born Orthodox, such as you Copts, and other native born Orthodox, who haven’t, yet, lost the essence of your fathers’ national Orthodox Churches, have the opportunity to seek to preserve your fathers’ Orthodox faith and practice for your children and your childrens’ children.
It has always saddened me to see ignorant and misled old, and new, generation native Orthodox descendants who are quick to throw out the valuable, irreplaceable, “centuries old,” familiar, true Orthodox faith, practice and customs; for the new, modern, western Protestant or Catholic cheap imitation “cultural” garbage that will be soon abandoned and forgotten, as usual.
I have experienced hundreds of similar “new comers” and “old big egos” who have all the answers and wiki-proofs to dispute proven patriarchal spiritual traditions and paradigms.
Thanks again for defending this particular treasure of traditional Orthodox feasts. Don’t apologize nor negotiate Orthodox treasures for western commercial tinsel and trash.
I have hosted and witnessed to many fellow American friends and inquirers in several EO and OO venues. Most of them just do not get the essential, longstanding and unchanging picture, nor care to wait for understanding.
Spend two to three years of dedicated service in the western or EO church that seems ideal to your remote imagination, from the outside. Then tell us how it was from the inside. If you like it, stay there. If not, return to your fathers’ national Orthodox church and help rebuild it to its original patriarchal, apostolic, patristic glory and strength.
Comments
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146675#msg146675 date=1319636778]
But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
The problem with this is, how do you account for John using the 'Logos' concept in his gospel to speak about Christ? The idea of the 'Logos' is an entirely pagan concept: Source
St. Paul often uses pagan language, thought and rhetoric when he preached in Athens and it is found in his letters. The Fathers also made use of pagan philosophies to reveal Christian truths. How do you account for that? Why such a rigid view when it comes to things that are pagan and of pagan origin which can be clearly 'baptized' and used in Christianity? Isn't that a bit close-minded and Islamic to an extent? To resist all things that are perceived to be 'different'?
Jeremy has done a good job of addressing most of your points, but I want to revisit the idea that our hymns are not of pagan origin. I would be very interested to read your thesis on the subject, as you are certainly more well versed in this area than I am. However, you readily admit that Mark did not bring Jewish religious music and hymnology with him when he came to Egypt to preach the gospel. As such, at the root of everything in our hymns is something pagan, there must be. The ancient Egyptians were nothing if not religious. They most certainly had developed hymns and songs dedicated to their gods. It seems only reasonable that these hymns and songs and tunes would be re-worded and 'baptized' to be more suited for Christianity. For instance, I had heard that the hymn 'Golgotha' which is chanted at the burial on Good Friday was derived from a pagan hymn for the burial of the pharaoh. Now, maybe that is an unfounded claim made by Ragheb Mouftah that you mentioned, but I could see it as being plausible and, to be frank, quite appropriate. To the ancient Egyptians, the pharaoh was a god. How appropriate to change 'baptize' a burial hymn for a pagan 'god' and use it as the burial hymn for the One True God.
The idea that we must be resistant to all things pagan and that they are incompatible with Christianity is just blatantly wrong. The history of Orthodoxy speaks against it. Let the first few verses in Hebrews be our guide here:
[quote=Hebrews 1: 1-4]God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
You could have waited a few more minutes before ruining the moment.
I'm kidding :)
As regards language, I think you are on the wrong track because your stance ignores the reality of semantic shift, particularly as befits this process of "baptizing" the festivals, languages, and other markers of a culture in the process of its Christianization. Again, I agree with Cephas that this is right to do, historically grounded, and entirely Orthodox. Moreover, notwithstanding your objections, there are numerous examples where this process has been so completed, to abandon words with "pagan" origins would make the expression of Orthodox Christian tenets in various languages much more difficult, perhaps impossible. For instance, did you know that the Trinitarian formula as used in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses a word for "God" that, outside of that context, means "idol"? Bisma Ab, wa Wolde, wa Menfes K'iddus, Ahadu Amlak (God, but literally "idol"), Amin.
Are you going to tell the Ethiopians not to proclaim the Trinity because of this word that everyone understands means GOD (due to semantic shift from its original meaning), just because it also has a pre-/non-Christian understanding as well? I think this is incredibly narrow-minded thinking. I'm sorry, I just don't agree at all.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146675#msg146675 date=1319636778]
But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Of course, I know everything was at one time pagan. What I am trying to say is that if a word or phrase still has pagan connotations, it can be dangerous to simply assimilate into Christian language hoping for a semantic shift. I am not talking about words that have already undergone a semantic shift. Your example of Logos would not mean "psychology" to most people nowadays, Orthodox or not. The same with "Amlak". It doesn't mean idol to the Ethiopians. Since the semantic shift has already occurred, we need not concern ourselves with etymological origin. If, on the other hand, the semantic shift has not occurred and someone insists on these pagan words, we are left with a dangerous situation. Why say "The Logos is God" if Logos is understood by everyone as psychology? We are not trying to say "Psychology is God", we are saying something else. In addition, if there is another word that completely removes any previous pagan semantic meaning, why choose the word that still has pagan meaning hoping a semantic shift or a baptism occurs in the audience's mind? In the process of trying to communicate a Christian thought, if we are incidentally transmitting pagan thought, should we not make a conscious effort to avoid the pagan words and use an alternative?
What I was trying to illustrate is that if we have a Christian vocabulary, or a Christian musical style, or Christian holidays, why introduce and insist on pagan words, music, or actions that at the best distract the Christian meaning and at worst unknowingly convert people to paganism. Would anyone argue to musically re-write our Coptic hymns with an Arab music style in an attempt to baptize 20th century Arab music? In other words, would anyone advocate the use of Christian Coptic words on Arabic music (for example, if an Arab musical tune used for Muslim funerals was applied to Golgotha)? I wouldn't. Because the semantic association of Arab music is Islamic. There has been no semantic shift to associate this music to Christianity. And the association may result in the opposite effect - Golgotha becomes associated with Islam. In addition, there is nothing necessarily wrong with an alternative tune to Golgotha (say for example fixing Golgotha to the tune of Amazing Grace) as long as it is not associated with non-Christian themes. In the end you have to ask yourself, what's the point? Why is it so important to baptize the Amazing Grace tune when our current tune is perfectly fine? I hope you can see the parallelism to the Thanksgiving festival argument.
I hope I clarified.
Jeremy, Cephas,
I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Of course, I know everything was at one time pagan. What I am trying to say is that if a word or phrase still has pagan connotations, it can be dangerous to simply assimilate into Christian language hoping for a semantic shift. I am not talking about words that have already undergone a semantic shift. Your example of Logos would not mean "psychology" to most people nowadays, Orthodox or not. The same with "Amlak". It doesn't mean idol to the Ethiopians. Since the semantic shift has already occurred, we need not concern ourselves with etymological origin. If, on the other hand, the semantic shift has not occurred and someone insists on these pagan words, we are left with a dangerous situation. Why say "The Logos is God" if Logos is understood by everyone as psychology? We are not trying to say "Psychology is God", we are saying something else. In addition, if there is another word that completely removes any previous pagan semantic meaning, why choose the word that still has pagan meaning hoping a semantic shift or a baptism occurs in the audience's mind? In the process of trying to communicate a Christian thought, if we are incidentally transmitting pagan thought, should we not make a conscious effort to avoid the pagan words and use an alternative?
This makes no sense. Semantic shift is not something "hoped for", but is accomplished by the consistent use of the word/association of the word with the new/extended concept. So you cannot HAVE semantic shift such that would make "Logos" or "Amlak" appropriate to use in Christian contexts while avoiding them in favor of "pure, non-pagan" words. I'm sorry, my friend, it just can't work that way. You say "Logos" or "Amlak" are fine because they no longer have the pre-Christian meanings but are understood in a Christian way, but you completely disapprove of and seemingly want to actively avoid the very means by which they came to be acceptable for Christian use in the first place.
Similarly, to bring it back to the actual topic of this thread: Thanksgiving or any other national holiday, if it is to be a bridge to the mostly non-Orthodox western world, must be participated in by Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox way. It is a cop out and an insult to say that because "the Americans" by and large celebrate it in a way that is contrary to Orthodoxy, therefore we should avoid it, as well as all the other things in Western society that are not Orthodox (ahem, paging TITL and her "avoid Western Christmas" stance). This is essentially removing yourself from the very people you should like to witness to. You are shooting yourselves in the foot in a big, big way if you think this way. I write this not to castigate you for your principles, but because I have the vantage point that you do not have, because I am an outsider coming into the church, who is Western and not Egyptian and will not become Egyptian through baptism, and would not want to anyway. If you want to witness to people like me, non-Orthodox people who are seeking the Orthodox faith, you must be able to see Western celebrations as able to be baptized into the Orthodox faith not any less than certain vocabulary has similarly been Christianized. Why do you recognize one and not the other? One has already happened, proving that it more than just possible to Christianize non-Christian aspects of culture; one has yet to happen, and you bizarrely claim that it should not happen because to do so we would be "embracing" paganism or some such nonsense. I am going to be blunt and tell you that I find this not only inconsistent and hypocritical and unhelpful, but frankly quite stupid. It is so utterly ahistorical, so contrary to the history of Christianity as it has spread throughout the world, I am at a loss as to how to come up with a more charitable interpretation of what you might mean. You know better than this, my friend; you have proven it by recognizing the reality of the Christianization of certain vocabulary. Why you flee from the same regarding other things, especially other things that previously HAD some Christian understanding attached to them, is a mystery to me. Please, I am asking you as a Westerner who does not want to assume the worst of someone who is sincerely defending their faith as best as they can, rethink your stance in light of what you know is true. If "Amlak" can come to mean "God" through semantic shift, then Thanksgiving can come to be consistent with Orthodoxy (not made an official church holiday, but celebrated as Christians should celebrate it). The key in both situations is Christianization, and the key to that is active engagement, not running away from anything that might seem "pagan" as though it is not possible to (re-)Christianize a post-Christian society. Our faith is stronger than that, is it not?
The Orthodox faith is over 2000 years old. The modern, Western cultural outlook is about 200 years old. I know which one I am placing my faith in. You should too.
(sitting in the corner quietly)
P.S. nothing wrong with my "avoid Western Christmas" stance. I'm proud of it!
I am once again very, very disturbed to find these anti-American/anti-Western stances expressed here, especially under the guise of protecting or safeguarding Orthodoxy. I will avoid the dreaded comparison to those who follow the "I-word" religion, and instead state it outright: You and Remnkemi are making no sense right now, and if the good people at St. Bishoy's Coptic Orthodox Church here in Albuquerque had expressed such views to me upon meeting me, I would not have recognized their confession as being a form of Christianity that I could even potentially be a part of.
Is it not to celebrate Nativity the American way (shopping, drinking, singing Christmas carols, and teaching Santa)? If so, then yeah I don't agree with that.
I'm a little confused as to why this thread drifted to two sides again. I thought we were all in agreement?
An idea which I see you are in agreement with.
I am through with this thread and this messageboard. I would not want my presence here to negatively impact your pure and holy faith. May God have mercy on me and forgive me, a sinner. I have been born of Western parentage and heritage, to my ever-lasting fault.
All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right that we advertise the Western idea of Christmas in our church. It's a Holy and Major feast that lasted for over 2000 years, and I don't understand why we have to corrupt it by Santa and shopping instead of glorifying our Lady, St. Mary?
I don't get why you disagree with me, and why you're offended. I'm American too, and I love my country and the converts in my church. I look up to the Americans in my church more than I do the Egyptians... but what's that have to do with changing our Church to adapt to Westernism?
Am I missing the point?
Please don't go Dzheremi! :'(
I apologize for offending you. I never thought or suggested that we should exclude converts or potential Orthodox followers. I have no disdain for America since I am also American. I was never trying to show how Americans or American culture can't be baptized into Orthodoxy. I was simply warning people to not mix sinful actions with Christian reasons. This is not a blanket statements that a metaphysical America and all American holidays are sinful. It is obvious that I am the sinner here. Please don't prevent us from learning from you.
Thank you for your uncompromising and well explained defense of traditional Coptic Orthodox Faith and practice. I have departed my decadent Irish RCC, of birth and heritage, for about thirty years, have been seriously seeking an Orthodox home for 25+ years and have apparently been misplaced in the Coptic Church for 15+ years. Since all vestages of my native Irish Orthodox Church are long dead, I have the benefit/ burden to keep seeking a new Orthodox faith home, without the guilt of failing to struggle to death for the uncompromised faith and practice of my fathers. Native born Orthodox, such as you Copts, and other native born Orthodox, who haven’t, yet, lost the essence of your fathers’ national Orthodox Churches, have the opportunity to seek to preserve your fathers’ Orthodox faith and practice for your children and your childrens’ children.
It has always saddened me to see ignorant and misled old, and new, generation native Orthodox descendants who are quick to throw out the valuable, irreplaceable, “centuries old,” familiar, true Orthodox faith, practice and customs; for the new, modern, western Protestant or Catholic cheap imitation “cultural” garbage that will be soon abandoned and forgotten, as usual.
I have experienced hundreds of similar “new comers” and “old big egos” who have all the answers and wiki-proofs to dispute proven patriarchal spiritual traditions and paradigms.
Thanks again for defending this particular treasure of traditional Orthodox feasts. Don’t apologize nor negotiate Orthodox treasures for western commercial tinsel and trash.
I have hosted and witnessed to many fellow American friends and inquirers in several EO and OO venues. Most of them just do not get the essential, longstanding and unchanging picture, nor care to wait for understanding.
Spend two to three years of dedicated service in the western or EO church that seems ideal to your remote imagination, from the outside. Then tell us how it was from the inside. If you like it, stay there. If not, return to your fathers’ national Orthodox church and help rebuild it to its original patriarchal, apostolic, patristic glory and strength.
I mean, we should thank God every single minute in our lives, not just that one day.
As for Abouna, he always enforces that skipping fasting days is bad, so he tells us to eat the day before and fast on Thanksgiving.
I'm sorry, but I can't tell if you're agreeing with me and Remnkemi or disagreeing.
The way you worded some things, it sounds like you're maybe possibly sorta upset. But that's just a hunch.
Remnkemi and TITL,
and have apparently been misplaced in the Coptic Church for 15+ years.
That doesn't sound "happy" to me..