[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=11903.msg142442#msg142442 date=1312262449] Zoxsasi, I do kind of see where you're coming from. But I do not think the problem is as major as you do, and I think a big part of it is that so many churches are in a "transition" period between a generation of immigrant Arabic speakers and the generation of natives. I think it's something that will improve over time, and I say this based on my observations of the churches in my area. There is a clear difference between the newer ones and the more well-established ones that have been around for a few decades.
Well, I too think the same as you. But you do not think it so serious (nor do I) because we both can speak Arabic and adapt. However, for the European nationals (incumbents) who have become or chosen Oriental Orthodoxy - this is an urgent issue.
In terms of evangelizing our Church and faith, its an urgent issue. In terms of immigration and integration of Copts in European countries, its an urgent issue.
If Oriental Orthodoxy is the "True Faith" - does it mean that only Indians, Syrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians are saved? Only these nationals?
I do think its brilliant that we have churches like the French Orthodox Church and the British Orthodox Church that are under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, but wouldn't it be more realistic - if not wiser to have the Oriental Orthodox independent of Arabic?
For example - if I were a French catholic, I don't go to a French Catholic Church, I go to a Catholic Church in France where the liturgy is in French. If I happen to immigrate to Spain, I do not go to the Spanish Catholic Church, I go to the Catholic Church in Spain where the SAME liturgy is in Spanish.
Its only the Coptic Orthodox Church where the liturgy is in Arabic, even in European Countries. Why should this even be the case? Why can't Coptic Christians living in Europe appreciate that they are not in Egypt?!! Why can't they see that their faith is beyond language.
I remember many many years ago in Saint Mark's Church - London - they used to have an English liturgy once every month. What is that??
Why not have the Arabic liturgy once a month!? This is the UK! Not Egypt!
The priests there recently learnt how to speak English. They didn't know before.
So what message is sent then? That Coptic Christians outside Egypt are not capable of integrating into society. Our religion is for Egyptian Christians. By such emphasis on speaking Arabic in Churches outside Egypt, you create, unwittingly, an atmosphere of Egypt - not of a Heavenly Jerusalem which is what the CHurch ought to be.
By doing this, by insisting on Arabic to the point where the liturgy in the national language of the country is secondary, do you think this will help Egyptians integrate into the countries they are in??
I would be proud of Egyptian Christians if they respected their host countries. This is a total lack of respect, and is subsequently unChristian.
Look, I am not the one leaving the Orthodox Church (that's because with my limited Arabic, I can perhaps cope a bit until our priests start to learn French) - but others are leaving.
This is sheer arrogance on the part of the Coptic Church.
Ok Remenkimi, thanks for explaining your stance. As imikhail said, there are actually both Armenian and Syrian orthodox churches in Cairo, if not even in other cities. Definitely no Indian as far as I'm aware, but not sure about eritrean or ethiopian... Oujai
That is an absolutely unfair and silly comparison, Zoxsasi. There is a world of difference between not being able to speak a given language (as in not being fluent, which is the likely case of the priests you're dealing with), and flat-out refusing to learn the language based on some sort of "principled" stance as in the case of this Indian man. (I put "principled" in quotes because I'm not exactly sure what this guy is thinking; it seems that he doesn't have any larger point to make beyond the fact that he doesn't want to learn English and that nobody can make him learn it. This is the sort of argument I'd expect from a seven year old, not a fifty seven year old.)
Now admittedly I am biased in these kinds of talks due to my upbringing and background, but even so, within the community closest to me in which this sort of thing might be an issue (the Hispanic community of northern California), I have never met a single person who didn't want to learn English. There are some for whom it might have been less useful than others, but everybody sees its value. That the man in the article does not see it indicates some extremely myopic thinking on his part. I doubt Coptic priests in any country share such views, regardless of their linguistic abilities.
Summary version: Where there's a will, there's a way. :)
There are a great many immigrants in the UK who will not learn English so that it has become necessary for the Government to require tests to be taken before immigrants are allowed residency. An increasing majority of British people seem to thinj this is reasonable.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11903.msg142497#msg142497 date=1312376657] That is an absolutely unfair and silly comparison, Zoxsasi. There is a world of difference between not being able to speak a given language (as in not being fluent, which is the likely case of the priests you're dealing with), and flat-out refusing to learn the language based on some sort of "principled" stance as in the case of this Indian man. (I put "principled" in quotes because I'm not exactly sure what this guy is thinking; it seems that he doesn't have any larger point to make beyond the fact that he doesn't want to learn English and that nobody can make him learn it. This is the sort of argument I'd expect from a seven year old, not a fifty seven year old.)
Now admittedly I am biased in these kinds of talks due to my upbringing and background, but even so, within the community closest to me in which this sort of thing might be an issue (the Hispanic community of northern California), I have never met a single person who didn't want to learn English. There are some for whom it might have been less useful than others, but everybody sees its value. That the man in the article does not see it indicates some extremely myopic thinking on his part. I doubt Coptic priests in any country share such views, regardless of their linguistic abilities.
Summary version: Where there's a will, there's a way. :)
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Given that speaking in languages was one of the FIRST tools given to the apostles to preach the gospel, some of them are completely untouched by this necessity of preaching in a language relevant to the country they are in.
The priests I know (as well as many members of the congregation) do not even see a need to learn English or French... what for? Just as the indian man's wife in the news article points out "WHY SHOULD I LEARN ENGLISH FOR, WHEN I CAN SPEAK GUJARATI THE WHOLE DAY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE IN SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AS ME".
How is this a silly argument.
For the priests who CAN speak a European language - i say to them well done.
For those who DO NOT CARE and are insisting on not learning - I REALLY HOPE THAT THEY GET DEPORTED!!!!
You will see that perfection is certainly not required, but a solid grounding in English so that the immigrant can participate fully in British society.
Unfortunately there are many immigrants, and even British citizens, of especially Asian (usually Pakistani) origin who choose not to learn English or speak English and in fact who do not wish to belong to British society. This is causing an increase in tensions with the native population and it would be a positive statement of intent for all migrating Copts to speak English at least to the quality in this video. This will ensure that Copts are welcomed as participating members of British society and not linked with other groups, such as rural Muslim migrants, who do not seem to want to be British at all.
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Are they really not, though? I don't know any Coptic priests personally, so I couldn't say, but I very, very would be surprised if they had the attitude of the Indian immigrant in the story, precisely because what you say below about the importance of language in preaching the gospel (which is absolutely true, and still lived out today in the church; I have seen Youtube videos of Coptic priests preaching in Zambia with the help of an interpreter from English to the local language. This is great!)
Given that speaking in languages was one of the FIRST tools given to the apostles to preach the gospel, some of them are completely untouched by this necessity of preaching in a language relevant to the country they are in.
Have you or anyone else who is similarly concerned in your church tried to talk to the priests in question? I am assuming that this is very much a local issue, as I have seen Spanish liturgies in the Coptic church in Mexico and Bolivia (and when HH came to the church in Mexico, they had an interpreter from Arabic to Spanish), so I know not everywhere is like Arabic-only churches in Europe.
The priests I know (as well as many members of the congregation) do not even see a need to learn English or French... what for? Just as the indian man's wife in the news article points out "WHY SHOULD I LEARN ENGLISH FOR, WHEN I CAN SPEAK GUJARATI THE WHOLE DAY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE IN SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AS ME".
How is this a silly argument.
It is certainly self-defeating if they want to actually spread the gospel and attract converts in their new land, not to mention also being integrated into society (as Fr. Peter emphasized in his reply).
For those who DO NOT CARE and are insisting on not learning - I REALLY HOPE THAT THEY GET DEPORTED!!!!
Forgive me for being naive, but I was not really aware that this was the mindset of any priest in the church. It seems ridiculous to me, very much contrary to the Christian faith. They actually insist on not learning? I could understand a position that says "I am new to this country, and none (or a very small minority) of my congregation speaks ____, therefore I haven't learned it (yet)", but not "therefore I won't at least try to learn it"! To me that's a very important distinction, and it is very disturbing that any priest would think that way.
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Are they really not, though? I don't know any Coptic priests personally, so I couldn't say, but I very, very would be surprised if they had the attitude of the Indian immigrant in the story, precisely because what you say below about the importance of language in preaching the gospel (which is absolutely true, and still lived out today in the church; I have seen Youtube videos of Coptic priests preaching in Zambia with the help of an interpreter from English to the local language. This is great!)
Given that speaking in languages was one of the FIRST tools given to the apostles to preach the gospel, some of them are completely untouched by this necessity of preaching in a language relevant to the country they are in.
Have you or anyone else who is similarly concerned in your church tried to talk to the priests in question? I am assuming that this is very much a local issue, as I have seen Spanish liturgies in the Coptic church in Mexico and Bolivia (and when HH came to the church in Mexico, they had an interpreter from Arabic to Spanish), so I know not everywhere is like Arabic-only churches in Europe.
The priests I know (as well as many members of the congregation) do not even see a need to learn English or French... what for? Just as the indian man's wife in the news article points out "WHY SHOULD I LEARN ENGLISH FOR, WHEN I CAN SPEAK GUJARATI THE WHOLE DAY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE IN SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AS ME".
How is this a silly argument.
It is certainly self-defeating if they want to actually spread the gospel and attract converts in their new land, not to mention also being integrated into society (as Fr. Peter emphasized in his reply).
For those who DO NOT CARE and are insisting on not learning - I REALLY HOPE THAT THEY GET DEPORTED!!!!
Forgive me for being naive, but I was not really aware that this was the mindset of any priest in the church. It seems ridiculous to me, very much contrary to the Christian faith. They actually insist on not learning? I could understand a position that says "I am new to this country, and none (or a very small minority) of my congregation speaks ____, therefore I haven't learned it (yet)", but not "therefore I won't at least try to learn it"! To me that's a very important distinction, and it is very disturbing that any priest would think that way.
Im really glad you are beginning to see the light now.
That's the whole problem. The priests i know DO NOT want to learn the native language of the country they are serving in and its really because they don't have to. They can get by with speaking Arabic 24/7.
One priest prefers that I speak to him in my broken and not so fluent arabic than for him to speak with me in French. And even when I do speak in Arabic he has the NERVE to even make fun of my arabic!!
Remarkable!!
Have I tried to tell him that he should learn French. .. well, one of them, yes.
But both priests I know are the ONLY priests serving in their respective Churches and cannot speak a word of French!
I attended of their "French" masses, and it wasn't good at all.
I remember, after attending a French liturgy, the priest said to me: "OK! Tell me, what do you think of the French liturgy?! It was brilliant, wasn't it!!"
Frankly, I didn't understand a word of it. I wanted to tell him, but he was so busy telling me how happy he was about the liturgy he just prayed in French that I never had a chance to say anything.
Zoxsasi, I understand where you're coming from, but I think a more understanding attitude about attempts at liturgies in the local (unfamiliar, for the priest) language could help your conversations with the priest. Maybe it wasn't great, yeah, but isn't it closer to what you want to see? Liturgies in French? If it's just a starting point, isn't it kind of counterproductive to criticize it for not being as good as it could be (or as you'd like it to be)?
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11903.msg142518#msg142518 date=1312426688] Zoxsasi, I understand where you're coming from, but I think a more understanding attitude about attempts at liturgies in the local (unfamiliar, for the priest) language could help your conversations with the priest. Maybe it wasn't great, yeah, but isn't it closer to what you want to see? Liturgies in French? If it's just a starting point, isn't it kind of counterproductive to criticize it for not being as good as it could be (or as you'd like it to be)?
Look at the title of my thread: My friends are leaving the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Basically, after MANY YEARS in their respective European Countries, these priests are illiterate in each one's respective native language. They have gotten by through speaking, reading and writing in Arabic for at least 10 years without the need to engage in any other language. This is highly offensive.
Those assisting their liturgies have some knowledge of Arabic. Those who are suffering do not speak ARabic.
We are an Apostolic Church. We are a Church of Sacraments. You are denying MANY MANY Orthodox Christians the fullness of the orthodox faith by not being able to take their confessions. How important is that? VERY!!
How can you give an absolution to a sin if you don't even understand what the sin is?!!!
As I said Dzheremi, after persistently living in their respective European Countries for countless of years, the Church is making a clear statement: We do not CARE about Non Arabic speaking people in our Church.
Its clear!!!!
So look at it this way: The priest prays the liturgy in Arabic. Its POINTLESS if he prays it even in French or English because its incomprehensible anyway. THere are parts of the liturgy that are prayed in Coptic. You go to Church, you understand nothing, you leave.. and that's it. What kind of spiritual life is the Church giving NON Egyptians!!???
This is pathetic!! OF COURSE MY FRIENDS ARE LEAVING!!! There's not deep secret about it. Its inevitable.
Stavro: Why are these our only choices? I don't think anyone in this thread wants anyone to be excluded for the sake of evangelism of non-Copts. That seems like it's basically the same problem as Zoxsasi is describing, but in the opposite direction. This is my main contention with Zoxsasi's assertion that he or others shouldn't (have to) care about Egypt. Everybody should care about each other, right? That's the example of the Savior and His holy apostles.
I did not notice you directed your comment to me until now, therefore the late reply. I apologize.
I am making no assertions, and my post was meant to shed light on a certain movement in the Church, led by some figures, who use the missionary work as a cover for their true intentions.
This aside, I do not believe the real problem is ONLY in the use of elements from a certain culture (in our case, the Coptic culture) in church worship and favoring it over the other cultures. While it has a certain impact, there are other more fundamental problems that need to be addressed before delving into this never ending debate about the incorporation of native culture in the church services in the diaspora.
Are converts true in their convictions or not? Has the faith been explained to them as is or did they have a couple of bible studies and moral lessons and then baptized? I find it hard to believe that a person who has found the truth and has made it from darkness to light, will go back to darkness over the use of language in the Church. I support the use of native culture elements in worship, but should that be missing, is it an excuse to abandon the truth?
Do we understand the core of worship? For if we do, it does not matter what language we use. I could attend a Malaysian liturgy and it will be still beneficial and spiritually edifying.
Do we have a legitimate church structure in the West (bishop, priest, deacon) or is it a church without Christ (bishop)? For example, in Canada, we have no bishop for a reason unknown to many. Any discussion about reform is useless in the absence of a bishop. It will be a human effort and not a divine work through human members. The difference is huge. It is not an issue that is irrelevant as many might think.
While local churches like the BOC and the FOC should worship in the language they feel comfortable with, I think asking Copts to abandon their heritage, whether he/she are Egyptians or of whatever nationality, is absurd. It sounds like asking a White person to act as a Chinese. (OK, a Caucasian to act as an Asian for the sake of political correctness). My Coptic heritage never failed me, and elements of the Coptic culture have kept the faith intact. The issue is in the lack of pride of us, Copts, in our heritage. We are taken on a guilt trip every time this topic is opened for being who we are ..... Copts.
Stavro: Why are these our only choices? I don't think anyone in this thread wants anyone to be excluded for the sake of evangelism of non-Copts. That seems like it's basically the same problem as Zoxsasi is describing, but in the opposite direction. This is my main contention with Zoxsasi's assertion that he or others shouldn't (have to) care about Egypt. Everybody should care about each other, right? That's the example of the Savior and His holy apostles.
I did not notice you directed your comment to me until now, therefore the late reply. I apologize.
I am making no assertions, and my post was meant to shed light on a certain movement in the Church, led by some figures, who use the missionary work as a cover for their true intentions.
This aside, I do not believe the real problem is ONLY in the use of elements from a certain culture (in our case, the Coptic culture) in church worship and favoring it over the other cultures. While it has a certain impact, there are other more fundamental problems that need to be addressed before delving into this never ending debate about the incorporation of native culture in the church services in the diaspora.
Are converts true in their convictions or not? Has the faith been explained to them as is or did they have a couple of bible studies and moral lessons and then baptized? I find it hard to believe that a person who has found the truth and has made it from darkness to light, will go back to darkness over the use of language in the Church. I support the use of native culture elements in worship, but should that be missing, is it an excuse to abandon the truth?
Do we understand the core of worship? For if we do, it does not matter what language we use. I could attend a Malaysian liturgy and it will be still beneficial and spiritually edifying.
Do we have a legitimate church structure in the West (bishop, priest, deacon) or is it a church without Christ (bishop)? For example, in Canada, we have no bishop for a reason unknown to many. Any discussion about reform is useless in the absence of a bishop. It will be a human effort and not a divine work through human members. The difference is huge. It is not an issue that is irrelevant as many might think.
While local churches like the BOC and the FOC should worship in the language they feel comfortable with, I think asking Copts to abandon their heritage, whether he/she are Egyptians or of whatever nationality, is absurd. It sounds like asking a White person to act as a Chinese. (OK, a Caucasian to act as an Asian for the sake of political correctness). My Coptic heritage never failed me, and elements of the Coptic culture have kept the faith intact. The issue is in the lack of pride of us, Copts, in our heritage. We are taken on a guilt trip every time this topic is opened for being who we are ..... Copts.
Very well said Stavro!
Of course your logic is correct - except you did not read my thread.
I said that because they are TRUE in their faith, and are indeed very Orthodox - hence the problem: WHERE CAN THEY GO??
They refuse to go to the Catholic because they are Orthodox. If they go to the Greek, well, they don't speak Greek. Furthermore, these guys are theologians.
Even me, I cannot go to the Catholic (I would have personally, but there's something missing there).
Why don't you all admit that Church has made a few SERIOUS mistakes and get this thread over with!?
Why does H.H bring priests over who HE KNOWS do not speak the native language of the country they are going to. This isn't an engineering role, its a priesthood position - speaking in the native language IS so important for this job role.
We are the customers and are not satisfied at all.
hi zoxsasi, i admit there are problems in our church. if it was a perfect church, i could not have joined it (i would have spoiled it).
but it seems the problems you describe are particularly relevant to your belgium church; things elsewhere in the diaspora don't seem so bad, and certainly in the last few years churches in the uk are working hard on making the liturgy understandable.
language is important, but there are other things which are important too. for example my priest can speak english reasonably well, but certainly at the time i joined the church he had some problems conversing in english. however i am sure that his great patience, kindness and sound spiritual advice (yes, occasionally we needed a translator for this!) were a very big part of the reason i embraced the coptic orthodox church. seeing his great care for his church, listening to his sermons (yes, translated, not in english!) and, above all, getting to know his wonderful wife who speaks very little english (but who is the most humble and kindest person i ever met) showed me clearly many things about God's love that i had not seen before (in more than 20 years as a protestant Christian). you can learn a lot by watching people, how they are with their children, their expressions when talking to each other and their smiles at seeing you again in the church.
so i do sympathise with your problem, but i also wonder if maybe you need to be more 'long-suffering' and kind with people who may be better at living the message of Jesus non-verbally then they are at explaining it in flemish or in french.
also, when you said 'we, the customers are not satisfied', i cringed a little. i don't recall hearing of the 'customer' concept of church life from the Bible or the church fathers...
but it seems the problems you describe are particularly relevant to your belgium church; things elsewhere in the diaspora don't seem so bad, and certainly in the last few years churches in the uk are working hard on making the liturgy understandable.
Thank you! This was precisely my point in bringing up the church in Mexico and Bolivia, where the liturgies are held in Spanish (and Coptic, of course). It seems that this problem is unique to a given place, not necessarily church-wide (or at least as bad as it apparently is in Belgium).
language is important, but there are other things which are important too. for example my priest can speak english reasonably well, but certainly at the time i joined the church he had some problems conversing in english.
so i do sympathise with your problem, but i also wonder if maybe you need to be more 'long-suffering' and kind with people who may be better at living the message of Jesus non-verbally then they are at explaining it in flemish or in french.
You have no idea how broadly I'm smiling right now. It's like you took the words right out of my mouth (well, fingers). The priest prays in Arabic and Coptic, and it's a travesty because the Belgians can't understand it. The priest prays in French to the best of his ability, and it's a travesty because the Belgians can't understand it. It sounds to me like the priest is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, but you can't say he isn't trying. I'm not seeing the Christian attitude of bearing one another in love and with long-suffering in this complaining against people who are trying, and after all are just people. It reminds me of the Jews wondering in the desert, complaining against God by complaining against Moses. You complain against God when you complain against those whom He has elected to shepherd you. It's not that things can't be more to your liking in terms of the match-up (I've certainly had the experience of not really connecting with a priest, I'll admit); to me, it's just a fact that there are much more important things than whatever it is your complaining about. Barring a serious breach of trust or personal safety, I cannot see why such enmity can be laid at the feet of men of God. Should they learn the language? Yes. But just the same, should you criticize them and talk about how horrible it was when they tried to use the language, if they're TRYING to do what you apparently want them to do? No. If this is an appropriate reaction in any other part of life, I'd like to know about it. If, for instance, a parent were to give up on their young child's attempt to read because they cannot do so flawlessly or entirely comprehensibly at the earlier stages, we'd call that person a pretty bad parent.
For a more direct point of comparison: I studied the Russian language for about 7 years, to what I would term a level of high-intermediate fluency, and have mostly come to forget it in the 4 years that have passed since I stopped attending classes, since I am not in a Russian-speaking environment. Whereas at one time I could be reasonably expected to produce competent, maybe even pleasant conversation in the language, now I doubt that my speech would be any less abhorrent to a Russian than the priest's French liturgy was to Zoxsasi. The key, however, is that Russians by and large understand that their language is incredibly difficult for outsiders, particularly English-speakers, given its highly developed case system (whereas modern English has only the most basic inflections), its "free stress" patterning, etc. So, if I were to speak Russian and sound horrible, I would be encouraged to continue to speak Russian so that I might get better at it. I'm not seeing the part of this discussion where Zoxsasi, who has rightly seen the need for priests who can communicate in the language of the land, has encouraged the priests in their efforts, no matter how poor they may seem.
Perhaps it should seem easy to learn a language after 10 or however many years in the country. I can speak to this a bit from personal experience (i.e., my 7 years of Russian only brought me to a high-intermediate level; I could do most things, but would feel uncomfortable serving a liturgy or discussing deep political, philosophical, or technical subjects), and from the field of linguistics. Generally speaking, the relative difficulty of a language for an L2 learner is not an easy thing to gauge. There is first the amount of (structural, phonological, etc.) difference between the languages concerned (French and Arabic are more dissimilar than, say, French and Italian, or Arabic and Hebrew), and then the domains of usage needed (fluency for business? personal communiques?), etc.
Sufficient to say, it's a very complicated process, and I'd prefer people be supportive and understanding rather than negative toward people who might not know the language as well as they do, ESPECIALLY in the context in which it is being discussed here.
also, when you said 'we, the customers are not satisfied', i cringed a little. i don't recall hearing of the 'customer' concept of church life from the Bible or the church fathers...
we are not "customers" in a store, but rather we are "patients" in a hospital! and the True Physician (Our Lord) is the one in charge so why should we complain about the nurses (priests) who do not speak the native language?! If we trust in Our Lord then we have nothing to fear because everything is in His hands.
Because if the Gospel is not shared in a language people can understand then it is not being shared very well at all. Even if we are aware of cases where Western people have been influenced by someone who did not speak their language, the human fact is that many thousands of others will never be influenced if they are not reachef in their own tongue.
I did not become Greek Orthodox because all of their services were in Greek. I figured, as a seeking evangelical, that if they required me to have to learn another language to worship God then i was not being guided to join them. Thank God he led me to the British Orthodox Church or I might not have seen how I could become Ortjodox or would have joinef the Antiochians who do worship in English.
Am I lazy? Am I lacking in commitment? Or is it right that I understood that Orthodoxy requires each people to be reached in their own language?
And if the BOC is the way that British people should become COC then where is the support for this mission?
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11903.msg142556#msg142556 date=1312500411] Because if the Gospel is not shared in a language people can understand then it is not being shared very well at all. Even if we are aware of cases where Western people have been influenced by someone who did not speak their language, the human fact is that many thousands of others will never be influenced if they are not reachef in their own tongue.
I did not become Greek Orthodox because all of their services were in Greek. I figured, as a seeking evangelical, that if they required me to have to learn another language to worship God then i was not being guided to join them. Thank God he led me to the British Orthodox Church or I might not have seen how I could become Ortjodox or would have joinef the Antiochians who do worship in English.
Am I lazy? Am I lacking in commitment? Or is it right that I understood that Orthodoxy requires each people to be reached in their own language?
And if the BOC is the way that British people should become COC then where is the support for this mission?
These are exactly my thoughts and I think what Zoxsasi is trying to get at. The people who say that inquirers should not be so easily discouraged if they have to adapt to a different culture I think are being a little harsh. At no point in the history of evangelizing in the Orthodox church have converts been forced to assimilate to the culture of the preachers. Rather, the reverse occurred, the church was open to the culture of its future members and allowed it to flourish and become a part of it so long as it did not contradict Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, I feel that we are having a similar debate to the apostles when some felt that new converts should be Jewish first while others said it was not necessary. No doubt those in favor of making converts follow Jewish custom had a special place in their heart for Jewish law. They felt its benefits and they felt it made them closer to God. While this may be true, the apostles new that this might not be the case for Gentiles and that it would place an unnecessary burden on them. I pray that we as a church can come to their same conclusion and provide an avenue for inquirers of the faith to experience Orthodoxy in a way that does not isolate them.
I love my Coptic Church. I teach Coptic at my local church. I teach the hymns lessons. Learning and praying hymns is something that I feel brings me closer to God. However, I should not be ignorant of the fact that someone else may feel that singing in a different tune or with different words or in a different way may allow them to feel that same closeness. Why would I essentially say to them, do it my way or don't be Orthodox? This topic is something I have great passion for and I wish I could somehow become more involved in bringing something that I really think is lacking.
Fr. Peter, what then would you recommend in a situation where this is not happening? The ideal is that every person be preached to and as many liturgies as possible be conducted in the national language (or the local language, in the case of Africa or other places where choosing a language is more complicated due to language diversity and local factors). This is far beyond the scope of the current missionary work that is engaged in by any Orthodox church, COC or otherwise, though again I feel like I should emphasize the bright spots that I've seen so as to counteract negativity: The churches in Latin America that I've seen use the national language, many churches in the USA use the de facto national language, in South Africa at least one of the national languages is used (I've seen videos of "Thok te ti gom" in Coptic, English, and what I'm assuming is Zulu/Xhosa!), and elsewhere in Africa at least the preaching is going on in the local language with an interpreter.
More general comments (not to Fr. Peter specifically):
This might be the one aspect in which it would not hurt the Orthodox to take after Protestants or Catholics (yes, I felt dirty writing that, but hear me out, please). I remember long ago an anthropology professor I took a course with talked about his time in Guatemala in the 1970s. For any who don't know, Guatemala is one of the Spanish-speaking countries, but is well known for its high percentage of native people who generally speak some form of Mayan, either in addition to Spanish or monolingually. Mayan (any variety/dialect; there are many) is notoriously tough to learn, and the local Maya that my professor stayed with told him (in Spanish, no doubt) that the only outsiders that ever really learned it well were Mormon missionaries! So you can guess who was winning most of the converts in the area, unfortunately. :-[
Roman Catholics also have a long history of preaching and celebrating masses in the local language(s) of the areas in which they do missionary work, to the point where many of the earliest grammars in a given language were written by priests (e.g., Fr. Antonio Ruiz de Montoya's 1639 Guarani grammar). Not be outdone by Rome's men, the first book ever printed in the Lithuanian language was the 1547 catechism published by Martynas Mazvydas (a Lutheran in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Lithuania; that must've been fun).
Could Copts and others do similar things? I don't see why not. In past eras, the Russian Orthodox missionaries in the Americas did a huge amount of work on the native Canadian and Alaskan languages, and spread Orthodoxy that way among the people. There are several books (none of which I have read) that deal with this topic: "Orthodox Alaska" by Michael Oleksa, "Through Orthodox Eyes" by Andrei Znamenski, "Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity Through Two Centuries" by Sergei Kan, etc. So it has been done, and God willing is being continued today. Maybe not in all places as it should be, but I don't think we should lose sight of places where it's working, or lose hope over those places where it isn't. To get to the level and quality of the historical (and in some cases contemporary) Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox missionaries, a few things would help:
- Building of a sort of "missionary ethic" among the people. By my estimation this seems to already be there if the work of the Coptic Orthodox in Latin America and Africa is any indication; It should spread to Europe. Don't make Fr. Peter do it alone!)
- Included in that, a willingness to do the very, very hard work of learning the local language and culture of the people you will be serving. This seems totally obvious until you consider how long it takes to learn a language period, and then factor in the reality that there might not have any pedagogical materials to support your effort, or even a written form of the language at all. This is the case with the majority of the world's languages, as 95% of all the world's languages are spoken by only 5% of the population. The 11 languages of the world that have 100 million native speakers or more account for 51% of the population, with the remaining 44% filled in by about 200 more languages (which is not a big number considering that there are approximately 6-7,000 languages in the world today). All of these facts are available curteousy of Unesco.
- The financial and other material support needed for this to work. Let's face it, the Orthodox churches are poor compared to the Protestants and the Catholics, and I would suspect that the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are especially so. I am not saying this to be rude, it just seems to be the case.
It's tough out there. I can see why it would tempting to stick with a sort of "pre-made" congregation of immigrants who come from your same culture (and their children, who for the first generation can probably at least still follow along). It's not right, of course, but I just wrote all this because it seems like there's more involved in language/culture and religious issues than this thread would have us believe (and I write this as someone who has missionary experience, having traveled to Mexico twice c. 1994-1995 as the only Spanish-speaking person on the team...it was exhausting, and I wasn't even trying to convert anybody!)
A few posts on here make it seem as if there is no Orthodox way to pray. I believe there is. But if we say that we should allow different peoples to worship as they see fit because they may not feel the same closeness to God via our tunes, we head down a slippery slope.
Language is not a problem. Let people pray in their native tongue. I don't object to that. But the atmosphere must remain Orthodox. What that entails and where we draw the lines, I am in no position to determine. Yet they do exist.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11903.msg142560#msg142560 date=1312509284] A few posts on here make it seem as if there is no Orthodox way to pray. I believe there is. But if we say that we should allow different peoples to worship as they see fit because they may not feel the same closeness to God via our tunes, we head down a slippery slope.
Language is not a problem. Let people pray in their native tongue. I don't object to that. But the atmosphere must remain Orthodox. What that entails and where we draw the lines, I am in no position to determine. Yet they do exist.
I completely agree and apologize if my point was not particularly clear. There is definitely an orthodox way to pray. My point, however, is that there are many DIFFERENT ways to pray in an orthodox way. How different is a liturgy in the Syrian church from one in the British Orthodox from a liturgy in Kenya? From my very limited experience, they are completely different. They may share similarities, but are not as homogenous as some might think. Would dancing and clapping be acceptable in a Coptic church? Absolutely not. But it happens frequently in Orthodox churches in Africa and is considered appropriate and holy. Basically, my point is, yes there is an orthodox way to pray. We pray to God as Father and Pantokrator, in a balance of fear and love, with singing and in quiet prayer, but the specifics can very greatly from culture to culture. What brings you closer to God might make someone else uncomfortable. Why force something foreign on others?
Unworthy1, while I personally have no problem using the Coptic tunes (I have a problem accurately producing them, but that's another story), I understand that others might not find them inherently beautiful and appropriate as I do. Is it possible to have Orthodox worship not using the traditional melodies of the Oriental Orthodox churches, but instead using forms traditional to the people in question who are coming into Orthodoxy? After all, before Coptic tunes were relegated to the church, they were likely in some cases part of ceremonial (pre-Christian) Egyptian music.
I have always found certain Spanish and Portuguese traditional music to be very beautiful. Could these song forms (if not always their instrumentation) be fit to Orthodox worship in a manner similar to the case of Coptic music? I don't see why not, theoretically speaking. In fact, I should like to see such an effort undertaken (if approved by the appropriate church leaders, of course) as part of the overall missionary work of the church. Am I completely wrong here? ??? This wouldn't entail replacing Coptic tunes, but establishing for any particular new church purposely-identified with a particular population (e.g., the French Orthodox Church, the British Orthodox Church) something that is truly native. This is no less than what St. Yared did for the Ethiopians, right? I wonder if people warned him of slippery slopes then.
I may be out of line here and I may be completely off, but I have never felt that the way the people pray in Africa is Orthodox at all. When we clap and dance during a liturgy, how is that worshiping in "fear and trembling"? But that is a discussion for another thread.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11903.msg142562#msg142562 date=1312510333] Is it possible to have Orthodox worship not using the traditional melodies of the Oriental Orthodox churches, but instead using forms traditional to the people in question who are coming into Orthodoxy?
Sure, but some cultures may have traditional melodies that are incompatible with an Orthodox way. When the two conflict, the people's traditions must be adjusted.
For example, on Island A people have always worshiped by whispering because they felt that the words they say are sacred and should be chanted very quietly. If this Island were to become Orthodox that would certainly have to change because people couldn't understand the priest or each other.
Or on Island B people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons.
On Island C people believe that all singing had to be accompanied with beats, so as the priest chanted a part he would play the drums in the altar. . .
I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.
One phrase you said is really getting at the core of what I think we are disagreeing about. You said,
"people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons."
We have hymns that have different pitches for specific reasons. That is very true. These pitches have great meaning for us and help us to meditate during the liturgy. But if they worshiped without these pitches or with pitches that were different, how is it wrong? Where did these pitches and tunes come from? Many of them were pharonic at St. Mark adapted them to Orthodox theology. Do the Armenian Orthodox share our pitches and tunes? Did the Church in Smyrna mentioned in Revelation share our tunes? Did the apostles share our tunes? In all likelihood no. However, they were much more Orthodox then we could ever hope to be. The music is a tool. That is it. The tool's purpose is to praise God. If we need to change the tool to serve its purpose there is nothing wrong with that. It has been done in the past in the Church's history, and I hope one day will continue in the western world.
One phrase you said is really getting at the core of what I think we are disagreeing about. You said,
"people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons."
We have hymns that have different pitches for specific reasons. That is very true. These pitches have great meaning for us and help us to meditate during the liturgy. But if they worshiped without these pitches or with pitches that were different, how is it wrong? Where did these pitches and tunes come from? Many of them were pharonic at St. Mark adapted them to Orthodox theology. Do the Armenian Orthodox share our pitches and tunes? Did the Church in Smyrna mentioned in Revelation share our tunes? Did the apostles share our tunes? In all likelihood no. However, they were much more Orthodox then we could ever hope to be. The music is a tool. That is it. The tool's purpose is to praise God. If we need to change the tool to serve its purpose there is nothing wrong with that. It has been done in the past in the Church's history, and I hope one day will continue in the western world.
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I guess I still disagree. We have this structure of joyful and somber tunes and it works beautifully for us. What if another culture felt that the consistency of their tunes reminded them of God's constant love for them regardless of season? It would seem to me that this would be something wonderful to meditate on while singing. While I may not enjoy the fact that all the tunes are the same and I think this example is quite far-fetched, who are we to say what the right way to praise is?
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I guess I still disagree. We have this structure of joyful and somber tunes and it works beautifully for us. What if another culture felt that the consistency of their tunes reminded them of God's constant love for them regardless of season? It would seem to me that this would be something wonderful to meditate on while singing. While I may not enjoy the fact that all the tunes are the same and I think this example is quite far-fetched, who are we to say what the right way to praise is?
Comments
Zoxsasi, I do kind of see where you're coming from. But I do not think the problem is as major as you do, and I think a big part of it is that so many churches are in a "transition" period between a generation of immigrant Arabic speakers and the generation of natives. I think it's something that will improve over time, and I say this based on my observations of the churches in my area. There is a clear difference between the newer ones and the more well-established ones that have been around for a few decades.
Well, I too think the same as you. But you do not think it so serious (nor do I) because we both can speak Arabic and adapt. However, for the European nationals (incumbents) who have become or chosen Oriental Orthodoxy - this is an urgent issue.
In terms of evangelizing our Church and faith, its an urgent issue.
In terms of immigration and integration of Copts in European countries, its an urgent issue.
If Oriental Orthodoxy is the "True Faith" - does it mean that only Indians, Syrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians are saved? Only these nationals?
I do think its brilliant that we have churches like the French Orthodox Church and the British Orthodox Church that are under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, but wouldn't it be more realistic - if not wiser to have the Oriental Orthodox independent of Arabic?
For example - if I were a French catholic, I don't go to a French Catholic Church, I go to a Catholic Church in France where the liturgy is in French. If I happen to immigrate to Spain, I do not go to the Spanish Catholic Church, I go to the Catholic Church in Spain where the SAME liturgy is in Spanish.
Its only the Coptic Orthodox Church where the liturgy is in Arabic, even in European Countries. Why should this even be the case? Why can't Coptic Christians living in Europe appreciate that they are not in Egypt?!! Why can't they see that their faith is beyond language.
I remember many many years ago in Saint Mark's Church - London - they used to have an English liturgy once every month. What is that??
Why not have the Arabic liturgy once a month!? This is the UK! Not Egypt!
The priests there recently learnt how to speak English. They didn't know before.
So what message is sent then? That Coptic Christians outside Egypt are not capable of integrating into society. Our religion is for Egyptian Christians. By such emphasis on speaking Arabic in Churches outside Egypt, you create, unwittingly, an atmosphere of Egypt - not of a Heavenly Jerusalem which is what the CHurch ought to be.
By doing this, by insisting on Arabic to the point where the liturgy in the national language of the country is secondary, do you think this will help Egyptians integrate into the countries they are in??
I would be proud of Egyptian Christians if they respected their host countries. This is a total lack of respect, and is subsequently unChristian.
Look, I am not the one leaving the Orthodox Church (that's because with my limited Arabic, I can perhaps cope a bit until our priests start to learn French) - but others are leaving.
This is sheer arrogance on the part of the Coptic Church.
Oujai
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021670/Indian-Vali-Chapti-UK-migration-racism-row-insists-wont-learn-English.html
I hope they do this to EVERY Coptic priest or even member who cannot speak the common language of the country he is residing in.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Now admittedly I am biased in these kinds of talks due to my upbringing and background, but even so, within the community closest to me in which this sort of thing might be an issue (the Hispanic community of northern California), I have never met a single person who didn't want to learn English. There are some for whom it might have been less useful than others, but everybody sees its value. That the man in the article does not see it indicates some extremely myopic thinking on his part. I doubt Coptic priests in any country share such views, regardless of their linguistic abilities.
Summary version: Where there's a will, there's a way. :)
Father Peter
That is an absolutely unfair and silly comparison, Zoxsasi. There is a world of difference between not being able to speak a given language (as in not being fluent, which is the likely case of the priests you're dealing with), and flat-out refusing to learn the language based on some sort of "principled" stance as in the case of this Indian man. (I put "principled" in quotes because I'm not exactly sure what this guy is thinking; it seems that he doesn't have any larger point to make beyond the fact that he doesn't want to learn English and that nobody can make him learn it. This is the sort of argument I'd expect from a seven year old, not a fifty seven year old.)
Now admittedly I am biased in these kinds of talks due to my upbringing and background, but even so, within the community closest to me in which this sort of thing might be an issue (the Hispanic community of northern California), I have never met a single person who didn't want to learn English. There are some for whom it might have been less useful than others, but everybody sees its value. That the man in the article does not see it indicates some extremely myopic thinking on his part. I doubt Coptic priests in any country share such views, regardless of their linguistic abilities.
Summary version: Where there's a will, there's a way. :)
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Given that speaking in languages was one of the FIRST tools given to the apostles to preach the gospel, some of them are completely untouched by this necessity of preaching in a language relevant to the country they are in.
The priests I know (as well as many members of the congregation) do not even see a need to learn English or French... what for? Just as the indian man's wife in the news article points out "WHY SHOULD I LEARN ENGLISH FOR, WHEN I CAN SPEAK GUJARATI THE WHOLE DAY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE IN SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AS ME".
How is this a silly argument.
For the priests who CAN speak a European language - i say to them well done.
For those who DO NOT CARE and are insisting on not learning - I REALLY HOPE THAT THEY GET DEPORTED!!!!
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/assets/wmv/research/veronica-melisa.wmv
You will see that perfection is certainly not required, but a solid grounding in English so that the immigrant can participate fully in British society.
Unfortunately there are many immigrants, and even British citizens, of especially Asian (usually Pakistani) origin who choose not to learn English or speak English and in fact who do not wish to belong to British society. This is causing an increase in tensions with the native population and it would be a positive statement of intent for all migrating Copts to speak English at least to the quality in this video. This will ensure that Copts are welcomed as participating members of British society and not linked with other groups, such as rural Muslim migrants, who do not seem to want to be British at all.
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Are they really not, though? I don't know any Coptic priests personally, so I couldn't say, but I very, very would be surprised if they had the attitude of the Indian immigrant in the story, precisely because what you say below about the importance of language in preaching the gospel (which is absolutely true, and still lived out today in the church; I have seen Youtube videos of Coptic priests preaching in Zambia with the help of an interpreter from English to the local language. This is great!) Have you or anyone else who is similarly concerned in your church tried to talk to the priests in question? I am assuming that this is very much a local issue, as I have seen Spanish liturgies in the Coptic church in Mexico and Bolivia (and when HH came to the church in Mexico, they had an interpreter from Arabic to Spanish), so I know not everywhere is like Arabic-only churches in Europe. It is certainly self-defeating if they want to actually spread the gospel and attract converts in their new land, not to mention also being integrated into society (as Fr. Peter emphasized in his reply). Forgive me for being naive, but I was not really aware that this was the mindset of any priest in the church. It seems ridiculous to me, very much contrary to the Christian faith. They actually insist on not learning? I could understand a position that says "I am new to this country, and none (or a very small minority) of my congregation speaks ____, therefore I haven't learned it (yet)", but not "therefore I won't at least try to learn it"! To me that's a very important distinction, and it is very disturbing that any priest would think that way.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=11903.msg142501#msg142501 date=1312381222]
What are you talking about?? READ THE COMMENTS IN THE NEWS COLUMNS!!! The british people are appalled at the apathy of immigrants to their culture. Our coptic priests are NO BETTER!!!
Are they really not, though? I don't know any Coptic priests personally, so I couldn't say, but I very, very would be surprised if they had the attitude of the Indian immigrant in the story, precisely because what you say below about the importance of language in preaching the gospel (which is absolutely true, and still lived out today in the church; I have seen Youtube videos of Coptic priests preaching in Zambia with the help of an interpreter from English to the local language. This is great!) Have you or anyone else who is similarly concerned in your church tried to talk to the priests in question? I am assuming that this is very much a local issue, as I have seen Spanish liturgies in the Coptic church in Mexico and Bolivia (and when HH came to the church in Mexico, they had an interpreter from Arabic to Spanish), so I know not everywhere is like Arabic-only churches in Europe. It is certainly self-defeating if they want to actually spread the gospel and attract converts in their new land, not to mention also being integrated into society (as Fr. Peter emphasized in his reply). Forgive me for being naive, but I was not really aware that this was the mindset of any priest in the church. It seems ridiculous to me, very much contrary to the Christian faith. They actually insist on not learning? I could understand a position that says "I am new to this country, and none (or a very small minority) of my congregation speaks ____, therefore I haven't learned it (yet)", but not "therefore I won't at least try to learn it"! To me that's a very important distinction, and it is very disturbing that any priest would think that way.
Im really glad you are beginning to see the light now.
That's the whole problem. The priests i know DO NOT want to learn the native language of the country they are serving in and its really because they don't have to. They can get by with speaking Arabic 24/7.
One priest prefers that I speak to him in my broken and not so fluent arabic than for him to speak with me in French. And even when I do speak in Arabic he has the NERVE to even make fun of my arabic!!
Remarkable!!
Have I tried to tell him that he should learn French. .. well, one of them, yes.
But both priests I know are the ONLY priests serving in their respective Churches and cannot speak a word of French!
I attended of their "French" masses, and it wasn't good at all.
I remember, after attending a French liturgy, the priest said to me: "OK! Tell me, what do you think of the French liturgy?! It was brilliant, wasn't it!!"
Frankly, I didn't understand a word of it. I wanted to tell him, but he was so busy telling me how happy he was about the liturgy he just prayed in French that I never had a chance to say anything.
Zoxsasi, I understand where you're coming from, but I think a more understanding attitude about attempts at liturgies in the local (unfamiliar, for the priest) language could help your conversations with the priest. Maybe it wasn't great, yeah, but isn't it closer to what you want to see? Liturgies in French? If it's just a starting point, isn't it kind of counterproductive to criticize it for not being as good as it could be (or as you'd like it to be)?
Look at the title of my thread: My friends are leaving the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Basically, after MANY YEARS in their respective European Countries, these priests are illiterate in each one's respective native language. They have gotten by through speaking, reading and writing in Arabic for at least 10 years without the need to engage in any other language. This is highly offensive.
Those assisting their liturgies have some knowledge of Arabic. Those who are suffering do not speak ARabic.
We are an Apostolic Church. We are a Church of Sacraments. You are denying MANY MANY Orthodox Christians the fullness of the orthodox faith by not being able to take their confessions. How important is that? VERY!!
How can you give an absolution to a sin if you don't even understand what the sin is?!!!
As I said Dzheremi, after persistently living in their respective European Countries for countless of years, the Church is making a clear statement: We do not CARE about Non Arabic speaking people in our Church.
Its clear!!!!
So look at it this way: The priest prays the liturgy in Arabic. Its POINTLESS if he prays it even in French or English because its incomprehensible anyway. THere are parts of the liturgy that are prayed in Coptic. You go to Church, you understand nothing, you leave.. and that's it. What kind of spiritual life is the Church giving NON Egyptians!!???
This is pathetic!! OF COURSE MY FRIENDS ARE LEAVING!!! There's not deep secret about it. Its inevitable.
Reference to Reply # 41 I did not notice you directed your comment to me until now, therefore the late reply. I apologize.
I am making no assertions, and my post was meant to shed light on a certain movement in the Church, led by some figures, who use the missionary work as a cover for their true intentions.
This aside, I do not believe the real problem is ONLY in the use of elements from a certain culture (in our case, the Coptic culture) in church worship and favoring it over the other cultures. While it has a certain impact, there are other more fundamental problems that need to be addressed before delving into this never ending debate about the incorporation of native culture in the church services in the diaspora.
Are converts true in their convictions or not? Has the faith been explained to them as is or did they have a couple of bible studies and moral lessons and then baptized? I find it hard to believe that a person who has found the truth and has made it from darkness to light, will go back to darkness over the use of language in the Church. I support the use of native culture elements in worship, but should that be missing, is it an excuse to abandon the truth?
Do we understand the core of worship? For if we do, it does not matter what language we use. I could attend a Malaysian liturgy and it will be still beneficial and spiritually edifying.
Do we have a legitimate church structure in the West (bishop, priest, deacon) or is it a church without Christ (bishop)? For example, in Canada, we have no bishop for a reason unknown to many. Any discussion about reform is useless in the absence of a bishop. It will be a human effort and not a divine work through human members. The difference is huge. It is not an issue that is irrelevant as many might think.
While local churches like the BOC and the FOC should worship in the language they feel comfortable with, I think asking Copts to abandon their heritage, whether he/she are Egyptians or of whatever nationality, is absurd. It sounds like asking a White person to act as a Chinese. (OK, a Caucasian to act as an Asian for the sake of political correctness). My Coptic heritage never failed me, and elements of the Coptic culture have kept the faith intact. The issue is in the lack of pride of us, Copts, in our heritage. We are taken on a guilt trip every time this topic is opened for being who we are ..... Copts.
Oujai
Dear Dzheremi,
Reference to Reply # 41 I did not notice you directed your comment to me until now, therefore the late reply. I apologize.
I am making no assertions, and my post was meant to shed light on a certain movement in the Church, led by some figures, who use the missionary work as a cover for their true intentions.
This aside, I do not believe the real problem is ONLY in the use of elements from a certain culture (in our case, the Coptic culture) in church worship and favoring it over the other cultures. While it has a certain impact, there are other more fundamental problems that need to be addressed before delving into this never ending debate about the incorporation of native culture in the church services in the diaspora.
Are converts true in their convictions or not? Has the faith been explained to them as is or did they have a couple of bible studies and moral lessons and then baptized? I find it hard to believe that a person who has found the truth and has made it from darkness to light, will go back to darkness over the use of language in the Church. I support the use of native culture elements in worship, but should that be missing, is it an excuse to abandon the truth?
Do we understand the core of worship? For if we do, it does not matter what language we use. I could attend a Malaysian liturgy and it will be still beneficial and spiritually edifying.
Do we have a legitimate church structure in the West (bishop, priest, deacon) or is it a church without Christ (bishop)? For example, in Canada, we have no bishop for a reason unknown to many. Any discussion about reform is useless in the absence of a bishop. It will be a human effort and not a divine work through human members. The difference is huge. It is not an issue that is irrelevant as many might think.
While local churches like the BOC and the FOC should worship in the language they feel comfortable with, I think asking Copts to abandon their heritage, whether he/she are Egyptians or of whatever nationality, is absurd. It sounds like asking a White person to act as a Chinese. (OK, a Caucasian to act as an Asian for the sake of political correctness). My Coptic heritage never failed me, and elements of the Coptic culture have kept the faith intact. The issue is in the lack of pride of us, Copts, in our heritage. We are taken on a guilt trip every time this topic is opened for being who we are ..... Copts.
Very well said Stavro!
Of course your logic is correct - except you did not read my thread.
I said that because they are TRUE in their faith, and are indeed very Orthodox - hence the problem: WHERE CAN THEY GO??
They refuse to go to the Catholic because they are Orthodox. If they go to the Greek, well, they don't speak Greek. Furthermore, these guys are theologians.
Even me, I cannot go to the Catholic (I would have personally, but there's something missing there).
We are stuck!!
Why don't you all admit that Church has made a few SERIOUS mistakes and get this thread over with!?
Why does H.H bring priests over who HE KNOWS do not speak the native language of the country they are going to. This isn't an engineering role, its a priesthood position - speaking in the native language IS so important for this job role.
We are the customers and are not satisfied at all.
i admit there are problems in our church.
if it was a perfect church, i could not have joined it (i would have spoiled it).
but it seems the problems you describe are particularly relevant to your belgium church; things elsewhere in the diaspora don't seem so bad, and certainly in the last few years churches in the uk are working hard on making the liturgy understandable.
language is important, but there are other things which are important too.
for example my priest can speak english reasonably well, but certainly at the time i joined the church he had some problems conversing in english.
however i am sure that his great patience, kindness and sound spiritual advice (yes, occasionally we needed a translator for this!) were a very big part of the reason i embraced the coptic orthodox church.
seeing his great care for his church, listening to his sermons (yes, translated, not in english!) and, above all, getting to know his wonderful wife who speaks very little english (but who is the most humble and kindest person i ever met) showed me clearly many things about God's love that i had not seen before (in more than 20 years as a protestant Christian).
you can learn a lot by watching people, how they are with their children, their expressions when talking to each other and their smiles at seeing you again in the church.
so i do sympathise with your problem, but i also wonder if maybe you need to be more 'long-suffering' and kind with people who may be better at living the message of Jesus non-verbally then they are at explaining it in flemish or in french.
also, when you said 'we, the customers are not satisfied', i cringed a little.
i don't recall hearing of the 'customer' concept of church life from the Bible or the church fathers...
but it seems the problems you describe are particularly relevant to your belgium church; things elsewhere in the diaspora don't seem so bad, and certainly in the last few years churches in the uk are working hard on making the liturgy understandable.
Thank you! This was precisely my point in bringing up the church in Mexico and Bolivia, where the liturgies are held in Spanish (and Coptic, of course). It seems that this problem is unique to a given place, not necessarily church-wide (or at least as bad as it apparently is in Belgium). You have no idea how broadly I'm smiling right now. It's like you took the words right out of my mouth (well, fingers). The priest prays in Arabic and Coptic, and it's a travesty because the Belgians can't understand it. The priest prays in French to the best of his ability, and it's a travesty because the Belgians can't understand it. It sounds to me like the priest is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, but you can't say he isn't trying. I'm not seeing the Christian attitude of bearing one another in love and with long-suffering in this complaining against people who are trying, and after all are just people. It reminds me of the Jews wondering in the desert, complaining against God by complaining against Moses. You complain against God when you complain against those whom He has elected to shepherd you. It's not that things can't be more to your liking in terms of the match-up (I've certainly had the experience of not really connecting with a priest, I'll admit); to me, it's just a fact that there are much more important things than whatever it is your complaining about. Barring a serious breach of trust or personal safety, I cannot see why such enmity can be laid at the feet of men of God. Should they learn the language? Yes. But just the same, should you criticize them and talk about how horrible it was when they tried to use the language, if they're TRYING to do what you apparently want them to do? No. If this is an appropriate reaction in any other part of life, I'd like to know about it. If, for instance, a parent were to give up on their young child's attempt to read because they cannot do so flawlessly or entirely comprehensibly at the earlier stages, we'd call that person a pretty bad parent.
For a more direct point of comparison: I studied the Russian language for about 7 years, to what I would term a level of high-intermediate fluency, and have mostly come to forget it in the 4 years that have passed since I stopped attending classes, since I am not in a Russian-speaking environment. Whereas at one time I could be reasonably expected to produce competent, maybe even pleasant conversation in the language, now I doubt that my speech would be any less abhorrent to a Russian than the priest's French liturgy was to Zoxsasi. The key, however, is that Russians by and large understand that their language is incredibly difficult for outsiders, particularly English-speakers, given its highly developed case system (whereas modern English has only the most basic inflections), its "free stress" patterning, etc. So, if I were to speak Russian and sound horrible, I would be encouraged to continue to speak Russian so that I might get better at it. I'm not seeing the part of this discussion where Zoxsasi, who has rightly seen the need for priests who can communicate in the language of the land, has encouraged the priests in their efforts, no matter how poor they may seem.
Perhaps it should seem easy to learn a language after 10 or however many years in the country. I can speak to this a bit from personal experience (i.e., my 7 years of Russian only brought me to a high-intermediate level; I could do most things, but would feel uncomfortable serving a liturgy or discussing deep political, philosophical, or technical subjects), and from the field of linguistics. Generally speaking, the relative difficulty of a language for an L2 learner is not an easy thing to gauge. There is first the amount of (structural, phonological, etc.) difference between the languages concerned (French and Arabic are more dissimilar than, say, French and Italian, or Arabic and Hebrew), and then the domains of usage needed (fluency for business? personal communiques?), etc.
Sufficient to say, it's a very complicated process, and I'd prefer people be supportive and understanding rather than negative toward people who might not know the language as well as they do, ESPECIALLY in the context in which it is being discussed here.
also, when you said 'we, the customers are not satisfied', i cringed a little.
i don't recall hearing of the 'customer' concept of church life from the Bible or the church fathers...
God bless
I did not become Greek Orthodox because all of their services were in Greek. I figured, as a seeking evangelical, that if they required me to have to learn another language to worship God then i was not being guided to join them. Thank God he led me to the British Orthodox Church or I might not have seen how I could become Ortjodox or would have joinef the Antiochians who do worship in English.
Am I lazy? Am I lacking in commitment? Or is it right that I understood that Orthodoxy requires each people to be reached in their own language?
And if the BOC is the way that British people should become COC then where is the support for this mission?
Because if the Gospel is not shared in a language people can understand then it is not being shared very well at all. Even if we are aware of cases where Western people have been influenced by someone who did not speak their language, the human fact is that many thousands of others will never be influenced if they are not reachef in their own tongue.
I did not become Greek Orthodox because all of their services were in Greek. I figured, as a seeking evangelical, that if they required me to have to learn another language to worship God then i was not being guided to join them. Thank God he led me to the British Orthodox Church or I might not have seen how I could become Ortjodox or would have joinef the Antiochians who do worship in English.
Am I lazy? Am I lacking in commitment? Or is it right that I understood that Orthodoxy requires each people to be reached in their own language?
And if the BOC is the way that British people should become COC then where is the support for this mission?
These are exactly my thoughts and I think what Zoxsasi is trying to get at. The people who say that inquirers should not be so easily discouraged if they have to adapt to a different culture I think are being a little harsh. At no point in the history of evangelizing in the Orthodox church have converts been forced to assimilate to the culture of the preachers. Rather, the reverse occurred, the church was open to the culture of its future members and allowed it to flourish and become a part of it so long as it did not contradict Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, I feel that we are having a similar debate to the apostles when some felt that new converts should be Jewish first while others said it was not necessary. No doubt those in favor of making converts follow Jewish custom had a special place in their heart for Jewish law. They felt its benefits and they felt it made them closer to God. While this may be true, the apostles new that this might not be the case for Gentiles and that it would place an unnecessary burden on them. I pray that we as a church can come to their same conclusion and provide an avenue for inquirers of the faith to experience Orthodoxy in a way that does not isolate them.
I love my Coptic Church. I teach Coptic at my local church. I teach the hymns lessons. Learning and praying hymns is something that I feel brings me closer to God. However, I should not be ignorant of the fact that someone else may feel that singing in a different tune or with different words or in a different way may allow them to feel that same closeness. Why would I essentially say to them, do it my way or don't be Orthodox? This topic is something I have great passion for and I wish I could somehow become more involved in bringing something that I really think is lacking.
More general comments (not to Fr. Peter specifically):
This might be the one aspect in which it would not hurt the Orthodox to take after Protestants or Catholics (yes, I felt dirty writing that, but hear me out, please). I remember long ago an anthropology professor I took a course with talked about his time in Guatemala in the 1970s. For any who don't know, Guatemala is one of the Spanish-speaking countries, but is well known for its high percentage of native people who generally speak some form of Mayan, either in addition to Spanish or monolingually. Mayan (any variety/dialect; there are many) is notoriously tough to learn, and the local Maya that my professor stayed with told him (in Spanish, no doubt) that the only outsiders that ever really learned it well were Mormon missionaries! So you can guess who was winning most of the converts in the area, unfortunately. :-[
Roman Catholics also have a long history of preaching and celebrating masses in the local language(s) of the areas in which they do missionary work, to the point where many of the earliest grammars in a given language were written by priests (e.g., Fr. Antonio Ruiz de Montoya's 1639 Guarani grammar). Not be outdone by Rome's men, the first book ever printed in the Lithuanian language was the 1547 catechism published by Martynas Mazvydas (a Lutheran in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Lithuania; that must've been fun).
Could Copts and others do similar things? I don't see why not. In past eras, the Russian Orthodox missionaries in the Americas did a huge amount of work on the native Canadian and Alaskan languages, and spread Orthodoxy that way among the people. There are several books (none of which I have read) that deal with this topic: "Orthodox Alaska" by Michael Oleksa, "Through Orthodox Eyes" by Andrei Znamenski, "Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity Through Two Centuries" by Sergei Kan, etc. So it has been done, and God willing is being continued today. Maybe not in all places as it should be, but I don't think we should lose sight of places where it's working, or lose hope over those places where it isn't. To get to the level and quality of the historical (and in some cases contemporary) Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox missionaries, a few things would help:
- Building of a sort of "missionary ethic" among the people. By my estimation this seems to already be there if the work of the Coptic Orthodox in Latin America and Africa is any indication; It should spread to Europe. Don't make Fr. Peter do it alone!)
- Included in that, a willingness to do the very, very hard work of learning the local language and culture of the people you will be serving. This seems totally obvious until you consider how long it takes to learn a language period, and then factor in the reality that there might not have any pedagogical materials to support your effort, or even a written form of the language at all. This is the case with the majority of the world's languages, as 95% of all the world's languages are spoken by only 5% of the population. The 11 languages of the world that have 100 million native speakers or more account for 51% of the population, with the remaining 44% filled in by about 200 more languages (which is not a big number considering that there are approximately 6-7,000 languages in the world today). All of these facts are available curteousy of Unesco.
- The financial and other material support needed for this to work. Let's face it, the Orthodox churches are poor compared to the Protestants and the Catholics, and I would suspect that the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are especially so. I am not saying this to be rude, it just seems to be the case.
It's tough out there. I can see why it would tempting to stick with a sort of "pre-made" congregation of immigrants who come from your same culture (and their children, who for the first generation can probably at least still follow along). It's not right, of course, but I just wrote all this because it seems like there's more involved in language/culture and religious issues than this thread would have us believe (and I write this as someone who has missionary experience, having traveled to Mexico twice c. 1994-1995 as the only Spanish-speaking person on the team...it was exhausting, and I wasn't even trying to convert anybody!)
Language is not a problem. Let people pray in their native tongue. I don't object to that. But the atmosphere must remain Orthodox. What that entails and where we draw the lines, I am in no position to determine. Yet they do exist.
A few posts on here make it seem as if there is no Orthodox way to pray. I believe there is. But if we say that we should allow different peoples to worship as they see fit because they may not feel the same closeness to God via our tunes, we head down a slippery slope.
Language is not a problem. Let people pray in their native tongue. I don't object to that. But the atmosphere must remain Orthodox. What that entails and where we draw the lines, I am in no position to determine. Yet they do exist.
I completely agree and apologize if my point was not particularly clear. There is definitely an orthodox way to pray. My point, however, is that there are many DIFFERENT ways to pray in an orthodox way. How different is a liturgy in the Syrian church from one in the British Orthodox from a liturgy in Kenya? From my very limited experience, they are completely different. They may share similarities, but are not as homogenous as some might think. Would dancing and clapping be acceptable in a Coptic church? Absolutely not. But it happens frequently in Orthodox churches in Africa and is considered appropriate and holy. Basically, my point is, yes there is an orthodox way to pray. We pray to God as Father and Pantokrator, in a balance of fear and love, with singing and in quiet prayer, but the specifics can very greatly from culture to culture. What brings you closer to God might make someone else uncomfortable. Why force something foreign on others?
I have always found certain Spanish and Portuguese traditional music to be very beautiful. Could these song forms (if not always their instrumentation) be fit to Orthodox worship in a manner similar to the case of Coptic music? I don't see why not, theoretically speaking. In fact, I should like to see such an effort undertaken (if approved by the appropriate church leaders, of course) as part of the overall missionary work of the church. Am I completely wrong here? ??? This wouldn't entail replacing Coptic tunes, but establishing for any particular new church purposely-identified with a particular population (e.g., the French Orthodox Church, the British Orthodox Church) something that is truly native. This is no less than what St. Yared did for the Ethiopians, right? I wonder if people warned him of slippery slopes then.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11903.msg142562#msg142562 date=1312510333]
Is it possible to have Orthodox worship not using the traditional melodies of the Oriental Orthodox churches, but instead using forms traditional to the people in question who are coming into Orthodoxy?
Sure, but some cultures may have traditional melodies that are incompatible with an Orthodox way. When the two conflict, the people's traditions must be adjusted.
For example, on Island A people have always worshiped by whispering because they felt that the words they say are sacred and should be chanted very quietly. If this Island were to become Orthodox that would certainly have to change because people couldn't understand the priest or each other.
Or on Island B people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons.
On Island C people believe that all singing had to be accompanied with beats, so as the priest chanted a part he would play the drums in the altar. . .
I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.
One phrase you said is really getting at the core of what I think we are disagreeing about. You said,
"people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons."
We have hymns that have different pitches for specific reasons. That is very true. These pitches have great meaning for us and help us to meditate during the liturgy. But if they worshiped without these pitches or with pitches that were different, how is it wrong? Where did these pitches and tunes come from? Many of them were pharonic at St. Mark adapted them to Orthodox theology. Do the Armenian Orthodox share our pitches and tunes? Did the Church in Smyrna mentioned in Revelation share our tunes? Did the apostles share our tunes? In all likelihood no. However, they were much more Orthodox then we could ever hope to be. The music is a tool. That is it. The tool's purpose is to praise God. If we need to change the tool to serve its purpose there is nothing wrong with that. It has been done in the past in the Church's history, and I hope one day will continue in the western world.
Unworthy1,
One phrase you said is really getting at the core of what I think we are disagreeing about. You said,
"people like to sing at the top of their lungs. This is wrong because some hymns have different pitches for specific reasons."
We have hymns that have different pitches for specific reasons. That is very true. These pitches have great meaning for us and help us to meditate during the liturgy. But if they worshiped without these pitches or with pitches that were different, how is it wrong? Where did these pitches and tunes come from? Many of them were pharonic at St. Mark adapted them to Orthodox theology. Do the Armenian Orthodox share our pitches and tunes? Did the Church in Smyrna mentioned in Revelation share our tunes? Did the apostles share our tunes? In all likelihood no. However, they were much more Orthodox then we could ever hope to be. The music is a tool. That is it. The tool's purpose is to praise God. If we need to change the tool to serve its purpose there is nothing wrong with that. It has been done in the past in the Church's history, and I hope one day will continue in the western world.
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I guess I still disagree. We have this structure of joyful and somber tunes and it works beautifully for us. What if another culture felt that the consistency of their tunes reminded them of God's constant love for them regardless of season? It would seem to me that this would be something wonderful to meditate on while singing. While I may not enjoy the fact that all the tunes are the same and I think this example is quite far-fetched, who are we to say what the right way to praise is?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11903.msg142567#msg142567 date=1312513679]
I meant they sang all hymns with a high pitch because that is what they liked. It doesn't matter that other churches don't share our pitches and tunes. The point is that we cannot say the Trisagion in the same pitch as Ke Eperto. Just because certain people don't have "somber" tunes, or don't like them, doesn't mean they can pray those hymns in a joyful tone. There is a variety for a reason.
Main point: If a society only had one melody, they have to add more if they were to pray in an Orthodox manner.
I guess I still disagree. We have this structure of joyful and somber tunes and it works beautifully for us. What if another culture felt that the consistency of their tunes reminded them of God's constant love for them regardless of season? It would seem to me that this would be something wonderful to meditate on while singing. While I may not enjoy the fact that all the tunes are the same and I think this example is quite far-fetched, who are we to say what the right way to praise is?
To each his own.