To contact us Click HERE
Bogus doctor sentenced - Crime & Courts | IOL News | IOL.co.za: A prostitute who duped two Durban hospitals into believing he was a cardiologist and a cancer specialist said he did it to get money to pay for antiretrovirals (ARVs). Jonathan Peterson, 27, was sentenced to six years in prison, suspended for three years, in the Durban Commercial Crime Court on Thursday. Peterson was found guilty of 43 counts of fraud, forgery and uttering.
3 Ocak 2013 Perşembe
Man Says Bogus 'Doctor' Cost Him Eight Years
To contact us Click HERE
Courthouse News Service: "Based upon the sworn trial testimony of Ferguson, who had previously referred to himself as 'Dr. Ferguson' but whom we now know barely obtained a bachelor's degree after twenty-five years of college, Uselton was convicted of two counts of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of selling alprazolam. "Uselton was sentenced to two consecutive five-year prison terms for the involuntary manslaughter, in addition to a nine-month sentence for the sale of alprazolam, for a total of 10 years, 9 months. On January 7, 2011, outgoing Ohio Governor Strickland granted Uselton's Petition for Commutation of Sentence, reducing his sentence to '8 years to 10.75 years.' Uselton was later judicially released from prison in July, 2011, after having served more than eight (8) years of his sentence. "In late-October, 2010 Uselton first learned that Ferguson had been convicted of falsifying his credentials, of giving perjurious testimony involving his credentials, and was not qualified to render the opinions which he gave leading to Uselton's conviction (and the convictions of others as well). Neither Ferguson nor Franklin County ever produced or provided the underlying test results for the purported analysis which Ferguson claimed he had done, upon which Uselton was convicted."
3 University Of District Columbia Professors Hold Degrees That Deceive: Sport Ph.D.s From 'Diploma Mills'
To contact us Click HERE
3 University Of District Columbia Professors Hold Degrees That Deceive: Sport Ph.D.s From 'Diploma Mills': The University of District Columbia gave three professors raises when they received Ph.D.s. That's standard in academia -- unless the degrees are worthless. UDC professors Angelyn Flowers, Sinclair Jeter and Maragaret Moore received their Ph.D.s from Commonwealth Open University -- a school that, according to Fox 5, is non-accredited, accepts most people to its online program without verifying backgrounds and doles out advanced diplomas in exchange for academic requirements that barely scratch the surface of accredited programs' requirements.
FOX 5: UDC professors earn degrees from 'diploma mill'
To contact us Click HERE
FOX 5: UDC professors earn degrees from 'diploma mill' - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG: Unlike accredited institutions where it takes years to earn a college education, even more for a Ph.D., Commonwealth Open University doesn't have the same requirements. A doctorate costs $3,450. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accrediting in the United States, considers a Ph.D. from there nothing short of a phony degree. Judith Eaton, CHEA's president said it's "highly unlikely" Commonwealth's degrees aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Obama Targets Diploma Mills That Market To Vets
To contact us Click HERE
Obama Targets Diploma Mills That Market To Vets: Obama signed a broad order that partially addresses growing complaints about fraudulent marketing and recruiting practices aimed at military families eligible for federal education aid under the GI Bill. Sounding outraged, Obama said some of these schools go after military men and women "just for the money." And citing what he called "one of the worst examples," Obama said a college recruiter enrolled Marines with brain injuries who couldn't even remember what courses they had signed up for. "That's appalling, that's disgraceful," Obama said. "They're trying to swindle and hoodwink you."
2 Ocak 2013 Çarşamba
Man Says Bogus 'Doctor' Cost Him Eight Years
To contact us Click HERE
Courthouse News Service: "Based upon the sworn trial testimony of Ferguson, who had previously referred to himself as 'Dr. Ferguson' but whom we now know barely obtained a bachelor's degree after twenty-five years of college, Uselton was convicted of two counts of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of selling alprazolam. "Uselton was sentenced to two consecutive five-year prison terms for the involuntary manslaughter, in addition to a nine-month sentence for the sale of alprazolam, for a total of 10 years, 9 months. On January 7, 2011, outgoing Ohio Governor Strickland granted Uselton's Petition for Commutation of Sentence, reducing his sentence to '8 years to 10.75 years.' Uselton was later judicially released from prison in July, 2011, after having served more than eight (8) years of his sentence. "In late-October, 2010 Uselton first learned that Ferguson had been convicted of falsifying his credentials, of giving perjurious testimony involving his credentials, and was not qualified to render the opinions which he gave leading to Uselton's conviction (and the convictions of others as well). Neither Ferguson nor Franklin County ever produced or provided the underlying test results for the purported analysis which Ferguson claimed he had done, upon which Uselton was convicted."
3 University Of District Columbia Professors Hold Degrees That Deceive: Sport Ph.D.s From 'Diploma Mills'
To contact us Click HERE
3 University Of District Columbia Professors Hold Degrees That Deceive: Sport Ph.D.s From 'Diploma Mills': The University of District Columbia gave three professors raises when they received Ph.D.s. That's standard in academia -- unless the degrees are worthless. UDC professors Angelyn Flowers, Sinclair Jeter and Maragaret Moore received their Ph.D.s from Commonwealth Open University -- a school that, according to Fox 5, is non-accredited, accepts most people to its online program without verifying backgrounds and doles out advanced diplomas in exchange for academic requirements that barely scratch the surface of accredited programs' requirements.
FOX 5: UDC professors earn degrees from 'diploma mill'
To contact us Click HERE
FOX 5: UDC professors earn degrees from 'diploma mill' - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG: Unlike accredited institutions where it takes years to earn a college education, even more for a Ph.D., Commonwealth Open University doesn't have the same requirements. A doctorate costs $3,450. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accrediting in the United States, considers a Ph.D. from there nothing short of a phony degree. Judith Eaton, CHEA's president said it's "highly unlikely" Commonwealth's degrees aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Robert Siciliano: Diploma Mills Facilitate Identity Theft
To contact us Click HERE
Robert Siciliano: Diploma Mills Facilitate Identity Theft: The diploma mills often model their names after accredited educational institutions. They may even take a portion of a universities' name and make it a part of their own. Such modeling tactics involve using similar logos, color schemes and designing their websites to mimic an Ivy League school, right down to the .edu web address. Just like a legitimate college or university, diploma mills may actually require the student to purchase books, do homework and take tests. However, the diploma mill may make it extremely easy for someone to pass. Students in many cases are able to simply purchase a diploma no questions asked. Many of these organizations are nothing more than glorified print shops.
Online Education Degrees On The Rise: USA Today Analysis
To contact us Click HERE
Online Education Degrees On The Rise: USA Today Analysis (SLIDESHOW): In 2001, the for-profit University of Phoenix awarded 72 education degrees to teachers, administrators and other school personnel; last year, in 2011, it awarded nearly 6,000 degrees -- placing it ahead of every other university. By comparison, Arizona State University -- one of the nation’s largest traditional education schools -- awarded 2,075 degrees, most of them on its Phoenix campus. ASU ranked sixth in USA Today’s list of schools that conferred the most bachelor’s and post-bachelor’s education degrees in 2011. According to the newspaper’s analysis, traditional colleges still yield the majority of bachelor’s degrees in teaching. Still, online schools like the University of Phoenix and Walden University awarded thousands more master’s degrees than even the top traditional schools.
1 Ocak 2013 Salı
Catholics, Awake! Marriage Doesn’t Just Happen!
To contact us Click HERE
SOURCE: Crisis Magazine
by
It’s been more than ten years since I first noticed something odd about the generally pleasant—and generally Catholic—students at the college where I teach. The boys and girls don’t hold hands.
Let that serve as shorthand for the absence of all those rites of attraction and conversation, flirting and courting, that used to be passed along from one youthful generation to the next, just as childhood games were once passed along, but are so no longer. The boys and girls don’t hold hands.
I am aware of the many attempts by responsible Catholic priests and laymen to win the souls of young people, to keep them in the Church, and indeed to make some of them into attractive ambassadors for the Church. I approve of them heartily. Yes, we need those frank discussions about contraception. We need theological lectures to counter the regnant nihilism of the schools and the mass media. But we need something else too, something more human and more fundamental. We need desperately to reintroduce young men and young women to the delightfulness of the opposite sex. Just as boys after fifteen years of being hustled from institutional pillar to institutional post no longer know how to make up their own games outdoors, just as girls after fifteen years of the same no longer know how to organize a dance or a social, so now our young people not only refrain from dating and courting—they do not know how to do it. It isn’t happening. Look at the hands.
In our swamp of miserable statistics, let me introduce another that is often overlooked. In 1960—back when Wally Cleaver was wearing a jacket and tie to join other boys and girls at a party, for playing records and eating ice cream and dancing—in that already souring time, almost three out of four Americans aged 24 were married (72%). Now that number is less than one in ten (9%)! That is not a good thing. First, it is evidence of deep and widespread loneliness. We are not talking about people who are dating during all those years; they aren’t. Some of them are bed-hopping; some are shacking up; some are simply alone. That pretty much accounts for them all. Three options, all bad.
Second, it delays, perhaps derails for good, the time when young people will set down roots and integrate themselves into the great passage of the generations. In a culture where marriage is really treasured, that time is the supreme aim of most people’s lives. It is when the couple will plant orchards whose fruit they themselves will not enjoy—while tasting the fruit that has been made available to them by their parents and grandparents. The married couple, open to bearing and raising children, assume wholly new relations to the world around them. They need not rely upon the ministrations of a secular and soul-withering state. They themselves make a society within the larger society.
Third, it implies a divorce of love from the crazy vigor and cheerfulness of youth. And this is what I specifically want to stress. Young people should be oriented toward love; that is natural. Grace perfects nature; but that means there has to be a nature to perfect. But where, now, is the natural expression of this search for love? There aren’t any boys climbing the mountains to pick edelweiss for their sweethearts. There aren’t any sweethearts. There aren’t any boys singing “Annie Laurie,” nor any Annies for them to sing to. A whole mode of being has been lost, a mode of being that in every culture but our own produces a wealth of beauty, and sweeps young people along with its strong tide, into marriage and a world of families.
What do we do about it? Well, what would we do if we found a land of pallid, feeble, depressed children, kept withindoors all their lives, and so burdened with drudgery and the inanity of electronic gadgetry that they couldn’t climb a tree or fish in a pond or climb a mountain? We wouldn’t give them lectures on the wonder of the simple joys. We wouldn’t have them read articles proving the superiority of a way of life they cannot imagine. We wouldn’t focus on the intellect at all! For the problem is bigger than that, or more fundamental. We would get them outdoors, right away. It isn’t enough that no one prevent them from going outdoors, just as it isn’t enough right now that no one prevents our young people from holding hands, delighting in the company of the opposite sex, courting, and marrying. They’re lost. They hardly know where to begin.
And, let’s be honest, among all sane people, one generation assumes some responsibility to ready the next generation for marriage. They sponsor dances. Where are the dances, the concerts, in our parishes? Dancing, I know, is another one of those games that used to be passed along by the young to the young, but that’s long ceased to be the case. Now all we’re left with are the epileptic jerks of disconnected “partners” on a strobe-lit stage, all conversation made impossible by noise from hell, or the embarrassing slow-dancing, which you can hardly engage in with somebody you are only beginning to get to know.
Where are all the Catholic Youth Organizations? They used to sponsor basketball games, for both the players and the people who’d be in the stands cheering them. Where are the socials? Where are the bowling nights, the picnics? Where can our young people go to have innocent fun, not just alongside the other sex, but specifically for mingling with them, meeting them, flirting with them, searching for one of them to love? Where are we nudging them gently along toward marriage and the sweetness of that life?
These are not extras. They are of the essence. I’m deeply interested in theology, but most people aren’t. The “theology” they drink in comes from Mass, from prayer, and from—note this well!—the natural life of people in the Church. It comes from learning to love someone forever, under the canopy of the Church; it comes from the vow at the altar, and the child in the cradle, and the daily charities and forbearance of married life, life in a real and precious society.
It is irresponsible in us, then, to let our youth muddle and meander; to suppose that marriage will eventually “happen.” For my whole life, the ecclesially minded have asked, “What can we do to keep our youth in the Church?” And their attempts haven’t worked, because they have viewed young people as consumers of a churchly product, rather than as boys and girls, young men and young women, with obvious natures and needs.
So then—I call upon every parish in the United States to do the sweet and simple and ordinary things. Not everybody can speak learnedly about church architecture. Not everybody wants to hear about that. Not everybody can speak learnedly about grace and free will. Not everybody wants to hear about that. But everybody can learn to sing, everybody can learn to dance, everybody can watch a good movie, everybody likes a picnic, or a hike, or a trip to the beach, or a goofy time at the bowling alley, or a softball game, or an ice cream social, or coffee and tea and doughnuts. It is not good for the man to be alone—or the woman!
Sometimes our duties are difficult or dangerous. Not this time! So then, what is our excuse?
This article is relevant not only to its intended Roman Catholic Catholic audience, but to most Christian groups. Replace "Roman Catholic" w/ "Greek-Catholic" or "Greek-Orthodox" : the problem...and the solution...is the same.
SOURCE: Crisis Magazine
by
It’s been more than ten years since I first noticed something odd about the generally pleasant—and generally Catholic—students at the college where I teach. The boys and girls don’t hold hands.
Let that serve as shorthand for the absence of all those rites of attraction and conversation, flirting and courting, that used to be passed along from one youthful generation to the next, just as childhood games were once passed along, but are so no longer. The boys and girls don’t hold hands.
I am aware of the many attempts by responsible Catholic priests and laymen to win the souls of young people, to keep them in the Church, and indeed to make some of them into attractive ambassadors for the Church. I approve of them heartily. Yes, we need those frank discussions about contraception. We need theological lectures to counter the regnant nihilism of the schools and the mass media. But we need something else too, something more human and more fundamental. We need desperately to reintroduce young men and young women to the delightfulness of the opposite sex. Just as boys after fifteen years of being hustled from institutional pillar to institutional post no longer know how to make up their own games outdoors, just as girls after fifteen years of the same no longer know how to organize a dance or a social, so now our young people not only refrain from dating and courting—they do not know how to do it. It isn’t happening. Look at the hands.
In our swamp of miserable statistics, let me introduce another that is often overlooked. In 1960—back when Wally Cleaver was wearing a jacket and tie to join other boys and girls at a party, for playing records and eating ice cream and dancing—in that already souring time, almost three out of four Americans aged 24 were married (72%). Now that number is less than one in ten (9%)! That is not a good thing. First, it is evidence of deep and widespread loneliness. We are not talking about people who are dating during all those years; they aren’t. Some of them are bed-hopping; some are shacking up; some are simply alone. That pretty much accounts for them all. Three options, all bad.
Second, it delays, perhaps derails for good, the time when young people will set down roots and integrate themselves into the great passage of the generations. In a culture where marriage is really treasured, that time is the supreme aim of most people’s lives. It is when the couple will plant orchards whose fruit they themselves will not enjoy—while tasting the fruit that has been made available to them by their parents and grandparents. The married couple, open to bearing and raising children, assume wholly new relations to the world around them. They need not rely upon the ministrations of a secular and soul-withering state. They themselves make a society within the larger society.
Third, it implies a divorce of love from the crazy vigor and cheerfulness of youth. And this is what I specifically want to stress. Young people should be oriented toward love; that is natural. Grace perfects nature; but that means there has to be a nature to perfect. But where, now, is the natural expression of this search for love? There aren’t any boys climbing the mountains to pick edelweiss for their sweethearts. There aren’t any sweethearts. There aren’t any boys singing “Annie Laurie,” nor any Annies for them to sing to. A whole mode of being has been lost, a mode of being that in every culture but our own produces a wealth of beauty, and sweeps young people along with its strong tide, into marriage and a world of families.
What do we do about it? Well, what would we do if we found a land of pallid, feeble, depressed children, kept withindoors all their lives, and so burdened with drudgery and the inanity of electronic gadgetry that they couldn’t climb a tree or fish in a pond or climb a mountain? We wouldn’t give them lectures on the wonder of the simple joys. We wouldn’t have them read articles proving the superiority of a way of life they cannot imagine. We wouldn’t focus on the intellect at all! For the problem is bigger than that, or more fundamental. We would get them outdoors, right away. It isn’t enough that no one prevent them from going outdoors, just as it isn’t enough right now that no one prevents our young people from holding hands, delighting in the company of the opposite sex, courting, and marrying. They’re lost. They hardly know where to begin.
And, let’s be honest, among all sane people, one generation assumes some responsibility to ready the next generation for marriage. They sponsor dances. Where are the dances, the concerts, in our parishes? Dancing, I know, is another one of those games that used to be passed along by the young to the young, but that’s long ceased to be the case. Now all we’re left with are the epileptic jerks of disconnected “partners” on a strobe-lit stage, all conversation made impossible by noise from hell, or the embarrassing slow-dancing, which you can hardly engage in with somebody you are only beginning to get to know.
Where are all the Catholic Youth Organizations? They used to sponsor basketball games, for both the players and the people who’d be in the stands cheering them. Where are the socials? Where are the bowling nights, the picnics? Where can our young people go to have innocent fun, not just alongside the other sex, but specifically for mingling with them, meeting them, flirting with them, searching for one of them to love? Where are we nudging them gently along toward marriage and the sweetness of that life?
These are not extras. They are of the essence. I’m deeply interested in theology, but most people aren’t. The “theology” they drink in comes from Mass, from prayer, and from—note this well!—the natural life of people in the Church. It comes from learning to love someone forever, under the canopy of the Church; it comes from the vow at the altar, and the child in the cradle, and the daily charities and forbearance of married life, life in a real and precious society.
It is irresponsible in us, then, to let our youth muddle and meander; to suppose that marriage will eventually “happen.” For my whole life, the ecclesially minded have asked, “What can we do to keep our youth in the Church?” And their attempts haven’t worked, because they have viewed young people as consumers of a churchly product, rather than as boys and girls, young men and young women, with obvious natures and needs.
So then—I call upon every parish in the United States to do the sweet and simple and ordinary things. Not everybody can speak learnedly about church architecture. Not everybody wants to hear about that. Not everybody can speak learnedly about grace and free will. Not everybody wants to hear about that. But everybody can learn to sing, everybody can learn to dance, everybody can watch a good movie, everybody likes a picnic, or a hike, or a trip to the beach, or a goofy time at the bowling alley, or a softball game, or an ice cream social, or coffee and tea and doughnuts. It is not good for the man to be alone—or the woman!
Sometimes our duties are difficult or dangerous. Not this time! So then, what is our excuse?
By Anthony Esolen
Professor Esolen teaches Renaissance English Literature and the Development of Western Civilization at Providence College. A senior editor for Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, he writes regularly for Touchstone, First Things, Catholic World Report, Magnificat, This Rock, and Latin Mass. His most recent books are The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ironies of Faith (ISI Press, 2007); and Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Press, 2010). Professor Esolen is the translator of Dante.“Pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance
To contact us Click HERE
William J. Tighe on the Story Behind December 25
SOURCE: Touchstone
any Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.
Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.
________________________________________________________________________
Related Touchstone articles:
The Making of LentOn the Origins of the (More or Less) Forty-Day Fast
by William J. TigheNot Caesar's IconEvents on the Calendar Aren't the Only Things that We Christians Need to See Differently
by Thomas S. BuchananPassover to EasterOn the Origins of the Primary Feast of the Christian Church
by William J. Tighe________________________________________________________________________
A Mistake
The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.
There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.
As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.
In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.
A By-Product
It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.
How did this happen? There is a seeming contradiction between the date of the Lord’s death as given in the synoptic Gospels and in John’s Gospel. The synoptics would appear to place it on Passover Day (after the Lord had celebrated the Passover Meal on the preceding evening), and John on the Eve of Passover, just when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem Temple for the feast that was to ensue after sunset on that day.
Solving this problem involves answering the question of whether the Lord’s Last Supper was a Passover Meal, or a meal celebrated a day earlier, which we cannot enter into here. Suffice it to say that the early Church followed John rather than the synoptics, and thus believed that Christ’s death would have taken place on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish lunar calendar. (Modern scholars agree, by the way, that the death of Christ could have taken place only in A.D. 30 or 33, as those two are the only years of that time when the eve of Passover could have fallen on a Friday, the possibilities being either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33.)
However, as the early Church was forcibly separated from Judaism, it entered into a world with different calendars, and had to devise its own time to celebrate the Lord’s Passion, not least so as to be independent of the rabbinic calculations of the date of Passover. Also, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of thirty days each, every few years a thirteenth month had to be added by a decree of the Sanhedrin to keep the calendar in synchronization with the equinoxes and solstices, as well as to prevent the seasons from “straying” into inappropriate months.
Apart from the difficulty Christians would have had in following—or perhaps even being accurately informed about—the dating of Passover in any given year, to follow a lunar calendar of their own devising would have set them at odds with both Jews and pagans, and very likely embroiled them in endless disputes among themselves. (The second century saw severe disputes about whether Pascha had always to fall on a Sunday or on whatever weekday followed two days after 14 Artemision/Nisan, but to have followed a lunar calendar would have made such problems much worse.)
These difficulties played out in different ways among the Greek Christians in the eastern part of the empire and the Latin Christians in the western part of it. Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.
In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)
Integral Age
So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.
This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.
It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.
Christmas (December 25th) is a feast of Western Christian origin. In Constantinople it appears to have been introduced in 379 or 380. From a sermon of St. John Chrysostom, at the time a renowned ascetic and preacher in his native Antioch, it appears that the feast was first celebrated there on 25 December 386. From these centers it spread throughout the Christian East, being adopted in Alexandria around 432 and in Jerusalem a century or more later. The Armenians, alone among ancient Christian churches, have never adopted it, and to this day celebrate Christ’s birth, manifestation to the magi, and baptism on January 6th.
Western churches, in turn, gradually adopted the January 6th Epiphany feast from the East, Rome doing so sometime between 366 and 394. But in the West, the feast was generally presented as the commemoration of the visit of the magi to the infant Christ, and as such, it was an important feast, but not one of the most important ones—a striking contrast to its position in the East, where it remains the second most important festival of the church year, second only to Pascha (Easter).
In the East, Epiphany far outstrips Christmas. The reason is that the feast celebrates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and the occasion on which the Voice of the Father and the Descent of the Spirit both manifested for the first time to mortal men the divinity of the Incarnate Christ and the Trinity of the Persons in the One Godhead.
A Christian Feast
Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.
And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the “Sun of Salvation” or the “Sun of Justice.”
The author refers interested readers to Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year (The Liturgical Press). A draft of this article appeared on the listserve Virtuosity.
William J. Tighe is Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a faculty advisor to the Catholic Campus Ministry. He is a Member of St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He is a contributing editor for Touchstone.
SOURCE: Touchstone
any Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.
Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.
________________________________________________________________________
Related Touchstone articles:
The Making of LentOn the Origins of the (More or Less) Forty-Day Fast
by William J. TigheNot Caesar's IconEvents on the Calendar Aren't the Only Things that We Christians Need to See Differently
by Thomas S. BuchananPassover to EasterOn the Origins of the Primary Feast of the Christian Church
by William J. Tighe________________________________________________________________________
A Mistake
The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.
There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.
As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.
In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.
A By-Product
It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.
How did this happen? There is a seeming contradiction between the date of the Lord’s death as given in the synoptic Gospels and in John’s Gospel. The synoptics would appear to place it on Passover Day (after the Lord had celebrated the Passover Meal on the preceding evening), and John on the Eve of Passover, just when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem Temple for the feast that was to ensue after sunset on that day.
Solving this problem involves answering the question of whether the Lord’s Last Supper was a Passover Meal, or a meal celebrated a day earlier, which we cannot enter into here. Suffice it to say that the early Church followed John rather than the synoptics, and thus believed that Christ’s death would have taken place on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish lunar calendar. (Modern scholars agree, by the way, that the death of Christ could have taken place only in A.D. 30 or 33, as those two are the only years of that time when the eve of Passover could have fallen on a Friday, the possibilities being either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33.)
However, as the early Church was forcibly separated from Judaism, it entered into a world with different calendars, and had to devise its own time to celebrate the Lord’s Passion, not least so as to be independent of the rabbinic calculations of the date of Passover. Also, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of thirty days each, every few years a thirteenth month had to be added by a decree of the Sanhedrin to keep the calendar in synchronization with the equinoxes and solstices, as well as to prevent the seasons from “straying” into inappropriate months.Apart from the difficulty Christians would have had in following—or perhaps even being accurately informed about—the dating of Passover in any given year, to follow a lunar calendar of their own devising would have set them at odds with both Jews and pagans, and very likely embroiled them in endless disputes among themselves. (The second century saw severe disputes about whether Pascha had always to fall on a Sunday or on whatever weekday followed two days after 14 Artemision/Nisan, but to have followed a lunar calendar would have made such problems much worse.)
These difficulties played out in different ways among the Greek Christians in the eastern part of the empire and the Latin Christians in the western part of it. Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.
In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)
Integral Age
So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.
This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.
It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.
Christmas (December 25th) is a feast of Western Christian origin. In Constantinople it appears to have been introduced in 379 or 380. From a sermon of St. John Chrysostom, at the time a renowned ascetic and preacher in his native Antioch, it appears that the feast was first celebrated there on 25 December 386. From these centers it spread throughout the Christian East, being adopted in Alexandria around 432 and in Jerusalem a century or more later. The Armenians, alone among ancient Christian churches, have never adopted it, and to this day celebrate Christ’s birth, manifestation to the magi, and baptism on January 6th.
Western churches, in turn, gradually adopted the January 6th Epiphany feast from the East, Rome doing so sometime between 366 and 394. But in the West, the feast was generally presented as the commemoration of the visit of the magi to the infant Christ, and as such, it was an important feast, but not one of the most important ones—a striking contrast to its position in the East, where it remains the second most important festival of the church year, second only to Pascha (Easter).
In the East, Epiphany far outstrips Christmas. The reason is that the feast celebrates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and the occasion on which the Voice of the Father and the Descent of the Spirit both manifested for the first time to mortal men the divinity of the Incarnate Christ and the Trinity of the Persons in the One Godhead.
A Christian Feast
Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.
And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the “Sun of Salvation” or the “Sun of Justice.”
The author refers interested readers to Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year (The Liturgical Press). A draft of this article appeared on the listserve Virtuosity.
William J. Tighe is Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a faculty advisor to the Catholic Campus Ministry. He is a Member of St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He is a contributing editor for Touchstone.
Why Americans Need An All-English Liturgy
To contact us Click HERE
SOURCE: Journey to Orthodoxy
by Robert Arakaki
From Fr. Roman: The following article speaks primarily to Orthodox Greeks in the United States,but I believe that much of it speaks to us here at St. Elias in Canada as well…..Lengthy, but well worth your time….
In 2007, Christianity Today published an article, “Will the Twenty First Century be the Orthodox Century?“ In it Bradley Nassif argued that Orthodoxy will indeed grow and expand in this coming century. But in an Again Magazine article, “The Orthodox Christian Opportunity,” Nassif noted although many people are converting to Orthodoxy, significant numbers of these converts are also leaving through the backdoor discouraged and disenchanted. Much of the reasons for their disenchantment lie not with the Orthodox Faith per se, but with the realities of Orthodox parishes. Nassif refers to this problem as Orthodoxy’s backdoor.
One of the major obstacles to the twenty first century becoming the Orthodox century is the language barrier. In many American Orthodox parishes the Sunday Liturgy is either in a foreign language or a mixture of English and non-English. Orthodox parishes with an all-English Liturgy tend to be in the minority. This blog posting addresses why we need all-English worship services, what can be done about the present problem of people exiting through the backdoor, and how we can help make the twenty first century the Orthodox century.
The Liturgy as the Front Door
The Liturgy is Orthodoxy’s front door. It is often the first place where people encounter Orthodoxy. There they see Orthodoxy in action: people worshiping the Holy Trinity. The Liturgy is also essential for becoming Orthodox. One cannot become Orthodox just by reading Orthodox books or visiting Orthodox blogs, one becomes Orthodox through participation in the right worship of the Holy Trinity.
However, people sometimes find Orthodoxy’s front door blocked when they attend a worship service where the Liturgy is done in a foreign language. Many visitors walk out after hearing nothing but Greek for the first few minutes of the Liturgy. It can be a painful experience. Many feel excluded, bewildered, and lost.
Linguistic zigzags — where the priest prays in English and the choir responds in non-English — are not uncommon in many ethnic parishes. For the unwary worshiper, it is like driving along on a smooth asphalt road then all of a sudden hitting a pothole. This can lead to a jarring, frustrating, and tiring worship experience. What should be a meaningful worship encounter with God becomes more like a tutorial in Greek, Slavonic, Serbian, Arabic, etc. Even several years after becoming Orthodox, many converts find themselves struggling with the Liturgy in a foreign language. People lose their place in the order of the Liturgy. It is not realistic to expect all converts to adjust to the Liturgy not being completely in English; some can make the adjustment, but many cannot. Continuous exposure to the Liturgy in a foreign language does not necessarily make it easier over time. As a result converts often find the Liturgy more a burden than a delight. And so converts are becoming frustrated and some are dropping out. These are not conditions conducive for spiritual growth.
Worship in the vernacular is the long-standing Tradition of Orthodoxy. This liturgical principle is rooted in the miracle of Pentecost. On that day the Christians spoke in tongues to a international gathering who were astonished to
Orthodox Missionary Practice
The history of Orthodox missions is full of examples of the use of the vernacular. A prominent example is Saints Kyril and Methodios translating the Liturgy into Slavonic. Another example is Saint Nicholas of Japan laboring many years to master the Japanese language before translating the Liturgy into Japanese. A third example is Saint Innocent of Alaska who translated the Gospels into the Aleut language. Non-vernacular worship — so widespread in America — represents a departure from historic Orthodoxy.
Thus, it is an innovation inconsistent with Holy Tradition. This innovation arose more from circumstance than deliberate choice. What was the vernacular for the first generation immigrants later became an incomprehensible language for the second and third generations, and for converts from another ethnic background. An innovation that arose from inaction requires deliberate action to bring the church back into conformity with Tradition.
Let Us Be Attentive!
The word “liturgy” means “the work of the people.” But the people can’t do their job of worshiping God effectively if the language is not their own. We are called to love God with all our mind (Mark 12:30) but worship in a foreign language gets in the way of our being able to worship God intelligently. Rather than assisting in worship, the non-vernacular hinders us.
One reason why the Liturgy should be entirely in English is Orthodoxy expects its members to be fully attentive in their worship. On several occasions during the Liturgy, the priest will call out: “Let us be attentive!” But if peoples’ minds start to drift when the priest switches to Greek (or some other foreign language), they are not really being attentive to the Liturgy. The problem is not with the worshiper, but the fact most people find it difficult to worship in an unfamiliar language.
Another reason for an all-English Liturgy is the Apostle Paul’s insistence that worship be in a language understandable to the listener. He wrote:
The Liturgy constitutes an ongoing catechism for Orthodox Christians. It continually reminds us of the fundamental doctrines of Orthodoxy. When understood, the Liturgy has a profound impact on our faith and worship. But, is not the Liturgy’s power to shape our thinking weakened by it being sung in an incomprehensible tongue? A danger of non-vernacular worship is parishioners can become so focused on phonetically reproducing the Liturgy they barely pay attention to the great truths being proclaimed in the Liturgy. If it is shrouded in language that is not comprehended, then the Liturgy will become an ethnic rite having little power to challenge us to live holy lives for God.
I visited a number of Orthodox services while I was at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, but they were mostly in Greek. It was not until I came to Berkeley and attended the all-English Liturgy at Saints Kyril and Methodios Bulgarian Orthodox Church that I was able to connect with the Liturgy and that the Liturgy began to reshape my theology and spirituality. It was the two years of hearing the Liturgy there that laid the foundation for my becoming Orthodox.
In addition to teaching us what the Church believes, the Liturgy also protects us from heresy. However, if the Liturgy is sung in a language poorly understood, its catechetical function is compromised. A priest once discovered a parishioner did not really believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He pointed to one of the antiphons which is sung every Sunday, “Only Begotten” (Monogenes), which affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, the parishioner never got the point because in that parish the antiphon was normally sung in Greek, not in English. In the long run, a non-comprehended Liturgy makes Orthodoxy vulnerable to heterodoxy and nominalism among the laity, not to mention people dropping out of the Church altogether. Orthodox laity whose grasp of Orthodox doctrine is weak or hazy will not be able to defend their Orthodox beliefs, nor will they be able to effectively live out their Orthodox convictions.
Ethnic Parishes
Many Orthodox parishes in America today are what can be considered ethnic parishes. They were founded by immigrants and continue to be under the care of hierarchs in the old country. The ethnic parish preserves the old country’s culture through the following means: (1) the language used in the Sunday Liturgy, (2) the food served on special occasions, (3) ethnic festivals and holidays, and (4) language classes. Ethnic parishes tend to diligently celebrate the lives of their ethnic saints while hardly making mention of American Orthodox saints.
Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese observed:
The term “old country” is not a pejorative term (as some might think) but a term accepted and used by social scientists, especially in the emergent field of postcolonial studies. Robin Cohen in Global Diasporas: An Introduction described “diasporic communities” as a community who live in one country while acknowledging that the “old country” has some claim on their loyalty and emotions (p. ix) and exerts a powerful influence on their social identity. Ties between the diasporic community and the “old country” can be especially intense in cases like the Greek-American community. In the Report to His Eminence ARCHBISHOP IAKOVOS (1990) it was noted that Greek-Americans are understood to be viewed either as an extension of the Greek homeland (homogenia) or as entrants and then participants in American history (p. 22; emphasis added).
Ethnic identity becomes even more complicated and fraught when a diasporic community shares the same social space, e.g., a local church, with Americans for whom the US is the only homeland they know of. This is what happens when an ethnic parish finds a growing presence of mainstream Americans joining them. They are confused that people would want to join the parish just because they want to be Orthodox. Many Americans want to become Orthodox, but very few want to assimilate into an ethnic parish and learn a foreign language and abide by foreign customs of the old country. To compel others to assimilate into a culture is contrary to the Orthodox tradition of missions and can even lead to cultural imperialism.
Jesus’ parable of the need to pour new wine into new wineskins and the foolishness of pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mark 2:22) applies to the present situation. Ethnic parishes are not well suited to meet the needs of converts from the outside. They can handle small numbers of converts, but if the numbers of converts become more than a trickle then the ethnic core can start to feel threatened resulting in a backlash. They will fear that the new members will undermine the ethnic identity of their parish, especially if the newcomers want more English in the Sunday worship.
There is no question that people have come to Orthodoxy via ethnic parishes, but their numbers are such that the long term impact will be minimal. If America is to embrace Orthodoxy, this trickle of converts will need to become a broad stream of converts. Ethnic parishes throw an unnecessary hurdle for non-ethnic for the above reasons. When it comes to evangelism ethnic parishes are like the eagle which is well suited for soaring in the sky, but unlike the duck is not well suited for life along the lake. In short, ethnic parishes are not set up for effective evangelism.
If Orthodoxy is to effectively evangelize America, an all-English Liturgy is essential. Orthodoxy’s future in America depends on the availability of an all-English Liturgy to ordinary Americans. The vast majority of Americans are monolingual English speakers. They are not comfortable with worshiping in a foreign language; nor will they be interested in shedding their American identity at the church entrance on Sunday morning. See my article on the three waves of Orthodoxy in America.
Changing Ethnic Parishes?
Can ethnic parishes be moved towards all-English liturgies? For the most part, I don’t think so. I’ve heard priests tell me they are gradually moving towards more English in the Liturgy, but what I have seen has been more of a back and forth movement in which very little change is made in the long run. Many parish priests are caught in a difficult situation of holding together a diverse parish community. While they personally may favor an all-English Liturgy, they also need to accommodate the needs and concerns of the longtime members (many of whom contribute substantially to the priest’s salary). It is a good idea to tell your parish priest you want an all-English Liturgy, but my advice is not to expect much to happen. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that ultimately it is the bishop who has the final say over the language used in the parish’s Sunday worship.
There are Orthodox hierarchs who have called for the “preservation and promotion of our Hellenic ethos and tradition.” This ethnic focus can be understood as a result of a high level national policy. Fr. Jim Kordaris, Director of the Greek Orthodox Department of Outreach and Evangelism, once admitted in an interview that the archdiocese policy was not to start an Orthodox mission unless there was a Greek core present. Thus, ethnic Orthodox parishes are more than the result of circumstances, rather they have their roots in the priorities and policies of both local parishes and the hierarchy. Those of us who desire all-English Liturgies need to respect their understanding of Orthodox missions and work actively with Orthodox jurisdictions that support all-English Liturgies and the evangelization of America.
Pan-Orthodox Parishes?
Pan-Orthodox parishes represent a different kind of missions strategy. Where there is not a large enough immigrant community to form an ethnic parish, one finds various ethnic groups cobbled together to form a single parish. In these parishes one can find the Lord’s Prayer in Greek, Slavonic, Serbian, Arabic, as well as English. The underlying premise of pan-Orthodox parishes seems to be that we should all hold on to the culture and languages of the old country, even though we’re all Americans, and our children are Americans, and most of us have no intention of moving back to the old country. The problem with pan-Orthodox parishes is they hold little appeal for many Americans. Pan-Orthodox parishes resemble the synthetic culture of the United Nations than real cultures that people inhabit. Because the culture of pan-Orthodox parishes are alien to mainstream American society, they are not capable of effective evangelism.
Pan-Orthodox parishes are like ethnic parishes in their retrospective focus on the old country. They therefore share all the problems mentioned above in regards to ethnic parishes. People without doubt will join these parishes but in the long run such parishes will exert only a minimal influence on the city or area they live in.
Dual Track Strategy
If we are to bring America to Orthodoxy then we need a dual-track approach. We need Orthodox parishes with all-English worship services, and we need ethnic Orthodox parishes whose ethos and language reflects that of the old country.
The dual track strategy is as old as the book of Acts. In the beginning of Acts, we read how multitudes of people converted to Christianity. But what is often overlooked is the fact that this movement was taking place among the Hebrew speaking Jews of Palestine. When we come to the sixth chapter, tension was growing between the Hebrew speaking Jews and the Greek speaking Jews. Communication difficulties led to many Greek speaking widows being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. Unlike the Jews who were fluent in Hebrew, the Hellenistic Jews’ mother tongue was Greek. The root of the problem lay not in sinful attitudes, but in honest linguistic and cultural differences. The problem was resolved by the creation of a dual track or bicultural leadership structure. The Apostles who were ethnically Palestinian Jews appointed Greek speaking Jews to the diaconate. This is evident by the prevalence of non-Jewish names: Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas (Acts 6:5). Also noteworthy is the fact that one of them, Nicolas, was a Gentile who converted to Judaism. The result was that
Orthodoxy can learn something from the experience of the Japanese American churches. They encouraged their children to learn English, and they gave strong support for English services. Where the older isseis (first generation) worshiped in Japanese, the younger nisseis (second generation) and sanseis (third generation) met in a separate service to worship in English. In other words, what looked from the outside like a single parish, was in actuality a dual-track parish. This missions strategy allowed the Japanese American churches to preserve church unity in the face of inter generational differences and avoid large numbers of youths dropping out for lack of interest.
Under the dual track strategy, the parish will have a main sanctuary for the English-speaking congregation and a side chapel for the ethnic congregation. This is needed to follow the rubric that only one Eucharist be celebrated per day. This means that a dual-track Orthodox parish will need to have at least two priests assigned to the parish to celebrate the Eucharist. This calls for a deliberate longterm missions strategy fully supported by the bishop of that city. If successful, we will see a network of dozens Orthodox parishes in each major city. Some parishes will worship in the language of the old country, but the majority of the parishes will worship in English. In this twenty first century diocese, Orthodoxy’s ethnic diversity is affirmed without any blurring of ethnic identity. This arrangement will reflect not just America’s growing cultural diversity, but also the catholicity of the Orthodox Church.
People might object that liturgical rubrics call for only one Eucharist to be celebrated in a parish per day and that the dual-track strategy being proposed is contrary to the established rubrics. My response is that what is being called for is an oikonomia or pastoral dispensation in light of unusual circumstances. It should be noted that we already have a de facto oikonomia given the widespread tolerance of two violations of Orthodox canon law:
(1) multiple bishops in the same city, and(2) the widespread usage of non-vernacular in the Liturgy.
The dual track strategy should be seen as an oikonomia, a temporary measure, until we have an American Orthodox Church. What is presented here is more of a suggestion to get a discussion going. The Orthodox community, both laity and clergy, need to have an open and frank discussion about how Orthodoxy can deal with the serious problem of the non-vernacular Liturgy.
Antiochian Breakthrough
In The Bridges of God, Donald McGavran, former professor of missions at Fuller Seminary, observe there are two approaches to missions: the mission station approach and the people movement approach. The mission station approach tends to be static with the mission station serving as the religious and cultural center for a group of expatriates and their converts. The people movement approach is dynamic with multitudes becoming Christians. The difference lies in their long term focus. Where the mission station is content with establishing a beachhead presence in a country, the people movement approach seeks to move inland to where the vast majority live. Orthodoxy today is situated in an awkward in-between situation. Thanks to the immigrants who founded ethnic parishes, Orthodoxy has a beachhead presence in every major American city. At the same time, Orthodoxy has barely moved inland where the vast majority live.
In the book of Acts we see the tension between the mission station approach and the people movement approach. In the opening chapters of Acts we read how thousands accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The early Christian movement was largely Jewish in makeup and centered in Jerusalem. This is characteristic of the mission station approach. Although we read of Gentiles becoming Christians in the early chapters of Acts (e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius the Centurion), these conversions represent little pockets of converts that lay on the margins of their culture. Christianity did not become a broad people movement until the Antiochian breakthrough.
Opening the Door to the Future
Business as usual cannot continue. Orthodoxy in America needs to restructure and retool itself if we are to effectively evangelize American society. One important (if not essential) way of retooling is to encourage and support all-English Orthodox services across America. If we have the Liturgy in English, people will come and they will stay. There is a growing spiritual hunger in America, and we can help these spiritually hungry people discover Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and Life. By committing ourselves to all-English services, Orthodoxy will be opening the front door and closing the back door.
Having an Antiochian breakthrough in twenty first century American society will require brave men and women who will sacrificially commit themselves to starting Orthodox missions in areas where there are no Orthodox parishes or where there are language barriers. The aim here is to have all-English Orthodox parishes across the country within reasonable driving distance. Two particular jurisdictions have been notable for their willingness to engage in starting up new missions:
It is also important that we not seek to change ethnic parishes. Attempting to do so is likely to be met with stiff resistance, while wasting precious time and energies. Rather than complain about the difficulties of non-English services, the better approach is to have a positive attitude and to take positive steps like helping to start all-English Orthodox missions. It is also important that mainstream Americans be supportive of ethnic Orthodox who wish to affirm their ethnic heritage. Ethnic Orthodox Christians have a rich cultural heritage that has been shaped by the Orthodox ethos over many generations. This is something many modern Americans lack. I once asked an Orthodox friend how he understood his ethnic heritage, all he could say was that he was a “mutt” — a hybrid of Scot, Irish, English, German and what have you — and that his ethnicity is “American.” We need to regard each other with respect and charity.
Twelve Reasons
Here are twelve reasons Orthodoxy in America need an all-English Liturgy:
Orthodoxy in 2100?
As we stand at the start of the twenty first century, we need to ask ourselves what our vision is for Orthodoxy in America. If we maintain the present course, what will Orthodoxy in America look like in the year 2100? Will there be the same small number of ethnic Orthodox parishes (maybe a little bigger) or will there be dozens of Orthodox parishes all over our city and people coming to Orthodoxy by droves? This is beginning to happen. The May 2007 edition of The Word reported that twenty-five catechumens were received into the Orthodox Church at St. Barnabas, Costa Mesa, CA. If we pass up this challenge, American Orthodoxy could end up an obscure religious curiosity. The present interest in Orthodoxy represents both an opportunity and a challenge for Orthodox laity, clergy, and hierarchy. If we rise up to the challenge, we can expect to see unprecedented growth and vitality for American Orthodoxy, and the twenty first century will be on its way to becoming the Orthodox century.
by Robert Arakaki
From Fr. Roman: The following article speaks primarily to Orthodox Greeks in the United States,but I believe that much of it speaks to us here at St. Elias in Canada as well…..Lengthy, but well worth your time….
In 2007, Christianity Today published an article, “Will the Twenty First Century be the Orthodox Century?“ In it Bradley Nassif argued that Orthodoxy will indeed grow and expand in this coming century. But in an Again Magazine article, “The Orthodox Christian Opportunity,” Nassif noted although many people are converting to Orthodoxy, significant numbers of these converts are also leaving through the backdoor discouraged and disenchanted. Much of the reasons for their disenchantment lie not with the Orthodox Faith per se, but with the realities of Orthodox parishes. Nassif refers to this problem as Orthodoxy’s backdoor.
One of the major obstacles to the twenty first century becoming the Orthodox century is the language barrier. In many American Orthodox parishes the Sunday Liturgy is either in a foreign language or a mixture of English and non-English. Orthodox parishes with an all-English Liturgy tend to be in the minority. This blog posting addresses why we need all-English worship services, what can be done about the present problem of people exiting through the backdoor, and how we can help make the twenty first century the Orthodox century.
The Liturgy as the Front Door
The Liturgy is Orthodoxy’s front door. It is often the first place where people encounter Orthodoxy. There they see Orthodoxy in action: people worshiping the Holy Trinity. The Liturgy is also essential for becoming Orthodox. One cannot become Orthodox just by reading Orthodox books or visiting Orthodox blogs, one becomes Orthodox through participation in the right worship of the Holy Trinity.
However, people sometimes find Orthodoxy’s front door blocked when they attend a worship service where the Liturgy is done in a foreign language. Many visitors walk out after hearing nothing but Greek for the first few minutes of the Liturgy. It can be a painful experience. Many feel excluded, bewildered, and lost.
Linguistic zigzags — where the priest prays in English and the choir responds in non-English — are not uncommon in many ethnic parishes. For the unwary worshiper, it is like driving along on a smooth asphalt road then all of a sudden hitting a pothole. This can lead to a jarring, frustrating, and tiring worship experience. What should be a meaningful worship encounter with God becomes more like a tutorial in Greek, Slavonic, Serbian, Arabic, etc. Even several years after becoming Orthodox, many converts find themselves struggling with the Liturgy in a foreign language. People lose their place in the order of the Liturgy. It is not realistic to expect all converts to adjust to the Liturgy not being completely in English; some can make the adjustment, but many cannot. Continuous exposure to the Liturgy in a foreign language does not necessarily make it easier over time. As a result converts often find the Liturgy more a burden than a delight. And so converts are becoming frustrated and some are dropping out. These are not conditions conducive for spiritual growth.Worship in the vernacular is the long-standing Tradition of Orthodoxy. This liturgical principle is rooted in the miracle of Pentecost. On that day the Christians spoke in tongues to a international gathering who were astonished to
“hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11, NIV; italics added)The Apostle Paul emphasized the importance of worship engaging our understanding. He wrote:
“But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (I Corinthians 14:19, NIV)
Orthodox Missionary Practice
The history of Orthodox missions is full of examples of the use of the vernacular. A prominent example is Saints Kyril and Methodios translating the Liturgy into Slavonic. Another example is Saint Nicholas of Japan laboring many years to master the Japanese language before translating the Liturgy into Japanese. A third example is Saint Innocent of Alaska who translated the Gospels into the Aleut language. Non-vernacular worship — so widespread in America — represents a departure from historic Orthodoxy.
Thus, it is an innovation inconsistent with Holy Tradition. This innovation arose more from circumstance than deliberate choice. What was the vernacular for the first generation immigrants later became an incomprehensible language for the second and third generations, and for converts from another ethnic background. An innovation that arose from inaction requires deliberate action to bring the church back into conformity with Tradition.
Let Us Be Attentive!
The word “liturgy” means “the work of the people.” But the people can’t do their job of worshiping God effectively if the language is not their own. We are called to love God with all our mind (Mark 12:30) but worship in a foreign language gets in the way of our being able to worship God intelligently. Rather than assisting in worship, the non-vernacular hinders us.
One reason why the Liturgy should be entirely in English is Orthodoxy expects its members to be fully attentive in their worship. On several occasions during the Liturgy, the priest will call out: “Let us be attentive!” But if peoples’ minds start to drift when the priest switches to Greek (or some other foreign language), they are not really being attentive to the Liturgy. The problem is not with the worshiper, but the fact most people find it difficult to worship in an unfamiliar language.
Another reason for an all-English Liturgy is the Apostle Paul’s insistence that worship be in a language understandable to the listener. He wrote:
“Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.” (I Corinthians 14:9, NIV)The danger here is that the Liturgy will turn into empty worship — something that the Old Testament prophets and Jesus denounced in no uncertain terms:
“These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8-9, NIV)The Liturgy as Catechism
The Liturgy constitutes an ongoing catechism for Orthodox Christians. It continually reminds us of the fundamental doctrines of Orthodoxy. When understood, the Liturgy has a profound impact on our faith and worship. But, is not the Liturgy’s power to shape our thinking weakened by it being sung in an incomprehensible tongue? A danger of non-vernacular worship is parishioners can become so focused on phonetically reproducing the Liturgy they barely pay attention to the great truths being proclaimed in the Liturgy. If it is shrouded in language that is not comprehended, then the Liturgy will become an ethnic rite having little power to challenge us to live holy lives for God.
I visited a number of Orthodox services while I was at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, but they were mostly in Greek. It was not until I came to Berkeley and attended the all-English Liturgy at Saints Kyril and Methodios Bulgarian Orthodox Church that I was able to connect with the Liturgy and that the Liturgy began to reshape my theology and spirituality. It was the two years of hearing the Liturgy there that laid the foundation for my becoming Orthodox.
In addition to teaching us what the Church believes, the Liturgy also protects us from heresy. However, if the Liturgy is sung in a language poorly understood, its catechetical function is compromised. A priest once discovered a parishioner did not really believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He pointed to one of the antiphons which is sung every Sunday, “Only Begotten” (Monogenes), which affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, the parishioner never got the point because in that parish the antiphon was normally sung in Greek, not in English. In the long run, a non-comprehended Liturgy makes Orthodoxy vulnerable to heterodoxy and nominalism among the laity, not to mention people dropping out of the Church altogether. Orthodox laity whose grasp of Orthodox doctrine is weak or hazy will not be able to defend their Orthodox beliefs, nor will they be able to effectively live out their Orthodox convictions.
Ethnic ParishesMany Orthodox parishes in America today are what can be considered ethnic parishes. They were founded by immigrants and continue to be under the care of hierarchs in the old country. The ethnic parish preserves the old country’s culture through the following means: (1) the language used in the Sunday Liturgy, (2) the food served on special occasions, (3) ethnic festivals and holidays, and (4) language classes. Ethnic parishes tend to diligently celebrate the lives of their ethnic saints while hardly making mention of American Orthodox saints.
Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese observed:
We consider ourselves Americans, and we are proud of it —except when we go to church, we suddenly become Greeks, Russians, Arabs, and Albanians.Ethnic parishes are an important part of Orthodoxy in America. It is in large part because of Orthodox immigrants who founded Orthodox parishes that Orthodoxy has such a widespread presence in American society today. Yet it is not realistic to expect that ethnic parishes are capable of evangelizing America. Orthodoxy is growing in America, but much of this growth is due to the planting of Orthodox parishes with all-English Liturgies. Ethnic parishes are not built that way; they are primarily suited to preserving the language, customs, and holidays of the old country. As such, they are designed for the first generation immigrants and their descendants, but not for American converts.
(Again Magazine vol. 28 no. 2, p. 5)
The term “old country” is not a pejorative term (as some might think) but a term accepted and used by social scientists, especially in the emergent field of postcolonial studies. Robin Cohen in Global Diasporas: An Introduction described “diasporic communities” as a community who live in one country while acknowledging that the “old country” has some claim on their loyalty and emotions (p. ix) and exerts a powerful influence on their social identity. Ties between the diasporic community and the “old country” can be especially intense in cases like the Greek-American community. In the Report to His Eminence ARCHBISHOP IAKOVOS (1990) it was noted that Greek-Americans are understood to be viewed either as an extension of the Greek homeland (homogenia) or as entrants and then participants in American history (p. 22; emphasis added).
Ethnic identity becomes even more complicated and fraught when a diasporic community shares the same social space, e.g., a local church, with Americans for whom the US is the only homeland they know of. This is what happens when an ethnic parish finds a growing presence of mainstream Americans joining them. They are confused that people would want to join the parish just because they want to be Orthodox. Many Americans want to become Orthodox, but very few want to assimilate into an ethnic parish and learn a foreign language and abide by foreign customs of the old country. To compel others to assimilate into a culture is contrary to the Orthodox tradition of missions and can even lead to cultural imperialism.
Jesus’ parable of the need to pour new wine into new wineskins and the foolishness of pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mark 2:22) applies to the present situation. Ethnic parishes are not well suited to meet the needs of converts from the outside. They can handle small numbers of converts, but if the numbers of converts become more than a trickle then the ethnic core can start to feel threatened resulting in a backlash. They will fear that the new members will undermine the ethnic identity of their parish, especially if the newcomers want more English in the Sunday worship.
There is no question that people have come to Orthodoxy via ethnic parishes, but their numbers are such that the long term impact will be minimal. If America is to embrace Orthodoxy, this trickle of converts will need to become a broad stream of converts. Ethnic parishes throw an unnecessary hurdle for non-ethnic for the above reasons. When it comes to evangelism ethnic parishes are like the eagle which is well suited for soaring in the sky, but unlike the duck is not well suited for life along the lake. In short, ethnic parishes are not set up for effective evangelism.
If Orthodoxy is to effectively evangelize America, an all-English Liturgy is essential. Orthodoxy’s future in America depends on the availability of an all-English Liturgy to ordinary Americans. The vast majority of Americans are monolingual English speakers. They are not comfortable with worshiping in a foreign language; nor will they be interested in shedding their American identity at the church entrance on Sunday morning. See my article on the three waves of Orthodoxy in America.
Changing Ethnic Parishes?
Can ethnic parishes be moved towards all-English liturgies? For the most part, I don’t think so. I’ve heard priests tell me they are gradually moving towards more English in the Liturgy, but what I have seen has been more of a back and forth movement in which very little change is made in the long run. Many parish priests are caught in a difficult situation of holding together a diverse parish community. While they personally may favor an all-English Liturgy, they also need to accommodate the needs and concerns of the longtime members (many of whom contribute substantially to the priest’s salary). It is a good idea to tell your parish priest you want an all-English Liturgy, but my advice is not to expect much to happen. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that ultimately it is the bishop who has the final say over the language used in the parish’s Sunday worship.
There are Orthodox hierarchs who have called for the “preservation and promotion of our Hellenic ethos and tradition.” This ethnic focus can be understood as a result of a high level national policy. Fr. Jim Kordaris, Director of the Greek Orthodox Department of Outreach and Evangelism, once admitted in an interview that the archdiocese policy was not to start an Orthodox mission unless there was a Greek core present. Thus, ethnic Orthodox parishes are more than the result of circumstances, rather they have their roots in the priorities and policies of both local parishes and the hierarchy. Those of us who desire all-English Liturgies need to respect their understanding of Orthodox missions and work actively with Orthodox jurisdictions that support all-English Liturgies and the evangelization of America.
Pan-Orthodox Parishes?
Pan-Orthodox parishes represent a different kind of missions strategy. Where there is not a large enough immigrant community to form an ethnic parish, one finds various ethnic groups cobbled together to form a single parish. In these parishes one can find the Lord’s Prayer in Greek, Slavonic, Serbian, Arabic, as well as English. The underlying premise of pan-Orthodox parishes seems to be that we should all hold on to the culture and languages of the old country, even though we’re all Americans, and our children are Americans, and most of us have no intention of moving back to the old country. The problem with pan-Orthodox parishes is they hold little appeal for many Americans. Pan-Orthodox parishes resemble the synthetic culture of the United Nations than real cultures that people inhabit. Because the culture of pan-Orthodox parishes are alien to mainstream American society, they are not capable of effective evangelism.
Pan-Orthodox parishes are like ethnic parishes in their retrospective focus on the old country. They therefore share all the problems mentioned above in regards to ethnic parishes. People without doubt will join these parishes but in the long run such parishes will exert only a minimal influence on the city or area they live in.
Dual Track StrategyIf we are to bring America to Orthodoxy then we need a dual-track approach. We need Orthodox parishes with all-English worship services, and we need ethnic Orthodox parishes whose ethos and language reflects that of the old country.
The dual track strategy is as old as the book of Acts. In the beginning of Acts, we read how multitudes of people converted to Christianity. But what is often overlooked is the fact that this movement was taking place among the Hebrew speaking Jews of Palestine. When we come to the sixth chapter, tension was growing between the Hebrew speaking Jews and the Greek speaking Jews. Communication difficulties led to many Greek speaking widows being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. Unlike the Jews who were fluent in Hebrew, the Hellenistic Jews’ mother tongue was Greek. The root of the problem lay not in sinful attitudes, but in honest linguistic and cultural differences. The problem was resolved by the creation of a dual track or bicultural leadership structure. The Apostles who were ethnically Palestinian Jews appointed Greek speaking Jews to the diaconate. This is evident by the prevalence of non-Jewish names: Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas (Acts 6:5). Also noteworthy is the fact that one of them, Nicolas, was a Gentile who converted to Judaism. The result was that
“the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly.” (Acts 6:7)Precedence for the dual track strategy can be found in the Antiochian Archdiocese allowing for both the Byzantine rite and the Western rite. A parish can elect to use one or the other but not both. This policy makes much sense and is practical. It also gives a parish liturgical stability. I would suggest that each parish be given the option of worshiping either in English or in the language of the old country, but not both. As noted earlier, mixed language worship is an innovation that has no precedence in the history of Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy can learn something from the experience of the Japanese American churches. They encouraged their children to learn English, and they gave strong support for English services. Where the older isseis (first generation) worshiped in Japanese, the younger nisseis (second generation) and sanseis (third generation) met in a separate service to worship in English. In other words, what looked from the outside like a single parish, was in actuality a dual-track parish. This missions strategy allowed the Japanese American churches to preserve church unity in the face of inter generational differences and avoid large numbers of youths dropping out for lack of interest.
Under the dual track strategy, the parish will have a main sanctuary for the English-speaking congregation and a side chapel for the ethnic congregation. This is needed to follow the rubric that only one Eucharist be celebrated per day. This means that a dual-track Orthodox parish will need to have at least two priests assigned to the parish to celebrate the Eucharist. This calls for a deliberate longterm missions strategy fully supported by the bishop of that city. If successful, we will see a network of dozens Orthodox parishes in each major city. Some parishes will worship in the language of the old country, but the majority of the parishes will worship in English. In this twenty first century diocese, Orthodoxy’s ethnic diversity is affirmed without any blurring of ethnic identity. This arrangement will reflect not just America’s growing cultural diversity, but also the catholicity of the Orthodox Church.
People might object that liturgical rubrics call for only one Eucharist to be celebrated in a parish per day and that the dual-track strategy being proposed is contrary to the established rubrics. My response is that what is being called for is an oikonomia or pastoral dispensation in light of unusual circumstances. It should be noted that we already have a de facto oikonomia given the widespread tolerance of two violations of Orthodox canon law:
(1) multiple bishops in the same city, and(2) the widespread usage of non-vernacular in the Liturgy.
The dual track strategy should be seen as an oikonomia, a temporary measure, until we have an American Orthodox Church. What is presented here is more of a suggestion to get a discussion going. The Orthodox community, both laity and clergy, need to have an open and frank discussion about how Orthodoxy can deal with the serious problem of the non-vernacular Liturgy.
Antiochian BreakthroughIn The Bridges of God, Donald McGavran, former professor of missions at Fuller Seminary, observe there are two approaches to missions: the mission station approach and the people movement approach. The mission station approach tends to be static with the mission station serving as the religious and cultural center for a group of expatriates and their converts. The people movement approach is dynamic with multitudes becoming Christians. The difference lies in their long term focus. Where the mission station is content with establishing a beachhead presence in a country, the people movement approach seeks to move inland to where the vast majority live. Orthodoxy today is situated in an awkward in-between situation. Thanks to the immigrants who founded ethnic parishes, Orthodoxy has a beachhead presence in every major American city. At the same time, Orthodoxy has barely moved inland where the vast majority live.
In the book of Acts we see the tension between the mission station approach and the people movement approach. In the opening chapters of Acts we read how thousands accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The early Christian movement was largely Jewish in makeup and centered in Jerusalem. This is characteristic of the mission station approach. Although we read of Gentiles becoming Christians in the early chapters of Acts (e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius the Centurion), these conversions represent little pockets of converts that lay on the margins of their culture. Christianity did not become a broad people movement until the Antiochian breakthrough.
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:19-21, NIV; italics added)What is notable about this passage is that some spoke “only to the Jews.” Although the persecution dispersed Christians geographically, much of the communication of the Gospel flowed within the confines of Jewish culture. It was not until Antioch that some spoke the Christian message “to Greeks also,” that is, to the non-Jews that the long standing cultural barrier was breached; Christianity became a broad multicultural movement and the evangelization of the Roman Empire began in earnest.
Opening the Door to the Future
Business as usual cannot continue. Orthodoxy in America needs to restructure and retool itself if we are to effectively evangelize American society. One important (if not essential) way of retooling is to encourage and support all-English Orthodox services across America. If we have the Liturgy in English, people will come and they will stay. There is a growing spiritual hunger in America, and we can help these spiritually hungry people discover Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and Life. By committing ourselves to all-English services, Orthodoxy will be opening the front door and closing the back door.
Having an Antiochian breakthrough in twenty first century American society will require brave men and women who will sacrificially commit themselves to starting Orthodox missions in areas where there are no Orthodox parishes or where there are language barriers. The aim here is to have all-English Orthodox parishes across the country within reasonable driving distance. Two particular jurisdictions have been notable for their willingness to engage in starting up new missions:
- the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, and
- the Orthodox Church in America.
It is also important that we not seek to change ethnic parishes. Attempting to do so is likely to be met with stiff resistance, while wasting precious time and energies. Rather than complain about the difficulties of non-English services, the better approach is to have a positive attitude and to take positive steps like helping to start all-English Orthodox missions. It is also important that mainstream Americans be supportive of ethnic Orthodox who wish to affirm their ethnic heritage. Ethnic Orthodox Christians have a rich cultural heritage that has been shaped by the Orthodox ethos over many generations. This is something many modern Americans lack. I once asked an Orthodox friend how he understood his ethnic heritage, all he could say was that he was a “mutt” — a hybrid of Scot, Irish, English, German and what have you — and that his ethnicity is “American.” We need to regard each other with respect and charity.
Twelve Reasons
Here are twelve reasons Orthodoxy in America need an all-English Liturgy:
- Liturgy in the vernacular is part of Holy Tradition;
- Scripture teaches the importance of intelligible worship (Acts 2:11, I Corinthians 14:19);
- Scripture teaches the priority of loving God with our mind (Mark 12:30);
- The Liturgy means “the work of the people” and the use of incomprehensible non-vernacular languages hinders people from doing their work of worshiping God;
- The use of the non-vernacular impairs the Liturgy’s function of educating worshipers in fundamental Orthodox doctrines;
- The use of non-English met the needs of the first generation immigrants but is ill-suited for the needs of second and third generations, and mainstream Americans;
- Compromise solutions like pan-Orthodox parishes have in many instances failed to work;
- The use of the non-vernacular have caused visitors to walk out;
- The use of the non-vernacular have frustrated converts and caused some to become discouraged and drop out of church life;
- The use of the non-vernacular combined with a parish identity centered around a particular ethnicity have caused many converts to feel like outsiders;
- The use of the non-vernacular is contrary to Orthodox missionary practice; and
- The use of the non-vernacular is a major impediment to the evangelization of American society.
Orthodoxy in 2100?As we stand at the start of the twenty first century, we need to ask ourselves what our vision is for Orthodoxy in America. If we maintain the present course, what will Orthodoxy in America look like in the year 2100? Will there be the same small number of ethnic Orthodox parishes (maybe a little bigger) or will there be dozens of Orthodox parishes all over our city and people coming to Orthodoxy by droves? This is beginning to happen. The May 2007 edition of The Word reported that twenty-five catechumens were received into the Orthodox Church at St. Barnabas, Costa Mesa, CA. If we pass up this challenge, American Orthodoxy could end up an obscure religious curiosity. The present interest in Orthodoxy represents both an opportunity and a challenge for Orthodox laity, clergy, and hierarchy. If we rise up to the challenge, we can expect to see unprecedented growth and vitality for American Orthodoxy, and the twenty first century will be on its way to becoming the Orthodox century.
Bishop Borys Gudziak Comes Home
To contact us Click HERE
SOURCE: scotsmanonline.com
The red brick church with green domes has stood proudly on Tipperary Hill in Syracuse for almost 125 years. Founded and built by Ukrainian immigrants, St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church has ably served as a source of cultural identity as well as a wellspring of strong Catholic faith and tradition.
Its proudest moment is about to occur on Sunday, Dec. 30. Bishop Borys Gudziak will celebrate the Divine Liturgy at 10 a.m. for the first time in his home parish since his ordination as the 49 member of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv, Ukraine, on July 21.
Bishop Gudziak, has been named apostolic exarch for Ukrainians in France and appointed titular bishop of Carcabia. In addition to France, the exarchate also includes Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.
“This will be a reward, not only yours, but especially a reward to our parish whose son you are. For everything that happens in the church happens mutually – Ukraine, the Ukrainian diaspora, and our parish can all be proud for the Ukrainian Catholic Church to have such a Bishop,” said Father Mykhaylo Dosyak
Gudziak was born in Syracuse in 1960, the son of Dr. Alexander and Jaroslava Gudziak. His parents immigrated to the U.S. from Lviv, Ukraine, and Dr. Gudziak became a successful dentist in the community.
Borys and his younger brother, Marko, attended the parish school of St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church through eighth grade, and attended high school at the Christian Brothers Academy. He was an altar server at St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church, and parishioners remember him attending liturgy daily when he was already a young adult, kneeling by himself, deep in prayer.
“Besides being genuinely spiritual, kind, altruistic and brilliant, the then younger Bishop Borys was (and still is) also quite funny, an accomplished athlete (no one could beat him in ski races), and to this very day, my favorite dance partner at Ukrainian “zabavas” (dances) for his skills in lightning-fast spinning polkas and disco dancing,” reflected Lida Buniak, who grew up in this same Ukrainian community.
Borys graduated from Syracuse University in 1980 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology and Philosophy.
Bishop Borys moved to Lviv, Ukraine, in 1992, to establish and head the Institute of Church History, and he became the first rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University (formerly, the Lviv Theological Academy) in 2002.
Following the Liturgy, a Banquet will be held at Pensabene’s Casa Granda on State Fair Boulevard. Advance tickets for the banquet can be purchased at the Self Reliance Federal Credit Union on Tompkins St. until Dec. 14, or by calling Rosemarie Fruscello at 488-5401.
The red brick church with green domes has stood proudly on Tipperary Hill in Syracuse for almost 125 years. Founded and built by Ukrainian immigrants, St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church has ably served as a source of cultural identity as well as a wellspring of strong Catholic faith and tradition.
Its proudest moment is about to occur on Sunday, Dec. 30. Bishop Borys Gudziak will celebrate the Divine Liturgy at 10 a.m. for the first time in his home parish since his ordination as the 49 member of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv, Ukraine, on July 21. Bishop Gudziak, has been named apostolic exarch for Ukrainians in France and appointed titular bishop of Carcabia. In addition to France, the exarchate also includes Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.
“This will be a reward, not only yours, but especially a reward to our parish whose son you are. For everything that happens in the church happens mutually – Ukraine, the Ukrainian diaspora, and our parish can all be proud for the Ukrainian Catholic Church to have such a Bishop,” said Father Mykhaylo Dosyak
Gudziak was born in Syracuse in 1960, the son of Dr. Alexander and Jaroslava Gudziak. His parents immigrated to the U.S. from Lviv, Ukraine, and Dr. Gudziak became a successful dentist in the community.
Borys and his younger brother, Marko, attended the parish school of St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church through eighth grade, and attended high school at the Christian Brothers Academy. He was an altar server at St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church, and parishioners remember him attending liturgy daily when he was already a young adult, kneeling by himself, deep in prayer.
“Besides being genuinely spiritual, kind, altruistic and brilliant, the then younger Bishop Borys was (and still is) also quite funny, an accomplished athlete (no one could beat him in ski races), and to this very day, my favorite dance partner at Ukrainian “zabavas” (dances) for his skills in lightning-fast spinning polkas and disco dancing,” reflected Lida Buniak, who grew up in this same Ukrainian community.
Borys graduated from Syracuse University in 1980 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology and Philosophy.
Bishop Borys moved to Lviv, Ukraine, in 1992, to establish and head the Institute of Church History, and he became the first rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University (formerly, the Lviv Theological Academy) in 2002.
Following the Liturgy, a Banquet will be held at Pensabene’s Casa Granda on State Fair Boulevard. Advance tickets for the banquet can be purchased at the Self Reliance Federal Credit Union on Tompkins St. until Dec. 14, or by calling Rosemarie Fruscello at 488-5401.
Accolades continue to roll in for film "Archimandrite"
To contact us Click HERE
SOURCE: Byzantine, TX
(cerkiew.pl) - The documentary film "Achimandrite" directed by Jerzy Kalina has won of the International Documentary Film Festival and Television Programme "Radonezh" in Moscow. "Radonezh" is the oldest review and contest of the film productions about religion in Russia. It takes place under the patronage of Patriarch Kirill and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In the competition among TV productions, "Archimandrite" was the only film from Poland.
This is the seventh prize for the film about Father Gabriel, a monk from Podlasie, who has built the only one Orthodox hermitage in Poland in the village Odrynki on Narew river bank.
Archimandrite Gabriel is the founder and sole inhabitant of a hermitage in the Kudak wilderness on the river bank of Narew. For the first few years he lived there alone and prayed in a portacabin, without electricity, running water, completely cut off from the outside world. After some time, with the help of local Orthodox villagers, on the wilderness stood the wooden church, small monastery and outbuildings.
Today this place is visited by dozens of pilgrims. They are attracted by the extraordinary personality of Archimandrite Gabriel. With each he can find a common language, provides spiritual counseling, heals with herbs, breeds bees, and when necessary, pitches up and along with the other builds a hermitage. But will it be forever? Will the hermit find their successor in his life? The next candidates for the monastic life in the hermitage cannot withstand long ... They cannot live without comforts, the gains of civilization and contact with peers.
Jerzy Kalina’s film is more than a story about an exceptional man and his work. In the lazy Narew currents no less than crosses of Orthodox skithe our globalized world is reflected, facing away from spiritual values, craving for money and exchange of information. The strength of "Archimandrite" is that the author has managed to simultaneously touch of the local, rooted in the Belarusian-Orthodox Podlasie microcosm and universal values, fundamental in human life, regardless of age and his place in the world. For many Polish viewers this picture is also a surprising discovery of the richness of cultures and religions of our eastern border.
(cerkiew.pl) - The documentary film "Achimandrite" directed by Jerzy Kalina has won of the International Documentary Film Festival and Television Programme "Radonezh" in Moscow. "Radonezh" is the oldest review and contest of the film productions about religion in Russia. It takes place under the patronage of Patriarch Kirill and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In the competition among TV productions, "Archimandrite" was the only film from Poland.
This is the seventh prize for the film about Father Gabriel, a monk from Podlasie, who has built the only one Orthodox hermitage in Poland in the village Odrynki on Narew river bank.
Archimandrite Gabriel is the founder and sole inhabitant of a hermitage in the Kudak wilderness on the river bank of Narew. For the first few years he lived there alone and prayed in a portacabin, without electricity, running water, completely cut off from the outside world. After some time, with the help of local Orthodox villagers, on the wilderness stood the wooden church, small monastery and outbuildings.
Today this place is visited by dozens of pilgrims. They are attracted by the extraordinary personality of Archimandrite Gabriel. With each he can find a common language, provides spiritual counseling, heals with herbs, breeds bees, and when necessary, pitches up and along with the other builds a hermitage. But will it be forever? Will the hermit find their successor in his life? The next candidates for the monastic life in the hermitage cannot withstand long ... They cannot live without comforts, the gains of civilization and contact with peers.
Jerzy Kalina’s film is more than a story about an exceptional man and his work. In the lazy Narew currents no less than crosses of Orthodox skithe our globalized world is reflected, facing away from spiritual values, craving for money and exchange of information. The strength of "Archimandrite" is that the author has managed to simultaneously touch of the local, rooted in the Belarusian-Orthodox Podlasie microcosm and universal values, fundamental in human life, regardless of age and his place in the world. For many Polish viewers this picture is also a surprising discovery of the richness of cultures and religions of our eastern border.
- Awards for the movie: Golden Melchior in the category "Inspiration of the Year"
- All-Poland Reporter’s Competition MELCHIORY 2012 by Polish Radio.
- Jury’s award of The International Catholic Festival of Christian Films and TV Programs MAGNIFICAT 2012 in Minsk, Belarus, 2012
- The award for Best Cinematography at the Kyiv International Documentary Film Festival KINOLITOPYS 2012, Ukraine
- First prize in the documentary category of the International Orthodox Film Festival "Pokrov", Kiev 2012
- The "Bronze Turoni [barnyard animal]" International Festival ETNOFILM CADCA 2012, Cadca, Slovakia
- First prize in the documentary category of the International Charity Festival "Shining Angel" 2012, Moscow, Russia Award International Documentary Film Festival and Television Programme "Radonezh" 2012, Moscow
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)