ORLAPUBS P. 130: ORTHODOX PIETY & AMERICAN CULTURE

[Several updates since 11-20-99 are due to correspondence from readers,
to whom thanks are proffered by editor and page-author.]

     American Orthodox live in a society that is wonderful in numerous respects (as compared with many other nations) but is not only not conducive to Orthodox piety but in truth is at war with Orthodox piety. We are not exactly in the situation of the early Christians in the Roman-Hellenistic Empire, and such overall parallelisms as exist do not offer very helpful guides. Except perhaps in the one or two Orthodox communities in the US and in places where Church schools exist (at least when they aim chiefly at teaching Orthodoxy rather than, futilely, at perpetuating some language or culture from abroad), Orthodox children have little chance of being prepared to face the ills of our ambient culture in such a way as to survive as productive Orthodox Christians in it. The various jurisdictions seem at times to spend more time either accepting or fighting American culture than finding ways to live in it without falling victim to it. Not many Orthodox families can succeed in fostering an atmosphere of Orthodox piety (daily prayers, fasting, living as members of Christ) even at home, let alone in the educational and social lives of their children. But more on this below.
     It is reliably reported that 80% of Greek Orthodox marriages are with spouses outside of the Church. (This statistic comes from a body whose presiding hierarch reportedly tried to curtail a joint Orthodox missionary institution into a purely GOA institution--an initiative that the rest of the Greek Orthodox rejected!) One doesn't know what the statistics for marriage with otherdox spouses is for other jurisdictions, but one wouldn't be surprised if a similar percentage were found in most of them. (Of course, the Orthodox spouse in some such marriages brings the otherdox spouse over to Orthodoxy.) Information of this sort tells us a lot about the non-success of Orthodox education, among other things; and it tells us a lot about the success of other religions and, far and away above all, about the strength of America's pagan culture.
     Why does Orthodoxy appeal to more non-Orthodox Americans than to the Orthodox themselves? We can give many prideful accounts, but and there is nothing amiss if Orthodoxy grows more from without than from within, since that represents missionary success. Of course, it may represent not only that but failure too.

A minor share in this catastrophe is the failure of the Church to adapt the fasting rules to a culture having different ideas of a healthy diet from that of first-millennium Mediterraneans--one in which olive oil plays no central role and in which one doesn't know which products contain dairy milk and which contain soy milk and has in any case healthy and viable substitutes for butter and olive oil, not to speak of alcohol-free beer (beer is not forbidden at most fasting times by some bodies), and peopled by those who would rather give up animal products and olive oil than sacrifice a host of other preferred culinary delights and pleasurable activities. Despite the problems of fasting, it is not really fasting when you forsake items other than the most pleasant culinary delights of your society. One likes hummus but can live without it.
But the real foe comes from outside of Orthodoxy. American culture has little place for Orthodoxy. (Even Greek restaurants may fail to offer an Orthodox diet--the items that alone are permitted during Lent and on most Wednesdays and Fridays.) The television shows due to be screened in the coming Autumn are reported to be going to be raunchier and racier than ever, though they could hardly offer more examples of husbands lying to their wives and children than they now offer. There is no shortage, but rather a saturation, of cultural "icons" as hostile to any traditional kind of Christianity as to a cultivated mind. Very telling of the extent to which Orthodoxy has been left out of American culture is the fact that unabridged dictionaries include the technical terms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufi'ism, etc., but not most of those current in Orthodoxy. One of the most impressive theological dictionaries has comparatively little about Orthodoxy and specifically Orthodox concepts; what is there is mostly limited to information about our older Saints and a few concepts that have been involved in notable differences with Western Christians, along with some information on different observances (e.g. Theophany vs. Epiphany). An Associated Press report in July, 1999, stated that the Armenians (Monophysites) broke off from the "Vatican," when in truth they broke off from the Pentarchy (the five ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) long before the Vatican split from the other four patriarchates because of, inter alia, Rome's insistence on a heretical change to the Creed which the other, more traditionalist, four Eastern patriarchates refused to agree to. So preoccupied have the Orthodox been to ensure their survival--at times in a ghetto-like existence--, so educated in languages other than English have the educated Orthodox been till recently, and so divided have the North American Orthodox been that they have unavoidably let American culture pass them by. This has had a good side as well as a bad side. But there is no need to expatiate on what everyone knows--the influence of Orthodoxy on America has been limited to hierarchs' praying at important government functions (presumably by economy, given the existing canons). So let's move from diagnosis to talking about a practicable cure.

Let's address pro forma prayers at football games, inter-Faith (often really Denominationist) prayers at public school graduations, and daily school prayers in public schools broadcast over loudspeakers for all to hear and for some to be justifiably offended by. (SEE HERE.) First, these have supposedly got to be "non-sectarian"--an impossible aim. Alternating prayers of different Faiths would also be wholly questionable and would equally well--and unfairly-- impose on the children of tax-paying atheists. Daily school prayers seem to be rarely composed by clergy; they seem to be composed either by individual children or school officials and are sometimes prayed in pagan fashion around sacred poles. Religious people should be more aware than others that religion has no value unless freely embraced. Since neither Christ nor the all-holy Trinity can be mentioned in inter-Faith prayers in schools where (as is often the case) Jewish or Muslim or atheist students are part of the school population; Buddhists are more numerous than Christian in parts of Hawai'i. Secondly, such prayers are not sung to Orthodox tunes and generally ignore Orthodox terminology, using terms not in use by the Orthodox. They do not inculcate anything remotely like Orthodox teachings; indeed, prayers invented by school children or school authorities can hardly avoid being heretical by Orthodox standards. Thirdly, When an Orthodox child observes the mandatory silence during broadcast prayers, that child can hardly avoid giving the appearance of doing something un-Orthodox--of in fact violating Orthodox Canons that forbid praying with heretics. Fourthly, people of any or no Faith--whose families are taxed at the same rate as others to maintain public education--cannot avoid hearing broadcast prayers (they cannot avoid keeping silent during them) and being offended by having to put up with them. Fifthly, how can it be claimed that those watered-down formalities achieve any moral goal when violence (including violence to "outsiders"--which may well include pious non-participating Orthodox students), shootings, and other uncivil behavior continue despite the praying? The only fair, workable, and constitutional solution is for each Faith to handle its own religious needs--e.g. by having a prayer service for its own constituents a few minutes before schools begin--not on school grounds but nearby--or else by offering an hour of religious schooling after public school hours--and/or on Sabbath (Saturday) mornings.

The Orthodox are not numerous in most areas, and traditionalist parishes often have no tradition of supporting the parish financially, let alone with given a percentage of one's income. (Till Communism, most were partly supported by the old-country government, which also supported local parishes, many of which had large land-holdings.)

     What about other solutions--(i) use of separate classrooms for each group wishing to hold prayers before regular school hours; (ii) home schooling; (iii) parish-funded schools? The first solution is better than public broadcasting of prayers, but divides up the student body along religious (and non-religious, in the case of atheists) lines; even if it were constitutional, it would create situations (like those in Ireland, Crete, Sri Lanka, Aceh, etc.) which are hard on minorities. And the Orthodox are usually a minority in North America. (i) Home schooling (see here for an Orthodox home-schooling page) )may be a way out, but it has drawbacks: First, it requires a lot of work by the non-breadwinner of the family and a degree of training that the majority would not have. Secondly, it is open to question whether shielding children from exposure to the social intercourse and competition of the real world--and its dangers--would prepare them adequately for adult life in that world. (iii) Private parish schools can be a solution only for extremely wealthy or well-endowed institutions able to hire the fittest faculty--piety cannot make up for a lack of learning. Parish schools often do silly things like teaching modern Greek or French or Spanish when other foreign languages would be more suitable (CLICK HERE) in the area where the school is located or for success in the world of commerce or whatever. (French is fine in Canada; Spanish is fine in areas where there are lots of Hispanics or where a student is preparing for commerce with Latin America [other than Brazil and a few island nations], but hardly elsewhere--hardly as preparation for advanced university degrees in many fields. Only Biblical Greek is suitable for all Orthodox pupils.) Parish schools may likewise commit the public-school error of switching or reversing the right ages for foreign languages (proper for the third to fifth grade) with the right ages for history, geography, and social studies (proper for high school students who are more aware than younger children of the world at large and more interested in such subjects). If the public schools exhibit this sort of ignorance, what about the less-well-paid though well-meaning faculty of a parish school--selected from the much smaller pool of those who are Orthodox and able to live at a lower salary? Monastics are not always the best teachers in such situations, though certain holy monks and nuns should teach where their talents and personalities are what is needed. When a parish school fails to educate a child or prepare him or her for the adult world, it can create later resentment in its graduates--which can have (unwarranted) negative consequences for whatever success the school has in inculcating religious truths and practices.   The most suitable age-mate friend (both in terms of desirable companionship and in terms of later success) for a given child may well be outside of the narrow confines of the parish school; opportunities for both good (and bad) companions to be found in a public school might not be available in a religious ghetto.   Anyhow, religious schools are not immune to the ills of public schools. I have already noted the wrong ages for teaching foreign languages, history, geography, and social studies. Even worse are reports concerning a Roman Catholic prep school where the salary of the football coach is reported to be twenty or more thousands of dollars higher than than the clerical head of the school; and it has been reported that the school has a greater number of assistant coaches than the nearby main campus of the state university! Private schools may not be able to afford the security measures--protection from hazards like fire and intruders--that public schools offer.
     All of the arguments point (except in rare and exceptional contexts) to having religious schooling for different religious groups in conjunction with but quite separate from public schooling. The reasons for inadequately financed and managed private schooling should be more than simply religious--inadequate or dangerous public schools. As for home schooling, the verdict is not yet in; where the parent doing the teaching is adequate to the task and has time for it, it may be desirable for certain years of a child's upbringing. But the delicate years of adolescence need a horizon that extends beyond the immediately family.
      One correspondent has pointed out that socialization in public schools is more contrary than supportive of an Orthodox upbringing.   This is true; moreover home-schooling can pay more attention to individual differences than public schools, and avoid various disciplinary problems. The only question, then, is will home-schooling past a certain age provide children with the ability to face the distractions of the outside world--its paganism, the appeal of other Faiths, etc.?   American, European, and other societies are very competitive. The question is how much a home-schooled child will be prepared to resist the competition if s/he has not had to face it.
      Some parents, however well-intentioned and indeed well-educated, are not suitable educators. In families where there is a single parent and s/he works at a job outside of the family, home-schooling is not possible on an individual basis. Occasionally, one reads reports of children isolated from public scrutiny in private homes being subjected to bizarre regimens--like being malnourished because of the monastic diet a child is subjected to by pious and indeed well-meaning, but unsuitable, parents. Pastors need to be attentive.
     Another consideration is that children also need best friends of their own ages--perhaps a non-Orthodox child in the neighborhood. Siblings and parents are not agemates and often cannot fulfill the role of "best friend." Even with respect to public schools, it has been found (according to TV reportage) that children from about the sixth grade on do better in all-boy and all-girl classrooms. Girls profit even more than boys in the absence of male academic competition at certain delicate ages (but, of course, not at all ages), while boys apparently also profit academically from learning in all-boys' classes during the teens.
     As correspondents have pointed out to the writer, good parenting is the most-beneficial aspect of religious education. This is undeniable where it is feasible.   But it is not a general answer. Besides the (citable but, one hopes, infrequent) instances of failures of children brought up by pious and attentive Orthodox parents to remain faithful Orthodox in adulthood, there is an even more serious problem: It has been reported that only 26% of American households contain two parents and children; the remaining households lack children and/or have only one (often working) parent. The number of Orthodox households will not exhibit the same statistics of course, but whatever the statistics are, they will show that parenting is not enough for the religious education of many Orthodox children.

     How can Orthodox piety survive in our cultural environment? How are parents to keep their children from being too infected by the grossness of it all--enough to keep them n the Faith and bring otherdox spousal partners over to it (or at least to insist on an Orthodox upbringing of their children) instead of "marrying into" other religions? Assuming that the aim of our efforts would be to live in this culture rather than to escape from it--most people will not become monastics or live apart from society in the Amish manner--how can that aim properly be realized? It would be worthwhile for some parishes to make an experiment. One possible approach will now be suggested--with all of the admissions of fallibility and weakness on the part of the author.
     One can begin with thinking what one oneself might have wished for in one's own upbringing. Suppose that a parish returned to the idea of Sabbath schools (i.e. on Saturdays). Instead of devoting the entire day to soccer and barbecues or movies, suppose children were encouraged to attend, for several hours interrupted by lunch with a proper thanksgiving for the food, a school--not necessarily temple classrooms but pervaded with a holy atmosphere--with icons everywhere, proper (and uniform) garb, prayers, even incense, etc. (This should not be overdone, though, since children would be in training to live in society, not to become monastics; an austere beauty would be the aim.) The atmosphere, rather than the total content of the teaching, should be other-worldly so that what is lacking on the outside might be felt in the school. The best of Orthodox liturgical music should be available in some quiet room--a library, perhaps--as well as during lunch, when talking would be forbidden (except for the table Blessing, which should be one feasible for use in the pupil's own homes). Christ should be on everyone's lips (even if the divine Liturgy is not celebrated or Communion received), and the Presence or Shekinah of the all-holy Spirit should be pervasive. Prayers should be made, though overdoing them in this particular environment would not have the positive effects some might intend. The school would be one in which pupils had classes on Orthodox teachings, on history (viz. that of Byzantion, the Vikings and Slavs, the Arab Mediterranean empire, and even Irish Christianity--all of which cultures thrived on the fringes of Europe during the Dark Ages of what we now mostly regard as "Europe") as well as, of course, New Testament Greek. Not least, there should be teachings, perhaps done in the form of dialogues (with no grades!) on how to live a relatively pious life in the midst of a pagan society; students should be encouraged to seek truth throughout their lives rather than being relativistic toward truth, to have unbiased attitudes toward other humans, etc.   Effort should be made to teach and practise Orthodox customs and etiquette--the ways of addressing clergy, when to bow to the floor and when just from the waist, where to cross oneself, etc., etc. Much of this information would naturally be taken by the pupils back to their families.
     An Orthodox phronema--pious but not monastically ascetic in this instance--should be inculcated in the project. Even at the secular level, children should be encouraged to come up with their own reasons for why the values of truth, honesty, love, non-emulation, etc. (all of which may not be present in their own households) are more worthy of embracing and emulating than greed, popularity, and unrestrained ambitions; these latter defects should be contrasted with integrity and piety.   Sex would have to be discussed more frankly than is usual in ecclesiastical circles; children's natural interest in their sexual urges and in the differences of the sexes should be amply satisfied in a proper manner rather than being stifled to the extent that they would be prone to accept the "satisfactions" and teachings of secular society. (Shunning sexual activity should not be focused on as the highest goal or end-all of godliness; sex should not be equated with love or presented in such a way that asexuality would oust the highest values and practices of Orthodox piety--or create a frame of mind uncongenial to either marriage or monasticism later on.) Of course, the overall goals would not be attained if the teachers were not sufficiently good apologetes, knowledgeable of Orthodoxy (and of other religious groups), if they did not come across as being open-minded (on which, SEE HERE), knowledgeable, and exhibiting no fear of there being some non-Orthodox "truth," whether scientific or religious, truer than Orthodox truth. The right sort of spiritual counselors having a fitting temperament should be available at all times.
     The temptation to have teams representing the Sabbath school in various sports, and even in oratorical and other more academic activities, should probably be resisted. Anyhow, there is no shortage of such competitive endeavors in the secular schools. Discipline needs to be promoted, but a sort of discipline that is not limited to eliminating disruptive behavior--a discipline of mind and worship as well general behavior, a discipline including academic propriety in belief and study as well as integrity in dealing with others. This kind of discipline would have to be a sine qua non of any project of the sort under scrutiny. If the Mormons can successfully have their children living according to Mormon discipline, the Orthodox should be able to have Orthodox children live under Orthodox discipline.

     Decent films could be shown, and discussions of interesting art and literature that would enrich the cultural attitudes of the pupils. Some of this might be linked to literary, musical, and artistic activities in the secular schools, assuming the teachers in question were coöperative. But it would be unwise--in numerous respects--not to depend on one's own resources. This is why the experiment should be carried out in a parish not bereft of resources. Nevertheless, the effort should be geared toward a project that could in its essentials be imitated by parishes with modest resources. One should never depend too much on wealthy--and therefore overly influential--benefactors.
     The atmosphere should be a happy one; any necessary strictness should be veiled in love and holiness and should not be disruptive of the dignified serenity of the atmosphere. If pupils are unhappy--or frightened by anything overtly threatening--the desired goals will be thwarted. Life in such an experimental day-school should totally avoid the hustle and bustle and rush of the outside world and flow as smoothly as possible. Problematic children and parents should be dealt with as unobtrusively as possible--and certainly not with the simple intent of "teaching other children a lesson." A discipline that conflicts with the aimed-at serenity and security of this proposal for inculcating Christian values would be as ruinous as the sort of enforced ignorance that used to prevail about the "facts of life"--how babies are born, etc. Reality should not be hidden from the pupils, though of course truth should be offered in the right amounts in due season. The best way of forming children's minds is to reveal what the world is really like, along with preparing them for resisting the wiles of Satan and that part of reality that is so abundantly under the dominion of the Evil One who is spoken of at the end of the Lord's Prayer. If everything should be conducted in contrast with the secular world, it should nevertheless not be presented as so hostile to outside reality that students would become aliens to the world in which they would later have to live and work. That is exactly not what they should be preparing for. Both those who are Marys and those who are Marthas need to learn how to live a holistic Orthodox life of mind and body in the world that exists.
     Maybe it wouldn't work. But it should be tried under conditions not so ideal that parishes with fewer resources could not emulate some aspects of the project. If it worked--and one should not only anticipate problems but also not get too upset by inevitable kinks that have to be worked out and ameliorated--other parishes might find it worth trying, given the right sort of quiet--not overblown--publicity as the latest thing from the Areopagos. Most Orthodox people cannot go off to live in an Orthodox community and so need to be prepared for the normal (if not "natural") world they will have to live and work in. That is where those not called to be monastics can do the most good (or ill).
     Who knows but what otherdox American children might, in the end, want to attend, even without parental pressure--and be influenced (without pressure!) towards holy Orthodoxy? We should not forget that the most licentious hippies of yesteryear sought exotic "Eastern" religions--Buddhism as well as less savory sects and cults--not seldom very austere and demanding ones! We should be able to maintain something of the discipline that sects maintain among their coteries--though without their brain-washing. It is important that one not retain pupils, whether Orthodox or otherdox, who are (after a period of testing) downright unwilling to attend, children who attend only because of strong family pressure. Not only would they spoil the atmosphere; nothing could turn a child against Orthodoxy more effectively than being subject to threat and force. Discipline there has got to be; but it should be a rational and attractive discipline of "'taste and see' (Ps. 33/34:8) how beautiful the Lord is" and "you are free to leave if you are bent on not staying" as well as "we are quietly going to get rid of influences that disrupt the serenity and goals of our project." Everything should be made as attractive as feasible--by which I refer to an otherworldly beauty--not an unrealistically syrupy sweet ambience devoid of the unpleasantnesses that are unavoidable in Orthodoxy and the world alike.   Discipline can be attractive, though it often isn't; a lot depends on the phronema of the staff. While avoiding discipline is not to be contemplated, there is a world of difference between the discipline of a prison run by over-strict puritans and pietists and that of sympathetic and loving disciples of Christ.
     Orthodox camps have been a step forward. One hopes that love for the search for truth is inculcated among the other athletic and non-athletic activities, and that professional encouragement of budding writers and artists will be offered as the camps become increasingly sophisticated. One remembers years ago when camps were mainly recreational, with some non-athletic activities filling in the time between games. Interestingly enough, Jewish private camps promoted academic progress as well as athletics, and the rest--speed reading, newspaper-editing, listening to and writing poetry (whatever a given counselor was good at), as well as tutorials in subjects that the campers had fallen behind in at school; computers hadn't come into use in those days.   I haven't visited an Orthodox camp, but I'm sure that prayer services and teachings about the Faith are part of campers' activities, along with sports, photography, computers, etc.; and that the atmosphere is probably balanced enough to be conducive to a degree of interest in the Faith.

     The Church needs thinkers. New issues like cloning and determining the sex of one's still unborn infants are not mentioned in the Bible. The tradition will have to moot the pros and cons and continue to filter out errors from the truth, under the leading of the all-holy Spirit, as it always has.   Moreover, we can expect that a recognition that orthodoxy's energetic framework has more parallels with modern scientific and other current thinking than the static frameworks of Western theology will not be without its effects, especially as deeper insights accrue from comparing and contrasting our framework with those of the West. I am referring here to deeper understandings of the organizing themes of orthodox belief.
      There exists a "dynamis" or potential for this in North America not to be found in traditionally Orthodox lands, where the few non-orthodox sects can have little impact on Orthodox thinking.   We have Orthodox and Latin and Evangelical professors on the same divinity-school faculties; and more of the Orthodox professors are women and of
course laypersons than has previously been the case in our country--and more of them are enthusiastic converts with no allegiance to a particular ethnic division.   (For lay theologians, cf. Panayiotis Nellas in Greece; for women, think of the saintly sister of SS. Vasil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa.)
      Reacting to those on the extreme left of Christianity--Liberal Protestantism and Fundamentalism, which share the same individualism, the same positivism, the same antisacramentalism, the same will-based framework, the same antitraditionalism--might serve to deepen our self-understanding. At least, it could do so. One thinks of a pastor of a parish in which a young woman or man marries a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness and (whether s/he converts or not) brings up the children as such--sometimes simply because of the absence of an Orthodox temple there (as on the island where I live): Does that pastor just throw up his hands and accept it? Does he rant and rave? Or does he find new insights in thinking about what he should teach the flock committed to him concerning the matter? Even if the last occurs, how does any developing insight get transmitted to the seminaries?   Sure, we read many examples of such problems encountered by early writers. But are they being taught, and, if so, are they helpful in today's contexts--say in places (on the island where I live) where Buddhists outnumber Christians?
      If an orthodox Christian cannot just go out an start a new parish the way the founders of sectarian groups (Christian fundamentalists, New Agers, what have you) do on a seemingly almost monthly basis here, there is yet much of a practical nature that can be learned from those sects.   What about discipline? The Mormon country church at the foot of the road leading to my jungle hideaway has six services on Lordsdays, I have been told, in order to accommodate the crowds--even though the Mormon rules are strict and the financial obligations anything but lenient.   (The kids follow the rules; families fast on certain Lordsdays, saving up the money that would have been spent on food against the day when expenses have to be paid by them for the family's youthful missionary sent anywhere in the world).   One Fundamentalist Christian group has a giant campus in the nearest sizeable town (though tat town has less than forty thousand souls, I think) and is building a similar campus (presumably with fewer of its many buildings and facilities) in a tiny settlement near here.   We Orthodox cannot do that unless (as on another island) some wealthy donor should subvene the costs. But we can learn other things.
       One can foresee many developments occurring in American Orthodoxy precisely because of its being in America. Such developments would result from having to confront the allurements of our pagan society (like the early Christians, though without the threat of martyrdom) on coming generations, and because of what insights could be gleaned from confronting different forms of Christianity (say, in cross-religion marriages, in service chaplaincies, etc.). It's an opportunity not to be lost. Even now, one prominent orthodox seminary reports that (if I remember correctly) only one-fourth of its seminarians are cradle orthodox, the rest being converts; and some of the cradle orthodox are from abroad.   The converts are mainly from Denominationism, though two were former Latins who after came just to learn and then converted.
     The challenges can be met if American Orthodox are not shackled in meeting them by uninformed pressures (including ethnic-political- linguistic influences and costs) of foreign jurisdiction. The problem is to get those in the appropriate positions and possessing the necessary intellectual talents and piety to work on the positive opportunities that America offers and then to influence those who can implement whatever comes out of their work.   Let us pray that the all-holy Paraclete will lead the American Orthodox to all truth, as OLGS Jesus Christ promised He would--and as He has done for almost two millenniums!
      Some less desirable aspects of American culture have already infiltrated some parishes of some jurisdictions of North American Orthodoxy.   Even the better aspects of American life (and there are many) cause trouble when they provoke foreign primates (even one appointed by Muslim governments) who do not disdain American financial support while refusing any rôle to those they call an "immature" (and "barbarican") "diaspora" in the selection of American hierarchs.    Will this affect ethics
or doctrinal theology? Probably; let's hope it will affect them for the good.

It has been pointed out to me (by one of the people I had asked to comment on a prior version of the foregoing) that I failed to mention home schooling and parochial schools. Where a parent is competent and has time and patience for home schooling, home schooling is commendable, provided that the social adjustment of the children is not hindered by being deprived of the give and take of other children. (One learns to deal with the world, a part of education, by dealing with the world.) A parochial school can provide a holy ambience for pupils; where a parish is really able to afford such a school and a decent library as well as to pay teachers adequately and provide for their pensions, such an undertaking would be worthwhile endeavor, assuming that the curriculum were satisfactory. (None of the few I know about has an adequate curriculum; not one I've heard of teaches New Testament Greek, and one that fails to offer New Testament Greek even offers French--another, modern Greek.) If the curriculum is not satisfactory (CLICK HERE) or the teachers are not competent or the library is inadequate, the holy environment will not suffice by itself to provide children with the sort of education needed to be cultivated seekers of the truth or enable them to proceed to good college or university; nor will it equip the pupils to earn a living in the coming millennium. Parishes lacking the means to achieve these prerequisites of an adequate parochial school--which is most parishes--will need to seriously consider alternatives such as the two hours after the secular school ends three times per week which immigrating Jews and Japanese provided for their children or else the Sabbath schooling discussed above.

One goal of the nativization of Orthodoxy in English-speaking lands would be the development of artistic productions reflecting the Orthodox ethos--translating traditional art without loss. (Icons would be an exception; iconography is hardly to be improved on.) Nativization does not mean becoming like the surrounding culture; it means translating traditional models (other than icons) into products meaningful to our surroundings. We should be able to hope for a time when talented Orthodox writers will write Orthodox dramas about our heroes--like the Western Man for all seasons--and books and films whose background is the Orthodox religion--like Western films on Joan of Arc and about Buddhists searching for wisdom. Fortunately, there are composers like John Tavener (a convert) and a few others who have felicitously performed the task under scrutiny for music. And theologians and apologists are just beginning to write in an Orthodox idiom--in contrast with works by non-native speakers in the past that just took over Latin idioms quite unsuitable to Orthodox thoughts. But where are the novelists, playwrights, and film-makers (among the many Greeks in the film industry) that reveal the Orthodox phronema to the surrounding pagan culture? Where is the English-speaking Dostoyevski who portrays Orthodoxy as it is lived and believed--our Worship, piety, and core beliefs? Where are the architects who can translate traditional models into a modern idiom without loss? Where are even efforts being made in Orthodox circles to promote such "translations"--a term not to be understood in its uncreative sense? What has not been feasible in the past is feasible now--in Britain, in North America, New Zealand, and Australia. But unless the writer is mistaken, not much is being done to encourage our potential T. S. Eliots, Dostoyevskis, Frank Lloyd Wrights, and Cecil B. de Milles. While the task has been easier in music for various reasons, eventually other fields will be tilled. As for philosophy, philosophers come and go--the examples of Berdyaev and Soloviev in Europe are not encouraging. I have recently come across an Orthodox philosophical work from Greece that seems to covers over "Orthodoxy" with Latin idioms and Germanic thoughts and manages to sound very little "different" from the surrounding world; e.g. not once is the basic Orthodox concept of energy mentioned, unless I have overlooked it. It is enough to make one wonder whether philosophizing should be encouraged at all.
For talented non-epigones, there is a whole new world waiting. Seldom in modern times has such an opportunity beckoned. Every priest should encourage any truly talented persons that he encounters who are not only Orthodox but also endowed with originality and taste to venture into this almost virgin territory. If I had any of the talents I am speaking of, I would want to jump in and enjoy the opportunity--one that seldom opens up to artists.