Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2

IMMIGRANTS, AND DIVINE WORSHIP

PREFERENCES OF IMMIGRANTS

Fifteen Greek and Cypriot immigrants were interviewed for the project, five male and ten female. Females were much more eager to come forth voluntarily. It appeared, at the time, that they had a deeper interest in making their feelings known. They asked, repeatedly, if their opinions would be read by bishops. We responded that, in all likelihood, the publication would come to their attention. Many of them had been in the United States for forty years or more. (See Biographical Data - Immigrants), p. 53).

Narrative Comment

Age and marital status. It is immediately apparent that the flow of immigrants to America is a continuing process. One-third of those interviewed are in the twenty-plus to forty-plus age range while the majority of immigrants at Saint Nicholas are over seventy years of age. This finding indicates that the immigrant culture is very much alive. The prospect of assimilation of the elderly is minimal since the influx of new, youthful immigrants continuously brings with it a fresh societal vitality that invigorates their forerunners. The fifty percent figure of unmarried women represents almost exclusively the proportion of the widowed.

Birthplace. The Tidewater Area in Virginia which includes Norfolk, Newport News, and Virginia Beach, a tri-city complex, claims the second largest concentration of immigrants from the island of Cyprus, with London, England, being the foremost. The native dialect, foods, blood relationships, and worship traditions are zealously preserved and buttressed.

Education. The greater number of both men and women have less than high school education. Women surpass the men in high school diplomas. Some men, however, pursue higher education than the women probably because the women traditionally are expected to be committed more to the homemaker and family endeavors. On the whole, husbands pursue avenues of livelihood that may enhance their capacity to sustain the individual and collective family aspirations. Occupation. Every immigrant in this interview in the parish of St. Nicholas is in business as the means of earning a living. Men either own their own restaurant, or motel and restaurant on the beach, or they work for another Greek restaurant and motel owner. Yet American generations of Greek descent have obviously not been influenced by their parents' occupational pursuits to a great extent.

Father and mother's birthplace. The 60 percent Cypriot-birthplace figure for men and women is a commanding one when compared to any other immigrant group in the parish. The remaining Greeks are from villages scattered throughout the mainland of Greece, the Aegean Islands, and the Mediterranean island of Crete. I know of no one in my parish who came from the island of Metelene, the largest island of the Aegean Sea whence my parents and the parents of my spouse originated. This concentration seems to support the follow-the-leader custom.

Father and mother's occupation. Without exception, all the fathers of the immigrants interviewed were in business in their homelands while all mothers were housewives. Some mothers, however, were permitted or required to help their husbands who labored many hours in their businesses, especially if their work was home based. This may account for the fact that most immigrant widows have no skills and are not active in productive endeavors outside the home.

Father and mother's education. All parents of immigrants, both male and female, had less than high school education in their motherland. Succeeding American generations placed a much higher priority on education and career pursuit or found greater opportunities for personal development and betterment than that of their forefathers. It may be that people well educated and well grounded in career tracks will not necessarily seek to migrate to another land. Those not having the means to acquire an education and gainful career seem more inclined to migrate.

Father and mother's religious affiliation. Predictably, the religious affiliation of all immigrants at Saint Nicholas was, and continues to be, Greek Orthodox. It can be argued that the religious affiliation of immigrant parents is a positive factor because many of their bloodline ancestry are Orthodox. It can also be argued with equal credibility, however, that parents' religious preference has, in many instances, made no difference because there is considerable evidence that a large number of offspring have found worship more meaningful elsewhere. (The topic of religious affiliation is not within the scope of this study. An in-depth study and examination of religious affiliation must be the subject of a future project).

Rarely do I participate in a Divine Liturgy when I am not aware of the presence of immigrant worshipers. My concern always seems to be whether or not what I am doing, while leading them in prayer, is understood and purposeful. The vast majority of immigrants reject the English language. Though they prefer the Greek language, they vaguely understand so very few liturgical phrases since the wording of the liturgy is not the familiar conversational language.

The responses reveal some interesting facts. Males opt for the worship practices they have been accustomed to since childhood although they seem resigned to accept some innovative worship patterns. Nevertheless, their heartfelt propensity is to be unequivocally loyal to their inherited ethnic-religious breeding. (See Divine Worship Preferences Data, p. 54).

Concerning language. The male immigrants in our survey, prefer the Greek language -- and with good reason -- according to Chrysie Constantakos. Disappearance of the Greek language may be tantamount to ethnic and religious extinction.[1] During the Romantic Era, a person's nationality was corroborated by the language he spoke.[2] Chaconas elaborates further by pointing to the three factors which hold together the Greek nation: language, geography, and religion.[3]

To demand that immigrant males worship in any other language than Greek is comparable to dislodging them from their ingrained culture and risking the experience of cultural shock, frustration, aggressive destructive reaction, and ultimately alienation. In endeavoring to westernize the immigrant, we may be inviting identity crises by clashing with who they are as persons, what they stand for, and what place and space they occupy in a society that has seemed to them not too cordial. Language in the worship setting, for the immigrant, is critical to understanding and spiritual nurturing. According to Lehner and Kube,

Language not only facilitates communication but it is the means by which many people preserve their faith and pass it on to their contemporaries and their descendants. Language enables the person to select, identify and manipulate aspects of a situation, express attitudes toward it, relate it to other situations in the past and future, direct his own actions and the actions of others with respect to it, and evoke in others similar attitudes and tendencies.[4]

Language, then, is the badge that distinguishes the Greek immigrant as a Greek Orthodox Christian in a setting inhabited by people of a variety of different faiths.

For the men, Greek is vital to their worship needs for the same reasons that the English language is vital to those whose native language it is. Their responses indicate (Appendix C) that they prefer the Greek language because that is the way they grew up and that it just doesn't sound right when the Liturgy is spoken in English. Others stated that the Greek language is vital to their needs. They understand the need for the English language for those whose native tongue it is, and it is precisely for the same reason that the Greek language is essential for them. They are resolute in the position that whether they understand the biblical Greek does not concern them. The Greek language is part and parcel of their awareness that they are in the right church with a priest who, for them, is doing all the things they need to have done (APPENDIX B, 202, A-3). There are two liturgies at Saint Nicholas on Sunday morning: Matins at 7:30 a.m., a Greek language liturgy at 8:30 a.m., and an English language liturgy at 10:00 a.m. Some of the men who attend the early liturgy declare that they do so because the Greek language is used. It is as if they are worshiping in the village they left behind and are never homesick on those occasions.

Furthermore, it must not be overlooked that our male immigrant respondents may be telling us that they need to experience an enthusiasm and a sincerity in actions that words fail to convey. Perhaps they are saying that physical movement, environment, decor, music, participation, etc., all deserve fresh consideration and that something more should be happening in worship in addition to the understanding of words and the use of their ears and mouths.[5]

Understanding is crucial, but all bodily activity needs to be scrutinized carefully because there is a strong possibility that postures and gestures communicate far more than we realize and may help lead our people to a deeper understanding and insight and more expressive response in worship.[6] We need to be fervent in our words, but postures, gestures, and movements give a greater intensity to acts of worship. The sign of the Cross, the kiss of peace, sitting, kneeling, reception of Communion, distribution of Bibles for people to follow scripture during the sermon "all that is within us can praise the Lord," nurture the spirit. Yet language remains, preeminently, the badge that distinguishes the Greek immigrant as a Greek Orthodox Christian in a setting inhabited by people of a variety of different faiths.

Women, however, feel differently. Although half prefer the traditional language in worship, not one of them is able to read it well and understand it. Some of the women interviewed in this category appeared perplexed. In expressing their preference for the English language in a culture where the male is predominant, they fear that to do so publicly for the sake of their children would be interpreted as a flagrant rejection of the husband's will. Yet, to choose to stay with the Greek language which, indeed, is foreign to American generations, could ultimately propel children to other religious affiliations where not only the liturgical language is intelligible, but active

I am in America and the Church should use the English language. It is absolutely ludicrous and irrational that the use of English in the Liturgy is forbidden by some clergy. The only reason may be that they are unsure in the use of the English language and find it too painful to expose themselves as inadequate in its use. I often wonder why the ability to communicate in the people's language is not considered a major qualification for ordination (APPENDIX B, 202, B-5).

However respectful a religious spectator may be, if the development of the liturgical theme takes place on a plane and at a distance he cannot reach, he, at best, is bound to be pleased aesthetically if the performance is good, but would hardly be moved to an inward stirring that is the beginning of any productive religious experience. If this detachment is allowed to continue, should his need for deeper religious involvement become imperative on account of personal circumstances, he will surely seek to cement another religious attachment.[7]

No changes in the system of thought and practice of a religious community can be too great or too sacrificing if they serve to keep its membership intact and in allegiance to Christ. Indeed, ceremonies are and should be doors opening to experiencing the divine, not banquets of beauty where worshipers can feast their emotions but starve their souls.[8]

Concerning the εικovoστάσιov. It is difficult to say which plays a more important role in enabling fertile worship: language or church decor. In this regard, the εικovoστάσιov may claim equal consideration. It began originally as a low rail decorated with Christian symbols.[9] Very few Orthodox Christians know that. Today it completely separates the sanctuary from the nave and the clergymen from the congregation. The general impression is that it has been thus since early Christianity. It is mistakenly assumed that the εικovoστάσιov has always been entirely covered with icons. Rather, it appears to have been a development in Russia in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries when it was raised in height so that it completely hid the altar from the congregation.[10] In the Armenian and Coptic churches, the εικovoστάσιov is

not used at all although a curtain may be drawn across the sanctuary at certain points in the liturgy.[11]

At Saint Nicholas, it is an embroidery of wrought iron which contributes to an ambience of holiness, without obstruction of view whatsoever. The entire sanctuary is exposed and everyone, priests and acolytes, are reverent in everything they do, which is not necessarily the case behind the closed εικovoστάσιov. One explanation of the solid εικovoστάσιov is that it veils heaven from earth, the altar being heaven and the saints who are depicted on the screen the mediators between the church on earth and church in heaven.[12]

In our survey, 40 percent of the women favor the closed εικovoστάσιov, 50 percent prefer the St. Nicholas open screen, and 10 percent prefer the low rails. Men, too, break with tradition in preferring the Saint Nicholas screen by 50 percent, while the remaining half prefer to stay with custom. Among those in favor of the revealing screen, some men speaking for the members of their families made some interesting and telling comments: they want to see how Holy Communion is prepared; they want to see what is going on and not just hear sounds coming from the other side. Other respondents prefer the closed εικovoστάσιov avowing, "I am not worthy to look upon some things" (APPENDIX B, 209,

However, females who defer to modification do so because their offspring prefer the St. Nicholas see-through εικovoστάσιov that attracts and holds their undivided attention and makes worship more understandable and meaningful. No one has yet to deny that by placing the icons on the back wall on either side of the Crucified Christ, the breath-taking celestial atmosphere that is fashioned commands attention throughout the Divine Liturgy. It is noteworthy that although immigrant men of Saint Nicholas say they prefer the closed icon screen, their regular attendance and their generous offerings seem to confute their stated preference.

the priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the traditional manner standing at the near side of the altar table with his back to the people because they have been taught, since childhood, that's where the priest is supposed to be. They prefer the priest standing with his back to the people because he is interceding on their behalf (APPENDIX B, 216, A-3).

Of the six immigrant women respondents, only two concurred with the men. Three wanted to know if the priest, standing with his back to the people, was doing something they were not entitled to see or know. They believe that everything the priest does ought to be exposed to public view. They regard the priest as communicating with the people, and having his back to the people is not the way to do it effectively. Women all agreed that they do not like to have to stare at the priest's back, especially if it is intended for the congregation to feel that they are a part of the service (APPENDIX B, 216, B-4).

Concerning incense. The use of incense, albeit moderate in some instances, is preferred without exception by both men and women more than any other custom that was considered here. It is indispensable even to those who experience some breathing difficulties. Many declared that incense represents the prayers of the penitents ascending heavenward. The vesper hymn that is sung during all vesper services as the deacon censes the congregation strengthens this view.[13] Women add that they have been taught to use incense at home on holy days routinely whether they go to church or not. Every home has a shrine with the icons of the patron saints located there. The censing of the home on holy days begins at the home shrine (APPENDIX B, 227, B-4).

It is of interest to know that incense was not used in the first three centuries of church history because of its association with pagan cults and emperor worship. By

the fourth century, its use became so honored that incense was given propitiatory significance.[14]

Concerning kneeling. Kneeling conjures up little argument although people are reminded that kneeling is not compulsory. For many reasons, however, the few who cannot kneel are urged to be seated. Nonetheless, Greece has left its mark deeply imprinted in the minds of its children in dispersion. Within the Church of Greece, celebrants, hierarchy, and people kneel when they pray during the consecration, and, as a result, worshipers kneel, too. In ancient practice, celebrants offered their prayers standing up, according to St. John Chrysostom.[15] At Saint Nicholas, most worshipers kneel unless " . . . my knees don't permit me to kneel." One widow who might well be speaking for many of her peers said, "I can't kneel anymore, I can sit and pray just as well" (APPENDIX B, 230, B-5).

Concerning acolytes. Acolytes are another matter. All immigrant men and most immigrant women spare no words in maintaining that girls do not belong in the sanctuary. And so, there are no girl acolytes at Saint Nicholas. But the survey has revealed that forty percent of women at Saint Nicholas believe very strongly that the Church, more than any other institution, ought not be reluctant to grant to little girls the same fundamental rights that are given to little boys.

They agree, however, that tradition and custom are formidable forces for denying girls the opportunity to serve within the sanctuary. Traditional practices sometimes seem unfair and keenly insensitive to the spiritual needs of little Christian girls. It was thought that a compassionate resolution for pleading little girls would be to accept them in the ranks of acolytes to serve -- on the σoλέα only. They would participate in all the duties assigned to boys, during the two entrances, except they would not enter the sanctuary. The experiment ended when the Bishop ordered it terminated.

Concerning singing the response. Men are not particularly anxious to participate in worship by singing the liturgical responses. They prefer that the choir sing. (APPENDIX B, 244, A, 1-5). Most claim they are not accustomed to singing. They say that if they wanted to sing they would have become Protestants. Greeks are not supposed to sing. That's what chanters are for.

Women, on the other hand, enjoy singing, but 80 percent of them prefer that they sing along with the choir leading the way. Only 20 percent prefer that the choir sing the responses alone. Men and almost all women state that they prefer to be led by the choir. On some Sundays when the choir is excused and the congregation finds itself entirely responsible for singing the responses, it is remarkable how quickly the congregation is transformed into an accomplished choral group.

From the exclamations on the part of the priest, it is obvious that the liturgy has undergone significant changes. Common actions seem to have been transformed into exclamations.[16] When the priest petitions during the liturgy, "Let us pray to the Lord," he is inviting the congregation to pray the designated prayer or to sing the hymn that follows. It is not expected that each person devise individual prayers. Or, when the priest intones, "Let us love one another," a call to a certain condition, there is considerable evidence that describes a kiss being performed. With the passing of time, however, the action-response has been narrowed to the choir or to the sanctuary alone as is done to this day.[17] In the great majority of Orthodox Churches, the singing is left to the choirs and the reading of prayers left to the priest to do "inaudibly" (while the choir sings).

The choir has displaced the chanter in making the responses because of "good taste," or, in fact, to train or lead the congregation in singing and stimulate participation. White stresses, "One of the chief jobs of a choir is to make itself unnecessary."[18] It rather appears, in the Orthodox Church, that we have, instead, made observers (or non-entities) of the worshipers, while the chanter and choir become the indispensable components. Patrinacos insists that the whole worshiping complement should sing their part in the Liturgy, not a few -- the choir -- sing for the people. This is one of the more important questions on which the survival of Orthodoxy will be decided here. Thus, in order to incline the people to sing during worship, there is a liberal policy of giving the choir "Sundays off" at Saint Nicholas.

Concerning recitation of prayers. Without exception, the immigrant male prefers that the priest say the prayers inaudibly at the altar because " . . . it is something only for the priest to do" (APPENDIX B, 254, A-1). Furthermore, the immigrant male is prepared to defend his position because to yield to "modernization" or "westernization" is to fracture his religious identity in a very painful way. It is not uncommon to hear one say scornfully, "If I want to recite prayers, or sing hymns, I would become a Protestant." Women, on the other hand, are divided in their approach toward reciting prayers. More than half feel they benefit spiritually by praying in concert with the priest.

Concerning frequency of receiving Holy Communion True to form, in principle, the male immigrant holds on tenaciously to the customary practices he learned in the homeland. In practice, however, it has been noted by St. Nicholas priests that some immigrant males do not hesitate to come forth for Holy Communion when they come to church. For the most part, however, once or twice a year seems to be sufficient. In contrast, most women always receive Holy Communion except on occasion " . . . when the Spirit moves me," (APPENDIX B, 260, B-5,6), which may be disguising a reason peculiar only to women in Eastern Orthodox nations. Many priests are convinced that more frequent communing results in a deeper and stronger intimacy with God. Our congregations are taught that from the first centuries of the Christian liturgical experience,

All the believers who attended the liturgy received Communion. It was rightly understood and widely taught that the purpose of the liturgy, as an expiatory sacrifice would not be brought to fruition without the believers communicating the Body and Blood of Christ.[19]

Unfortunately, by the end of the fourth and fifth centuries, people declined to approach the chalice as often because their unworthiness was underscored more than the need for redemption. This belief and practice have persisted to this day.

Concerning distribution of Holy Communion. Male and female immigrants are in complete agreement concerning the preferred method of distribution of Holy Communion. Eight out of ten prefer the traditional spoon, while two out of ten would rather receive by intinction. In this practice, the priest takes, with his fingers, a piece of consecrated bread (Body of Christ) and dips it into the consecrated wine (Blood of Christ) and places it in the mouth of the communicant.

For the most part, concerning the use of the λαβίς, they responded, "That's the right way in the Greek Church," or, "That's the way it's supposed to be in my church." (APPENDIX B, 264, A-2). There is little doubt in the minds of immigrants about how they ought to receive Holy Communion. In dispersion, the homeland tradition concerning distribution of Holy Communion is zealously guarded.

The average age of the fifteen male and female immigrants interviewed at Saint Nicholas is slightly over fifty-four and one-half. The men are older than their spouses by an average of eight years. They continue to come to the Tidewater Area in numbers significant enough to reinforce and perpetuate their homeland ethnic and religious traditions. Cypriots constitute the largest number of the Tidewater Orthodox population.

The education levels of male and female immigrants are comparable since more than half of all acknowledge having less than high school education. This may account in some measure for the fact that most immigrant Greek males at St. Nicholas are in the restaurant/motel business while their spouses are homemakers with few exceptions. They work long hours and live comfortably while both husband and wife are living. However, when husbands pass on widows, with no work skills, are unable to pursue gainful endeavors.

As expected from the beginning, this study simply gathered and organized into a systematic narrative what already was. The perpetual immigrant flow to America continues to transfuse and invigorate the homeland customs and traditions while frequent visits to the motherland strengthen even more the bonds that it was once feared dispersion would render fragile and frail.

Education is minimal. Men find the restaurant/motel business within reach while spouses are homemakers. Husbands work long hours to provide a comfortable living for their families.

The language of this land is resisted in Orthodox worship. Immigrants opt for the worship practices they were accustomed to in childhood even though they bend to some innovative worship strategies. Immigrants know they're in the right church when they hear the Greek language, smell the incense, hear the chant, light the candles, and scan the decor, while the priest is doing all the things they need to be done for their well-being.

There is a certain predictability about their social customs and religious beliefs that is compressed well within the barricades of the Greek Orthodox Church. Thus, the dispersed immigrant is able to affirm the sacred pledge he made when he set sail from the motherland: "A Greek I was born, a Greek I will die!"

The responses by the immigrant participants, summarized in Table 1 that follows, express their desire either to preserve language, liturgy, and church-decor traditions or to change them in some way.

TABLE 1.--RESPONSES BY IMMIGRANTS INDICATING NO CHANGE AND CHANGE PREFERENCES (Totals: 5 Males, 10 Females, 150 Responses)

In Table 1, the first column indicates the number of males and females who desire no change in traditional worship practices. The second column indicates the number of those desiring change in certain areas of traditional worship. The third column indicates the number who have no preference. The percentage figures then indicate to what extent traditional worship is preferred and overall change is endorsed.

It is immediately apparent that male immigrants prefer no change whatsoever in eight of the ten categories. Two of five will accept change in the closed type of εικovoστάσιov used in decor in preference to the St.

Nicholas completely see-through divider. Employment of the chanter to sing solo the traditional Byzantine responses has not even one voice of support. Patrinacos reports,

Originally, the celebrant would begin the singing and the entire congregation would follow. But because not all celebrants were in a position to lead the rendering of a hymn, the function and office of chanter gradually came into being. As Orthodox hymnology became in time more and more complicated in music, congregations could not follow in singing hymns relevant to the feast of the day, and two chanters singing antiphonally became the system of hymnody in the Orthodox church.[20]

Not the least of reasons for assigning the duty to chanters was that not all members of the congregation knew how to read or possessed the hymnals. Further, it was established that for the purpose of avoiding cacophony, only one person would sing a hymn, and the rest would join by

singing the refrain of the hymn or by repeating the last words where there was no refrain.[21]

Since the advent of the choir, the same reasons, for which the role of the chanter was established as a major function in worship, appear to be contributing factors toward a gradually diminishing presence and utilization of the chanter. The scarcity of qualified chanters has resulted in many smaller parishes having difficulty in engaging a chanter. Nor does it appear that lead-singing the Byzantine hymns in Orthodox churches provides an attractive incentive for the youth of the parishes. In many instances, priests resort to some modifications of the liturgy to diminish the negative effect brought about by the absence of hymn-singing. Some immigrants attend church primarily to hear the hymns sung by the chanter. To modify or eliminate hymns, to any degree, from their accustomed place in worship, may result in discontent with worship and with the priest as well.

Many immigrants, however, prefer the choir. The desire to participate in worship by singing with the choir is the new trend bringing with it a sacred feeling that makes for a holier people when they sing together. The choir is needed, moreover, to lead the congregation. Although everyone is holding a service book, many can read neither words nor music. This is apparent when the choir is not singing. Congregational singing diminishes. The

preference for congregation and choir together singing the responses is unanimous.

Less than half of the male immigrant responses, however, reflect a preference for change in the type of εικovoστάσιov such as the one utilized at Saint Nicholas. Immigrants maintain that the reasons for keeping the traditional closed εικovoστάσιov, as usual, are simply because that's the way it was in the homeland churches and there is a strong conviction that people are not worthy to look upon some things.

Still, less than half of the women agree. They are divided evenly overall between the desire to retain the traditional or welcome some change if the new generations that are cropping up are to be nourished. It appears, however, that opposition to indigenization in the church has lessened noticeably in some locations. A case in point today, as the twenty-first century approaches, is the liberal use of the English language in worship as compared to the mid-twentieth century period when the use of a language " . . . alien to the language of the Gospels," (words of former Patriarch Athenagoras), was a serious violation of ecclesiastical decree.

Still, Orthodox worship, like many others of her predecessors in western diaspora, is relentlessly drawn toward the twenty-first century with a posture more inviting and a spirit more receptive " . . . to all the nations in the land."

[1] Constantakos, The American-Greek Sub-culture, 213.