“In Greek Let Us Pray”: Mission, Language, and Australian Orthodoxy

The perennial issue of liturgical language has once again taken center stage following the recent comments of Archbishop Makarios of Australia on the primacy of Greek in the Church’s liturgical worship. As a faithful member of the Holy Archdiocese of Australia and convert of 22 years, I welcome His Eminence’s comments for having generated robust discussion and an opportunity for reflection on some of the underlying factors that accompany the issue. My proposal for resolving this matter involves finding a pathway for aligning the priorities of our Archdiocese with the ecumenical conscience and missionary vision of our Patriarchate, rather than viewing the issue in isolation as another divisive language dispute. I endeavor to elucidate my reflections on mission in our local setting, appealing to Orthodox voices and the living witness of contemporary Orthodox Churches as guideposts for stimulating a vital conversation within our Archdiocese.

Controversies centered on the appropriateness or otherwise of liturgical languages are by no means new. One recalls the so-called “Trilingual Heresy” of the 9^th century which allegedly erupted when Frankish missionaries evangelizing Moravia insisted on the validity of only three languages to praise God: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The eventual resolution in favor of the vernacular championed by Ss. Cyril and Methodius (the great missionaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) underscores that the priority of the vernacular is accorded a normative status supported by the weight of Tradition. Hence, one must ask whether a Greek-dominant fixture in our liturgies can be reconciled with the missiological imperatives inherent to the fabric of the Mother Church, which in Australia finds its fulfilment in worshipping in English.

Mission is the Orthodox Church’s signature testifying that Christ is in our midst. It is the antidote to a world drifting into a spiritual void, recalling a similar situation which led God to issue his judgement through the prophet Hosea: “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos 4:6). It is an article of ecclesiological truth that mission belongs to the essence of the Church. Regrettably, with few exceptions the lack of missionary impetus has inscribed itself as somewhat of an immutable law of ecclesial nature in much of the so-called diaspora. This missionary inertia represents an anti-ecclesial novelty altering the manner in which the Church coexists with the world. Despite some notable exceptions, many parishes in Australia have paid little attention to the mandate to proclaim the Gospel to all nations (Matt 28:20), having elected instead to define the parameters of parish life in an insular manner prioritizing para-ecclesial activities such as folk dancing and modern language lessons.

I believe that our mandate is best discerned in a paradigmatic local Church—one that manifests the Mother Church’s ecumenical ministry par excellence and places this vision at the service of a vibrant missionary life. The Orthodox Metropolis of Korea represents a success story affirming that multilingual coexistence is not beyond reach but is in fact evidence of the Church’s commitment to overcoming barriers to koinonia and catholicity by integrating cultural plurality into a Eucharistic oneness that transcends temporal differences. The Metropolis ministers to the native population in the Korean language, while simultaneously caring for the émigré Orthodox residing in Korea—including, for example, Russians who are ministered by Russian clergy liturgizing in Church Slavonic. “From the Mother Church of Constantinople we have learned to think and act ecumenically,” Metropolitan Ambrosios (Zographos) emphasizes—a vision which has fostered the cultivation of a uniquely Korean Orthodox identity and expression of faith.

A missionary shift of this nature can disarm any antagonisms between Greek and English through the principle of accommodation, in tandem with laying the groundwork for new forms of parish life where English plays a more central role in a seamless transition towards a predominantly English-speaking Archdiocese. We must be reminded that the “migrant church” model – at once entrenching and entrenched by liturgical Greek – is incapable of meeting the new and complex realities facing our Church. Consequently, subordinating English will serve to further alienate the two distinct “grassroots” groups which will play an indispensable role in creating a thriving future Church: the post-migrant generation of “cradle” Orthodox and converts. As Fr. Doru Costache pointedly observes, “Challenged by the inherent tensions of their minority status Down Under, the members are interested in shaping an Australian Orthodoxy, not in ethnic agendas foreign to their everyday experience.”

The vision of realizing a multicultural and transnational Australian Orthodoxy should not be considered idealistic but viewed as the inevitable consummation of a gradual formation of an Orthodox identity infused by a liturgical mode of being that actualizes authentic personhood in Christ—which presupposes worship in English. The totality of this vision was expressed by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania:

“In each country, the Church is called to glorify God with her own voice. That means that in missionary work there must be a sincere respect for the identity of every nation….an endeavor not only to adapt, but also to incarnate the Logos of God into the language and customs of the country; and the sanctification of the people’s characteristics, so that they may become truly themselves, develop their own voice and add their own contribution to the common doxological hymn…”[1]

I must confess that precisely the opposite situation prevails in many parishes. As things currently stand, contributions to the universal doxological hymn are being made by fewer, increasingly ageing voices. Gauging the strong reactions elicited by His Eminence’s comments, the deleterious effects of insisting upon the incarnation of the Logos in languages the people cannot understand create make-or-break scenarios for the faithful. This is most unfortunate given that many of the arguments presented in favor of Greek appear to be motivated by non-theological factors such as aesthetics, cultural identity, emotion, and sometimes tribalism. From the standpoint of the Church as a school, the curriculum for educating the faithful is the liturgical life. A curriculum offered in an incomprehensible language relegates participants to passive observation with scant opportunities for active participation, leading to non-attendance. Our priority to build up Christ’s Body (Eph 4:12) through intelligible instruction in the dominicalDivine Liturgy should not be hindered—especially, dare I say, in view of our responsibility to redress the oft-cited unfamiliarity among the laity with Church teaching and the Holy Scriptures, shortcomings many believe are partly attributed to an insufficient use of English in our liturgies.

Expanding the use of English in Church life will enable the Holy Archdiocese to make the Orthodox Way accessible to all Australians and give compelling reasons for them to believe that the loving presence of Christ identifies with, walks with, and invites them to share in His life. The momentum to act upon the signs of the times without shying away from the challenges accompanying this vital endeavor is provided by our Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: “The Church of Constantinople always meets the demands of the times, has a vision for the future, and, as far as it is concerned, fulfills in its entirety the Ecumenical aspect of its mission.”

[1] Anastasios Yannoulatos, The Purpose and Motive of Mission. The International Review of Missions, Vol. 54, Issue 215 (1965): 289.