On Looking into
“Xenophobia in the Cloak of Progress – How English Liturgies Hurt the American Orthodox Church”
by Katherine Kelaidis
A Response
by P. Stamatis, M.A.
The above article appeared on the Public Orthodoxy site on March 12, 2025. At first glance, the intriguing title pulled me in to read, only to become confused by the attached sub-title: “How English Liturgies Hurt the American Orthodox Church.”
If the author ascribes to the Orthodox Church in America the moniker “American,” how can using the English language hurt the Orthodox Church? That’s like saying:
“How Greek Liturgies Hurt the Greek Orthodox Church.”
Furthermore, the sub-title offends the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) and the Antiochian Orthodox jurisdiction, both of which use the English language to deliver services to Orthodox faithful in America who speak and understand English. Also, many Greek Orthodox Churches are pressed to add more English. What language would the learned author have them use?
Aside from the rhetorical confusion, Kelaidis begins by declaring the Orthodox Church in the United States an “Immigrant Church.” This may be true a hundred years ago, through to the last major migration of the 1960s. However, three generations later (about 60 years), many faithful today do not characterize the Church as an “Immigrant” church. Currently, the majority of younger descendants of Greek immigrants do not speak Greek nor do they identify with the ethnic brand of their church. What are they to do, learn New Testament Greek?
It’s understandable to consider the first-line immigrants as “Diasporants,” but for how many generations must we carry that tag? And what is the cut-off date? This is 2025 and current research shows a dramatic decline in church attendance from those who were baptized in the last twenty-five years.
In the same paragraph, the author switches gears and accuses Americans of “Xenophobic Panic” for regarding recent immigrants (those illegally entering from the southern border) as “Criminals.” She also accuses the current administration for targeting them for removal through harassment and law enforcement purges.
Apparently, the author needs to be reminded about immigration laws that are violated by entering the U.S. illegally. I believe her own progenitors entered America through the proper channels and were vetted and welcomed into the country. I also suspect they expressed sincere gratitude for that privilege—which raises two questions: When was fidelity to this country of liberation, hope, and promise ever canceled? And when did adopting its language and culture change? It wasn’t! And it didn’t! Incoming immigrants followed the steps toward citizenship, faced the U.S. flag and proudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
As Kelaidis knows, the Pledge emphasizes allegiance to “One Nation, Indivisible” (incapable of being divided). In addition to loyalty to America, new citizens are expected to learn the language and assimilate in its culture for a more meaningful and diverse life. That’s how it was as recent as the late 1940s after WWII when this country offered sanctuary and the pursuit of success and happiness in the new world to millions of Europeans ravaged by war, hunger and oppression. Adjusting to culture shock in a new and different country was a small price to pay for freedom.
However, today, these millions who crossed open borders to our country are different migrants–illegal migrants. And they have not been vetted, examined for health issues, or questioned about a profession or trade for gainful employment; nor have they submitted names of close relatives or sponsors for additional support. That’s how immigration functioned traditionally: Lawfully.
In addition, it is not uncommon for a government to remind and announce to its citizens the official language of the land. In France, the language of record is French. In Germany, it’s German. In the United States, it’s English and so on. Of course, immigrants bring with them their culture and language, but this does not mean that they cannot engage in their respective cultural events and speak in their heritage language. The author gets unnecessarily alarmed into an “Assimilationist Panic” and assumes there will be some sort of enforcement. How absurd!
As I’m looking desperately to agree with some of the author’s points, I encounter yet another conundrum that has plagued Greeks and their descendants in this country for the last sixty years: Culture and Faith. Kelaidis introduces these two categories in connection with the preservation of the Greek language in America. She writes:
As some diaspora communities entered their 2nd and 3rd generations, conversations arose around how and if heritage languages should be preserved and, should it be that the heritage language was not being sufficiently preserved if that failure…should cause the liturgical language to shift to English.
The author makes it very clear that culture and faith in the Greek community are feathers of the same bird, so to speak. And the assumption has always been that Greek language and culture ought to be celebrated and promoted by the Greek Orthodox Church (GOA). I’m surprised at her position! I would expect her, as an academic, to draw a distinction between Faith and Culture and not blend them in the same pot. The Church exists to build spiritual growth in its people, while the Greek language has been the medium to deliver that message for millennia. However, church leaders seem to have lost their way in recent years and have concentrated their focus on the medium instead of the message.
Kelaidis then segues into the Liturgical language of the Church and fears its replacement by the “Assimilated Language” of the land. I’ll be first to allay her fears! Attempts to transition into all-English services in the GOA have been squashed for decades, which has stalled the growth of the Church in this country and helped it retain the title “Immigrant Church.” The fact remains that the Liturgical language happens to be New Testament Greek, a language that lies between Ancient Greek and the common vernacular. More to the point, it’s also a language that most Greeks today do not really understand. They may relate to the Greek words and love the sound of the petitions and chants but are at a loss as to their deep intended meaning. The irony thickens as the author continues her quest for preservation.
For too many years, the GOA has acted as an agent for promoting Greek nationalism and letters to Americans of Greek descent. It’s understandable to expect this coalition in the early years of immigration. After all, immigrants found themselves in a foreign nation with an alien culture and language. And they found comfort in Greek church communities where the Liturgy was celebrated in New Testament Greek and modern Greek was spoken freely. But sometime during the 1970s or 80s, certainly by the millennium’s end, a language transition should have taken place to serve the generations that followed. I’m sure the learned author realizes that assimilation, although dreaded, is unavoidable, especially for those born here.
Although Kelaidis considers this trend an “Anathema,” she ignores the reality that Greek-speaking people are diminishing quickly, which represents a vanishing “Omogeneia” minority to which the Church is still directing its ministry. It is also a disservice to Americans of Greek descent. Many of them are professionals who still enjoy warm feelings about their heritage, but they’ll be first to admit the widening gulf between them and Medieval-type services still celebrated in the language of that period by the Greek Orthodox Church.
As a result, many have become estranged from church services and ultimately feel disconnected and disenfranchised from a faith they inherited–mainly because of language. I would expect the author to exhibit more panic about this problem instead of a perceived xenophobia about the Greek language.