|
|
|
Question
39.
Father your blessing!
With regards to the G.O.A. of America, I have seen many things connected
to this Archdiocese that are quite unique/unfamiliar. The trends amongst
the clergy are different to those typical of Greek clergy (in Greece and
the diaspora). Also, the churches look different in many ways: very simple
(if any) templons; the use of musical instruments and of male/female
choirs (singing in a non-Byzantine way). In other words, the Greek Church
established in the U.S.A. seems extremely westernized and I cannot
understand why. Are any of these things a breach of Canon Law? Why are
they permitted and are unique only to the G.O.A. of America?
With respect
Evangelos
Answer to Question 39.
Dear Evangelos,
By trends of the clergy I presume you mean that many of the GOA clergy are
clean shaven. For the majority of the Orthodox World a beard is a
recognizable sign of a Priest which is deep rooted in Orthodox tradition.
Priests with beards go as far back as the time of Moses when God commanded
him to tell the priests (the sons of Aaron) not to shave or cut the beard
of their chins (Lev. 21:5). In general this applies to all men for God
created man with a beard to distinguish him from a woman. Although we are
no longer under Mosaic Law, priests continue to wear beards since the Law
was observed by both the Lord and the Apostles. A canon (96) from the
Sixth Ecumenical Council concerning hair says that: “Those who have put on
Christ through baptism have solemnly promised to emulate and imitate the
manner of life He led in the flesh.” Since a priest represents an image of
Christ he should resemble him in outward appearance with both beard and
long hair. Much of the Priest’s outward appearance is influenced by
monastic traditions. In older times monks were not allowed to have long
hair and many kept their head shaven on the top similar to the style of
the Western Benedictine monks, but under the influence of hermits who paid
no attention to their outward appearance and let their hair grow, the
tonsure was abandoned and long hair became the normal for both monks and
Priests.
In the west priests began to shave their beards towards the end of the
eighth century when Charlemagne (wanting to imitate pagan classical Rome)
ordered Western clergy to shave regularly. During the Roman Empire, it was
the custom for men to shave and being unshaven meant that you were a
barbarian. The order to shave was not immediately accepted by all the
western clergy, but many began to trim their beards quite closely thus
avoiding being clean shaven which seemed more effeminate. In the 11th
century Pope Gregory VII, tried to enforce shaving and by the sixteenth
century beardlessness for Roman Catholic clergy was enforced by further
canons which have since been dropped by the Second Vatican Council.
But that is the Roman Catholic Church; what about the new trend among the
Orthodox clergy? Trimmed beards and short hair seems to have become
fashionable from after the First World War. Priests justify this change by
saying that the long hair and beards can appear unsightly and with trimmed
beards they make themselves more approachable to the people. Other reasons
among educated Priests is that long beards make them look like uneducated
peasant Priests or that their wives demand that they tidy themselves up.
In the west Orthodox Priests were more justified in cutting their hair and
trimming their beards because many had to work fulltime in secular jobs
where a trimmed appearance was required by their employer. In America this
was taken to the extremes and Priest began to completely shave their
beards. They believe that living in a modern world requires a modern
outlook and because they live in societies with other Christian
denominations, they have been influenced by Ecumenism and have adapted
their appearance to be in line with the clergy of other denominations.
Thus not only have the beards disappeared but also the rason which in
public has been replaced by the suit and dog-collar. Of course it is not
the rason that makes the Priest and neither does a priest with a long
beard mean that he is a better priest that one without, but we should not
be ashamed to walk in public in our traditional clerical dress and
appearance. It is what makes an Orthodox Priest stand out and be
recognizable. A Priest being clean shaven and wearing an Anglican suit and
dog-collar can be recognized as a priest but not Orthodox. There are many
arguments for long hair and beards supported by Holy Scripture, tradition
and the Canons, but there are also many arguments in favour of new trends.
The final word should rest with the Metropolitan of each territory and the
Synod. If the Metropolitan insisted that a beard was an essential
requirement for ordination into the Orthodox priesthood, I’m sure that all
his priests would wear a beard. In America it is fast becoming acceptable
for Priest to be clean shaven, but in Orthodox countries like Greece and
Cyprus, a Priest without a beard would not be taken seriously or
respected.
Let’s now see the other parts of your question.
Orthodox Churches look different from one country to the next; e.g. the
Churches of Orthodox Russia may have domes but they look nothing like the
dome churches of Greece and Cyprus. Thus there is no fixed canon saying
how a church should look. In England most of the Orthodox Churches are old
Anglican Churches that were bought by the Orthodox Church after they came
into disuse by the Anglican Church. None of these have a dome and in fact
have the traditional Church steeple and belfry of Western churches. When
the Orthodox Church in London put forth plans to a local authority to
build a traditional Orthodox Church with a dome it was rejected with the
excuse that it would not fit in with the rest of the environment. When the
same authority was presented with plans for a great domed Muslim mosque
all the permits were issued without any problems or arguments that it was
not in the traditional style of the surrounding environment. I’m sure that
in America the Orthodox Church must have had similar problems especially
in the big cities. But the outward appearance of churches is not a matter
of faith; what is important is that there is a building dedicated to God
where the Orthodox faithful can come together to celebrate the Divine
Liturgy. This applies for the inside décor as well. Many communities do
not have enough money to pay the Priest a salary let alone to pay for
extravagant furnishings. But even in Orthodox countries, for many
centuries they didn’t have the beautifully carved and tall Iconostasis
that we have now become accustomed to. Originally the Sanctuary might have
been separated from the nave by portable Icon stands, but for many
centuries the separation was made by a very low screen which allowed the
priest to be seen. The Iconostasis like everything else developed and grew
until it finally became a dividing wall separating the Sanctuary from the
Nave. There is nothing unorthodox with having a simple screen made up of
portable Icon stands and in some ways it is an advantage because it allows
the faithful to have a better view of what takes place within the
Sanctuary.
As for musical instruments in Church this is clearly an influence from
western churches. Instrumental music was a part of the Jewish temple and
pagan rituals and from the beginning instruments were considered
inappropriate and out of character with the pure, solemn and spiritual
faith of the New Church. The human voice is considered the best musical
instrument to offer God our devotion because it is natural whereas
material instruments are artificial and in general evoke pleasure and
arouse emotions without spiritual value which are inappropriate for the
purpose of prayer. The Church also adopted a chant that, whether just a
single chanter or a choir, the voice offered is of one accord without the
four-voiced harmonies of secular choirs. This reflects that our faith is
of one accord and of one voice without confusion. The modern choirs of the
GOA are attempts to westernise even the musical traditions of the Church
to bring them in line with western ideas. They feel that musical
instruments and harmony voices are more attractive to westerners, which at
the final analysis means that Church singing is no longer pure and
spiritual but becomes a stage for a musical show. All that remains is for
the audience to applaud their efforts. There are no direct canons
forbidding the use of musical instruments except canon 75 of the Quinisext
Council which forbids anything that is unbecoming and improper to church
psalmody, but tradition and the fathers of the Church clearly forbid the
use of musical instruments on the ground that they are artificial and
theatrical.
With love in Christ
Fr. Christopher
|
|
|
