Inquirer said:  It is proper to say these things either way but it is not Proper to refuse to say things after 

the manner of 1, 2 and 3 but to insist on 1a,2a, 3a.

Fr.H:  That is correct.  In fact, their relationship would be that 1a, 2a,and 3a are explanations and further 

clarifications of 1,2,3, but could not be used "instead of" them, nor as the "only legitimate usage."  Thus, the 

perspicacious disciple would say that a causal relationship may be inferred from a proper causal pairing:  1 

because 1a; 2 because 2a; 3 because 3a.

 Let's move on:

> It is never proper, to say these things ...

> 1b.  God was not born

> 2b.  God did not weep

> 3b.  God did not die

Fr.H:  That's true, but because Scripture often uses "God" with the specific connotation of the person of 

God the Father, we could perhapsconceive of encountering it patristically, but certainly within the context 

that these three could ONLY be said if they refer ONLY to the person of the Father.  Thus the ambiguity 

of the statement (i.e. the not adding "God the Father" for the sake of clarification) would necessarily 

be eliminated in the context of the patristic (or liturgical) statement.

> It is never proper to say these things ...

> 1c.  God was not born but Jesus the God-man was born

> 2c.  God did not weep but Jesus the God-man did weep

> 3c.  God did not die but Jesus the God-man did die

FrH:  That's true, it is never proper to say these things.

> Now for the point of all this. Is it proper to say that "Jesus did 

not die a spiritual death because he was never separated from God and 

spiritual death is separation of man from God."  In what sense did Adam 

'surely die' on the day he ate of the fruit?  Was it not being separated from grace?  

So Adam died spiritually but not seeing separate of soul and body (until later) and the 

Lord died (separation of soul and body) but not 'spiritually?'

FrH:  One of the hymns of the Paschal hours is "in the tomb with The body and in hell (hades) with the soul, in paradise with the thief and on the 

throne with the Father and the Spirit, wast Thou O Christ our God filling all things uncircumscribed."   Remember that the removal of grace (i.e. 

Divine Energy) is not an act of wrath, but in the case of a sinful person in particular is, rather an act of mercy for those to whom grace for the 

sinful soul would be far more anguishing than the absence of grace.  The wrath of God and the grace of God are both the same Divine Energy 

in different states.   Grace is tortuous to a sinful human soul that is evil.  But as we read in the Fathers, the wrath of God when it is poured out upon 

the just is received as grace.  When received by a repentant soul who still has sin, however, although received as grace it still has some unpleasantness 

about it because it is purifying.  Thus, God permitted death, as St. Basil says, not to punish man, but so that his now sinfully empassioned 

self may be delivered from the body which led to eternal death.

   It is the same "grace" or "energy" in a different form that is both the warming fire of heaven for the saints and the anguishing fires of 

Gehenna for the heathen, for no matter how you cut it "our God is a consuming fire."  St. Paul's saying is that "he is not far from each one 

of us."  Thus Adam died the death in that the thing that was abundant life had turned into abundant wrath, and God removed Adam from 

Himself.  Of course, in place, God is here, in grace, various levels of it are there.  Life itself is a grace of the Spirit, and thus Adam still 

continued to have that grace, but not the grace of living in paradise.  Adam "died the death" because he no longer had communion (i.e. 

because, from his end, sin interrupted the synergeia—the ability to communicate with God's grace in a redemptive manner).

   When did Christ die the spiritual death?  To some degree right from The beginning of the Incarnation.  One of the things that differs us 

from the Franks (the Roman Catholics) is that the "Immaculate Conception" dogma is faulty, not just with regard to Mary, but with regard to 

Christ Himself.  He did not exempt Himself from the stain of Adam, nor from the corruption of death.  The only thing different is that he did not sin, 

by His perfect choice and perfect use of His human will.  But more specifically at the Last Supper, through the passion following and death.  

First He poured out his blood spiritually on Thursday afternoon, and physically thereafter, culminating in the full and complete death the next day.  

He "died the death" spiritually when He gave all His blood, when He went into Gethsemane and felt the absence of God.  Hence the Psalm of the 

Messiah "Eli Eli, lama sabachtani."  Thirst didn't exist until Adam "died the death."  Thus, the meaning of the report on the Cross that Christ said "I thirst."  

He did not say “I thirst according to my humanity.”  That would be absurd, because He is one person, it is obvious that it is according to His humanity 

since the divinity cannot undergo passion.  Please understand also that when we speak of grace being "removed," in both the case of Adam and the case 

of Christ, it is, again, not in place, for God is everywhere, but in communicative activity. But we also must remember that something was also 

going on that did not happen in the case of Adam—the humanity of the Second person of the Trinity feeling this "absence" of the Father and 

the Spirit in death, but even (by necessity given the unified energies of God) the voluntary withdrawal of communicative activity of His own divine 

energies from the (human) energies of His soul, so that He may be able in all things to undergo all that mankind does in "spiritual" and "physical" death.

Question:  Is it true that Kerygma and Dogma are distinctive aspects of our Faith?

Answer:  Let us define our terms

Kerygma—proclamation, announcement, preaching—spreading the Faith

Dogma—Officially pronounced doctrine

It is somewhat true that kerygma and dogma are distinctive elements, but only because dogma is “experienced” or “understood” as much as possible in Mystery.    Thus the two things that are even more distinctive in the Apostolic ministry of the Church are witnessed in the Liturgy itself: Kerygma (found in the Liturgy of the Word/Catechumens) and Mysterion (Mystery, found in the Eucharistic Synaxis/Liturgy of the Faithful). 

            Dogma (“officially proclaimed doctrine” as opposed to simply implicit doctrine) is the proclamation of the Church within itself of Mysteries that have been “hidden” till then, but then had to be more expressly revealed, i.e. in a more official manner.  But this official proclamation was still primarily toward those who were already members of the Church.  Hence, we find the creed and the other official pronouncements of the councils within the realm of Dogma.  Is the creed a kerygmatic statement?  And if so, does this mean that kerygma overlaps with dogma even though they have very distinctive purposes for existing (dogma for the maintaining and growth of the Body of Christ in the Trinitarian Mysteries of Truth, and kerygma for the obedient task of proclaiming the saving grace of God and calling one to the Trinitarian Mysteries of Truth who still remain without).  

Now here is the answer to the question “is the creed a kerygmatic statement, since it sums up many of the central elements of the Gospel and the rest of Scriptures?”  The answer is, that the creed (more properly “the Symbol of Faith) is moreso a statement of Mystery than it is a statement of kerygma, even though there is some overlap of content.  Why?   Because of its primary usage is as an affirmation of the faithful in the context of the highest of the Mysteries of the Church.        

            For the creed we find, not within the Synaxis of the Word (which ends with the dismissal of the Catechumens), but in the Eucharistic Synaxis (Marked by the petitioning of the faithful and the Great Entrance).  The Gospel is to be heard by all, but the creed to be proclaimed only by the faithful.  Hence, dogma still lies within mystery, and mystery is understood only within the viewpoint of the Church as the Body of Christ, which is so because it partakes of the Sacrament who is Christ.

            For although catechumens were to learn the Symbol of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer in private so that they would know it by heart for their baptismal affirmation, but do not fully experience its reality except when they proclaim it within the context of the Mysteries of the Church for the first time at Baptism/Chrismation/Communion (traditionally, since catechumens used to be dismissed before the creed was said, this would have been the first time the catechumens said the creed in a Liturgical context, hence experiencing it, not as concept, but as part of the Eucharistic Mystery, in which “we have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, and have found the true Faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity who has saved us.”  We express this Symbol of Faith/Creed with whole hearts in the context of Mystery.  This is not so with the Epistle or Gospel, because these were parts of the kerygma expressed by the Church to the world.

            Hence, the proclaiming of the Gospel was the focal point of the Church’s kerygma, whereas the Eucharist and the partaking thereof is the focal point of what?  Of dogma yes (for the ultimate purpose of expressed dogmas is the Communion with God of mankind), but more broadly, of Mystery, in which dogma (as an expression of otherwise hidden truths experienced in Mystery) maintains a central role and finds its experienced meaning--the experience of God Himself.   

Now again, God foreknew and predestined us (Romans 8.29) prior to the kerygmatic calling.  Then came the Kerygmatic calling (Rom. 8.30), for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”  After that came the Mystery, and hence justification by making oneself Mysteriously one with the Just One Himself, and glorification, by being identified with the Glorious One Himself (Rom.8.30), in which we gain understanding of the incomprehensible by Grace.  Thus kerygma is one concept, and Mystery another to be understood as two primary distinctive supplements in God’s salvation plan.

Joyfully in Christ,

Fr. Harry.   

P.S., this understanding of kerygma is why even those who1^st heard the Gospel in settings outside the Church can still being called by and through the Church, since it is only available to others because the Church first preserved it after the first generation of the Church wrote it.  Hence the Church still plays a role, even though it seems passive with regard to that person in this generation (since they may have learned it from the lips of a protestant minister), nevertheless, we should not ignore the dynamis, i.e. the power and the non-passivity of the Church for over one thousand years which caused it to be proclaimed and preserved and loved so much that it was one of the few things that Protestants and Catholics kept in common with each other and with us.  They are still called to salvation through the Church in this sense, if they assent to the calling of the Gospel, even if they have never heard of the Orthodox Church.

Now the Gospel is the pinnacle of kerygma, and yet it is also at the heart of the Mystery (an example of which is the anemnesis, whereby the Gospel truth of the Mystery of Mysteries is revealed, and the calling down of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s prayer, etc.).  So then, is part of the Gospel kerygma and part Mystery?  No, but rather the Gospel is the written word of God, i.e. truth revealed in written form (i.e. primary expression of revelation), which is a basis for both a revealed on different levels: by Mystery and Kerygma.  Hence the Gospel penetrates both Mystery and Kerygma, and is found at the heart of both.

            To “evangelize,” then, refers to two things: 1. the Gospel-based edification of the faithful

2. Calling people home to the Church by the proclamation and enactment of the Gospel.

Where does the principle of philoxenia (hospitality) fit in here?  Well, there needs to be several things:

showing hospitality to strangers “for thereby you might be entertaining angels unawares” i.e. those who you do not know if they are Orthodox/Christian or not.

showing hospitality to those who you know are not even accustomed to Christianity

showing hospitality to those who are familiar with Christianity but not Orthodoxy

showing hospitality to those who are familiar but not members

showing hospitality to a brother or sister in Christ from another place

In all of these things we have a model: the hospitality of Abraham, in which when we show hospitality to strangers, be it in category 1,2,3,4 or 5, we are on some level showing hospitality to God himself, and hence: “if you have done it to any of the least of these, by brethren, you have done it unto me.”

How do we go about doing any of this? 

1.  kindness—offer service books, handshakes, smile or some other gesture, etc.

Also, does your Church have something which could hinder someone in any of the 5 categories above (i.e. dollar amounts on the candle baskets, candles only in the front of  the Church, a disorganized coffee hour, whereby long lines are a problem, cliques in the social hall, leaving visitors or even co-parishoners isolated and alone. 

2. and 3. both need help with following the services and explanations. 

4. needs to feel that they will belong.  They need to feel a sense of reality in the parish of love and oneness.

5. needs to feel the comfort of the spirit.

Now the worst thing is for any of these to come in with children, and to have the children feel isolated.  Help out—let them know that you could be their children’s godparents and friends of the family.  Children must not feel creepy in your church (you know there is something wrong with your parish when a child feels uneasy when they are regular churchgoers.  Help to take care of their children while in Church (i.e. hold the children, let them see the icons, take them for walks, etc.).

Also, traditional processions and banquets on feast days need again to be a regular occurance.  Processions are a traditional way to reintroduce Orthodoxy to a neighborhood or a town.  Not just on Pascha night either!

Employers need to regulate employee policies to reflect the life of the Church—days off for the twelve great feasts (for other employees, they could take off for 12 other religious holidays).  They also need to take care of Orthodox brethren.  It is a shame what has happened, people not taking care of one another.

In any case, kerygmatic activities also include soup kitchens, houses of hospitality, hospitals or charitable doctor services, etc.  Are you taking care of your brethren.  When you participate in any professional charitable day (free dentist day, for example), post it in the parish and in announcements so that fellow parishioners who don’t have and don’t know will be able to take advantage of it first (as St. Paul says, we must minister to all men, but especially to those of the house of God). 

Question:  Father Harry,

Reading through Fr. Alexander Schmemann's HISTORICAL ROAD OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY. He
has a very negative view of Justinian, seeing him as the culminating episode
in the effort by the Empire to co-opt the Church for its own pragmatic
purposes. Details in Justinian's tyranny include his brutal suppression
of the last vestiges of paganism, his forced removal of any bishop he
didn't like and replacement with puppets who were only able to maintain their
chairs by police protection, his embarrassing strongarming of the Pope
and others in the awful events leading up to the 5th ecumenical council, and
several other similar things, culminating in the loss of Egypt and Syria
forever.  Schmemann thinks his"symphony" philosophy of church and state was essentially Pagan--the
State failing to understand that the Church was more than an instrument for
imperial unity and divine blessing. Do you think Schmemann is wrong in
all of this characterization or would you grant this portrayal but stress at
the same time Justinian's philanthropy, Church construction, and other good
works?

Answer:    I want to say first that, although there is much value in Fr. Schmemann's works, the Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy is by far Fr. Schmemann's least impressive work.  It is difficult for a historian to take it seriously.  He was very valuable as a Sacramental Theologian but as a historian left much to be desired.   

First of all, Schmemann is one of those who thinks that we have "progressed" past the Empire.  The claim is that neither the Empire (Byzantine nor Kyivan nor Russian nor Serbian, etc.) nor monasticism was altogether successful as a vehicle of spreading Christianity properly, since both imposed cultural restrictions in missionary activity, and carried pagan roots with it.   This is a common view in our day.  Of course, on some levels this is true, and on others it is misleading.  To blame St. Justinian for losing Syria and Egypt is unfair, since they were already lost.  I read two historians (cannot remember either of names right now) who state that the ratios actually changed in Egypt for the better from the mid-sixth through mid-seventh centuries due to two figures: Emperor Justinian and St. John the Almsgiver of Alexandria.  There are no recorded bishops that went to "their side" based on teh 5th council.  But there are, verifiably in the historical records, bishops who came to "our side" because of the 5th council.  Also, who can ignore his famous "Letter to the Monks of Alexandria Against the Monophysites".  In it, he formulates it in the language of Alexandrian "flesh" theology which was accused only radical monophysites, and not the "mainstream" non-Chalcedonians of heresy. 

As for symphony of Church and state, Justinian never advocated such a thing.  This is a clear misunderstanding of his teaching.  He advocated symphony of priest and ruler within the Church, not a symphony of church and state within the world.  His vision only applies to rulers who are Orthodox laymen and who are functioning in their distinctive roles.  This synergy of church and state was good in terms of their being Ecumene, but outside of a completely Orthodox government he thought symphony to be impossible, since only faithful Orthodox laymen are obedient to the Church and the Lord thereof and thereby can be Emperors of the Ecumene.  This cultural relationship likewise was not responsible for their leaving, the theology "simply being an excuse."  Tyranny is a clear exaggeration on Schmemann's part.  As for brutality, there are several instances which are not even verifiably historical, but are called by some "mere character assassination."  I suppose the nation of Israel carried pagan roots with it in his mind, with its prophet-king symphony?  This was the basis of Justinian's thinking, that God ruled all men, through the state in corporal matters and through the priest in spiritual matters, but because these two cannot be separated in man, but are a symphony in man (i.e. soul and body), and were a symphony in Israel, so should it be on earth.  All is the Church in such a model: Civil rulers are distinctive lay members of the Church with a specific God-appointed role and jurisdiction (St. Paul's idea, not his).  The danger is, of course, confusing the "Empire" with the "Church", the earthly kingdom with the heavenly kingdom.  But Justinian did not, and I think that this was clear from his writings.  He acknowledged that earthly kingdoms are fleeting, but saw as ideal an earthly kingdom that was ruled by sons of the heavenly kingdom.       

      As for his character, he built and rebuilt, out of his own funds, monastary and church buildings for existing and new communities as they sprouted up.  St. Justinian was superb in his almsgiving, with his own money establishing hospitals, hospices, establishing and redoing poorhouses and orphanages so that the persons in them could live well, even inviting the poor into his own banquets.  He made a law stating that it was required of Christian Emporers that they, out of their own funds, are responsible to maintain and build churches and philanthropic services (hospitals, etc.) with their own funds. The doors of his palace were always opened to all without distinction of nobility or commoner (one of the few emperors that did this, since assassins could easily get in and kill him).  Incidentally, no one ever did.  Whenever someone was put in jail due to speaking or acting against the emporer, he pardoned them and asked them their pardon whatever he did not provoke them.  He married Theodora, a commoner and (worse yet in those days) an actress.  He was the first Christian Emperor to make it fully possible for someone born in illegitimacy (by concubine, servant, etc.) to become fully legitimate and to do away altogether with the "pagan concept" of labelling someone made in the image of God as illegitimate, simply because their parents had sinned.     

Father

      The "sin unto death" in 1 John 5 may be unforgiven if one does not follow the instructions earlier given in 1 John to openly "confess your sins", but it is nowhere called "unforgivable", but rather sin that is unrepented of (thus growing into perpetual practice) or grievous.  Unforgivable would be something that under no condition would be forgiven.  Forgivable is something that may or may not be forgiven depending upon the person's repentance.   God Bless. 

Question:   Why is it impossible for Christ to be an Essene?

Answer:   It is impossible for Christ to be an essene for several reasons. \

--Celibacy is mandatory for essenes that was imposed upon others, whereas Christ stayed at his Apostle’s mother in law’s house, which was against essene law

--Essenes were extreme fanatics about he mosaic law, and Christ was constantly doing and permitting and saying things that were never allowed in Qumran.  Just one example is that Essenes were more fanatical about he Sabbath than the Pharisees were.  Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and stated a very anti-essene statement:  “The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.”  If he was an essene at this point he would never have been allowed back into the community.  I could go on and on but there is no need to, this point is obvious for anyone who knows Scripture. 

--Christ predicted the temple to be destroyed (the Essenes expected and required the belief in the opposite, that there would be a permanent restoration of temple worship). 

--The Essenes believed firmly in avoiding sinners.  To associate in any way, even to attempt to convert sinners, meant immediate expulsion.  An essene would have never made a statement “go into all the world and make disciples…”  To associate at all with outsiders was out of the question

--Baptism “once and for all” again contradicted the numerous and constant immersions of the Essenes

--The Messiah of the Essenes was one who would inaugurate the Kingdom through violent war and angels fighting at their side slaughtering all the Gentiles and enemies of the Essenes. 

--Jesus directly addressed and contradicted Essene teaching.  For instance, the essenes taught hatred of enemies:   “I have heard it said that you are to love you friends and hate your enemies, BUT I SAY UNTO YOU love you enemies…”

--The Essenes believed, not in a single Messiah, but in two messiahs, one Christ that was from Judah and Davidic and the other Christ that was anointed from the Levitical priesthood. 

--Christ warned not to follow anyone who claims that “here Christ is” or “there Christ is” whereas it was required essene belief that he would appear “here” or “there” in the desert.  He warned not to follow people in the desert if they wanted to see the Messiah. 

 CONCLUSION:  If Christ was an Essene at one time he clearly rebelled.  He made just as many statements against Essene teaching as he did against the teachings of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees. 

What about the language issue?

Question:  I read your article with great interest. You listed many reasons voiced by people for not attending Sunday Liturgy. I try not to be one of them, but find I have one of the symptoms you mentioned.   My concern is that I do not understand the Ukrainian language, even though I am of Ukrainian parents. I am of Social Security age and beyond.   Classes at this stage in my life will not help me understand the Liturgy as spoken by the priest.   Is there a program that is being looked at to convert the US churches to American language? Some churches have a once a month American and others have combined Ukrainian/English Liturgy and with one all Ukrainian.
       The Ukrainian founders of local churches are, more than likely, from Ukraine. They have established these churches and want to retain the Ukrainian Heritage. This a wonderful goal. My concern is for the future of the Church. I believe all religions in the US have the same problem - attracting and keeping younger members.   I don't have a solution. I will assign this task to you. Thank you for listening.   (For those who are not aware, the reader is referring to an article in the UOW January 2006 issue in which I had listed some excuses for not coming to church, one of which is "I don't like the language they are using". )

Answer:   Dear faithful fellow member of the Body of Christ, I am glad that you brought this up.  It is natural that you feel this way.  Ps. 47.7 tells us to "Sing praises with understanding..."  regarding our worship of God.  I can only assume that your priest is dealing mostly with Ukrainian speakers.  As Scripture states, "So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken?  For you will be speaking into the air.  There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance.  Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me" (1 Cor. 14.9-11).  What everyone has to realize is that in order to bring in others, they cannot be made to feel like foreigners.  Even doubling up on language still produces this feeling.  "In Church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue [that is not understood]" (1 Cor. 14.19).  Thus, we are called to worship in a language that is common to the people, and one that is EDIFYING to the people (1 Cor. 14.5;12).   It is our goal that our parish "pray with the spirit" and also "pray with understanding" (1 Cor. 14.15). 

When I made this remark in my article, although I was not clear about it in the article itself, I was referring to those who do follow several languages, but who romanticize one over the other.  These people say "I would only go to church more often if...".  There is an English camp and a Ukrainian camp.  You know what is funny?  In my parish, I did a mixed liturgy for a while.  However, the turnout was not that high and parish growth seemed to be off in the distance.  Now I do morning Matins (Utrenia, Orthros) in Ukrainian with some Slavonic, and  I do Liturgy all in English.  Saturday night I new do Vespers with Compline in English, and  Nocturnes in Ukrainian for the benefit of immigrants.  One thing that was an immediate change with the switch to English is the number of children and families that began coming regularly to Liturgy.  The children understand it.  I also began to increase the number of family oriented activities in the parish.  This pleased many of the older members to see an increase of children and famillies coming, while others older members were turned off--they left for an older parish (After all, this is the "American way," if you don't have something your way you can just go to the next place without any sense of loss--what a shame).  Also, many adults who used to come very infrequently come more frequently (including many who at first were not pleased with the move to English they are learning more about their faith and appreciating it on a different level than before, and thus come more often).  Now here is the "kicker":  many of the people who said "I would come more often if it was more in English" are not the ones who come more often (rather, it is those who sat silently patiently hoping for it to change to English)! 
             When I began at this parish, there was no weekly activity whatsoever with regard to children, and the children of the parish were mostly gone when I arrived or attached to fairly inactive families (not necessarily inactive in the faith altogether, but some would split time with parishes that had more that was relevant for them and their children).  When I started two years ago, I had one child besides my own in church on a regular basis, and that family (a military family) moved away.  Now, I rarely see less than 12-15 children in church--on a good day 20+!   Many of the families who came occasionally before are now full timers!  Why?  Because they have needs and those needs need to be provided for.  But what it took was a mission statement--identifying who we are and where we are going.  It also takes a lot of effort and family oriented activity.  To be honest, one of your questions I cannot answer.  I do not know of any program to move to English.  I do know this, that most parishes will not grow without a clear view of what their mission of existance is.  And what the mission is will largely determine you language usage.   Is it to preserve Ukraine on American soil?  Will we let our churches diminish if we cannot have this?  Is this what our Lord taught us was the mission of the church?  Do we care about what God thinks on this matter?  

As far as preservation of Ukrainian culture, you must remember that until Ukraine was independant, the only way to preserve it was "in diaspora."  It was one of the missions of our Metropolia to do this because, under the soviet system, there was constant attempts to eradicate Ukrainian culture.  However, new that there is an independant Ukraine, those in diaspora are no longer needed for this purpose--it is up to the now independant Ukraine to preserve and live Ukrainian culture.  Now that this function is no longer needed, it is difficult for people to accept change--the change that our mission is now different than it was before.  People loved feeling needed and that they could fulfill that need.  Thus, the need now is to define what is now required of us by our Lord and is of utmost importance.  Our parishes need the Orthodox Faith to become relevant and living in their lives.   But again, it takes time and patience.   In the meantime many of our parishes will die, but many will become much more alive who come to this realization, and new parishes will be established that are able to rise to the dual challenge that faces us.

            We are living in the United States of America, and Orthodoxy has a strange role to play in the United States--to minister to everyone who seeks the Faith of the Apostles.  However, that includes a wide range of people.  One mission of our Metropolia is to minister to those who are here but also to minister to immigrants, which presumably would include teaching them English so that they can get decent jobs and live a decent life here on American soil.  This would not conflict with the use of English except for romanticism--nostalgia--remember the good old days.   Until we are one Church in the United States, we as a Metropolia are responsible to make Orthodoxy accessible to all in in the US, but also to take care of immigrants and reach back to the motherland.  Once there is one church in the US, all Orthodox in the US will be responsible for taking care of all motherlands--everyone will be looking after Ukraine.   But until that day, it is you and I--it is our Metropolia that has this task.  This poses a problem for parishes that do not have two priests and two altars, it is like a juggling act in which the parishes struggle to grow.   Again, there is also an ego problem in the parishes, in which other Orthodox "in theory may become members" but second class members they will be because "we are a Ukrainian church".   In the creed we confess One Church.  We are require to believe in this one Church and the ecclesiology which is associated with it.   Not every parish can be geared toward immigrants that cannot speak English.  Realistically, as a Metropolia consisting of three dioceses, because we have a twofold mission, we need two kinds of parishes.  One type of parish will focus on bringing the United States to Orthodoxy and the other type to focus on the immigrants.  I believe that without the first kind of parish that our Metropolia will dissolve and shrivel into nothingness.  I also believe that without the second the souls of immigrants will dissolve and shrivel into nothingness.  There is NO PARISH which should be stuck on making sure that sentimentality and status quo are provided to make people "feel good".  We are called to spiritually grow and sacrifice for others, and sometimes this does not "feel good", at least not immediately.  Those who are not willing to do so are only nominal Orthodox Christians anyway, and should have a change of heart and repent and return to the Lord their God.   We must be driven by Gospel principles and not primarily "based on" good memories of our grandmothers house and days gone by.  This does not mean that there is not a place for these good memories, but without the Gospel of Christ we cannot place them properly in our lives and in our churches.   Our world is destroying itself and our children need us.  Heritage is important, but looking at priorities in a world that is perishing, more than heritage our children and younger generations need their souls pulled out of the muck and mire of Satan's playground known as the fallen world.  As our Lord said, "what would it profit a man if he gained the whole world but loses his soul."  Are we willing to say that if they don't care as much about heritage as they do about the Faith that we will deny them the Faith handed down to us?   If we do not step up to the plate, who will?   I don't know which parish you belong to but I do know this, that you should be going to an Orthodox Church every week as an Orthodox Christian.  It is also good for you to support your parish.  It sounds like you need a parish of type A (or at least one that is transitionally mixed) when you are in one of Type B.  As I said, there are very few which have two altars and two priests.   But "do not neglect the gift that was given you..." the gift above all that is given you is your Faith.  Find a way to practice it every day and to start out every week communing with the Lord, but also to do so with understanding.   As a priest I will tell you to talk to the priest--see if he is aware of the problem, see if he will talk to you about it.  Most importantly, find out his position and the position of the parish.  Your parish may not have a mission statement in writing, but it probably has one in spirit.  The Orthodox Christian Faith is so rich--do not waste another minute in failing to go and participate and learn just because your parish does not speak your language.  Find out if your priest is willing to do mixed language and, if not, don't be bitter.  This, your parish, will probably help many immigrants just like your parish come in.  If so, support this parish in its efforts, but go to another nearby UOCUSA or other Orthodox parish which will help feed your soul.    I know already of too many of our parishioners who have fallen away altogether from the Faith because they have not been encouraged to do this, to our own shame.    God bless.