Thomas E. FitzGerald
7. THE CHALLENGE OF THE NEW WORLD
The political developments in the Soviet Union and the Balkans, as well as ethnic rivalries, continued to have a profound impact upon certain elements of the Orthodox in America in the period following World War II. Yet, at the same time, both external and internal factors were also forcing many within the Orthodox Church in the United States to move beyond these divisive tendencies and to take more seriously the pastoral needs of the younger generations, as well as its missionary responsibilities within the wider society. The changes in demographics, the need for new avenues for religious education, the need for liturgical renewal, and the dialogue with the Christian West were powerful challenges that could not be easily ignored. Despite the presence of divisive tendencies, many Orthodox boldly sought to address these challenges.
A CHANGING MEMBERSHIP
The various immigrant groups who were related to the Orthodox Church had a number of characteristics in common with other immigrant groups in the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The immigrants in most major cities formed an insulated subculture. Within this subculture, the language of the fatherland was spoken, and the ethnic customs were preserved. While the immigrants usually had jobs outside their ethnic neighborhood, their social contact with the wider society was limited. They lived in their own «society» and seldom had much contact with persons from other ethnic backgrounds. As a result of this, interethnic marriage outside one's ethnic group was uncommon and generally frowned upon.
For the Orthodox immigrants of the various ethnic backgrounds, the parish church was central to their subculture. Normally, the parish church was at the geographical heart of their neighborhood. The immigrants could easily walk to the church for the liturgical services not only on Sunday and feast days but also at other times. The music, ritual, and especially the language of worship not only nurtured their spiritual development but also heightened their emotional contact with the Old World.
In addition to preserving the Orthodox faith, the parish church was also viewed by the immigrants as an important place where the language of their former homeland was preserved and taught. The religion and language of the Old World were inextricably linked in the minds of the immigrants. It was not uncommon, therefore, that the immigrants sought to organize, from the 1920s onward, afternoon schools to teach their children the language and culture of the old country and to counter the inevitable movement toward acculturation. During the 1930s and 1940s, these afternoon schools could be found in the parishes of nearly all the Orthodox immigrant groups. In some major cities, especially in the postwar period, modest attempts were even made to establish and maintain parochial schools.212
Especially during the postwar period, three powerful factors contributed to the gradual transformation of the Orthodox Church in the United States from an immigrant church to a more indigenous church composed primarily of persons born and educated in this country. The first factor was the decrease in immigration. The immigration laws passed in the 1920s placed greater restrictions on immigration from the Balkans, Russia, and the Middle East. The massive immigration of Orthodox Christians that took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries would never be repeated. During the period between 1930 and 1960, the influx was more measured and contained. Indeed, each Orthodox jurisdiction was affected somewhat differently by this fact. Migration of Russians and Carpatho-Russians during this period was quite meager. On the other hand, certain jurisdictions, such as the Greek Orthodox, continued to receive a steady flow of immigrants into the urban parishes. As we noted in the previous chapter, a number of displaced persons who came to America as political refugees had an impact upon some of the smaller jurisdictions.
The second factor was the changing membership of the Orthodox parish. After the period of World War II, it was clear that the composition of most Orthodox parishes had begun to change radically. With the decrease in immigration, the majority of the parishes of the larger and older jurisdictions were composed primarily of Orthodox Christians born in this country, nurtured by its educational institutions, and far more acclimated to the wider society. To be sure, the majority of these were the sons and daughters of the immigrants. Yet, these new generations were not as acquainted with the language, culture, and politics of the old country as were their parents and grandparents. While generally treasuring their cultural inheritance, the new generation of Orthodox Christians were Americans who saw themselves neither as immigrants nor as strangers in a foreign land.
The divisions that afflicted many parishes and a number of jurisdictions in the wake of World War II reflect a subtle conflict between those Orthodox who were born and raised in this country and those who were newly arrived. The former had less interest in the political developments in Eastern Europe and generally sought to maintain canonical ties between their diocese and the mother church. The immigrants of the post-World War II period, however, were generally strongly opposed to the Communist governments and the official church in their homelands. Together with speaking against Communism, they also sought to separate the American dioceses from association with the mother churches.213
The third factor was the suburbanization of the parish. In the years after 1950, the majority of the Orthodox parishes established in the United States were in the suburbs. In some cases, there were newly created parishes. In other cases, parishes relocated their church buildings from the inner city to the suburbs. This development reflected the fact that the majority of the Orthodox had themselves left the inner city and had moved to the suburbs. While the inner-city parishes continued to attract those newly arrived immigrants, the suburban parish served the needs of very different types of Orthodox parishioners. Some were the children or grandchildren of the immigrants. Some had come to Orthodoxy after being raised in other Christian traditions. Some were the non-Orthodox spouses of Orthodox. Indeed, it was becoming increasingly common for Orthodox to marry outside their ethnic group. While this had been frowned upon in earlier times, it was becoming increasingly common from the 1950s onward.214
These factors led to some important developments in Orthodox parish life. During this period, the use of English in the liturgical services began to increase. Religious education programs for children and classes for adults became more popular. Clergy were expected to be not only better educated but also more sensitive to the pastoral needs of parishioners who were less homogeneous and increasingly more educated and more affluent.
There is no doubt that the changing character of membership in Orthodox parishes created a tension that affected Orthodox in America from that time onward. This tension essentially centered upon the degree of adaptation that Orthodoxy had to undergo in order to serve the new generations of parishioners, to engage in missionary activity, and to be a forceful witness in American society.
On one hand, some advocated little, if any, adaptation. They felt that the ancient liturgical language and the myriad of ethnic customs were essential to the Orthodox faith. For them, ethnicity and religion were intimately related and could not be easily separated, and the distinctiveness of Orthodoxy was in its external characteristics that were inherited from the old country. Moreover, they believed that the church had a responsibility to preserve the language, customs, and folkways of the old country. Placing much emphasis upon the ethnic character of their parish and diocese, these persons were not able to make a distinction between the unchanging affirmations of the Orthodox faith and those changeable characteristics of the church throughout the ages.215
Others affirmed that the Orthodox Church in this country was not a church in exile but one destined to provide a distinctive witness in this society. These persons recognized that, in the past, Orthodoxy had penetrated a wide variety of cultures and Christianized a wide variety of peoples precisely because of its ability to preach the faith in a manner that was meaningful and understandable. While not altering the ancient faith, the church throughout the ages had always adapted its liturgical language to suit the needs of new populations. They affirmed that the church had never been bound to a particular language or culture; rather, the church had sought to use every language for the propagation of the gospel and to transform every culture with its message.216
At both the level of the local parish and the level of the national church, each jurisdiction responded somewhat differently to this tension. It was clear that it was a tension rooted in the maturation of Orthodox Christianity in this country that could not be easily ignored.
Father Georges Florovsky spoke boldly to the Orthodox about their obligation to share their faith with others:
Now let us be frank and outspoken. Have you really fulfilled your obligation? Your spiritual obligation to your American home and nation? Have you brought into the common treasury of American civilization all your treasures which you have inherited from your forefathers and ancestors? Have you taught Americans of other descriptions to know the Orthodox Church? Have you taught them to understand the pure Orthodox Faith? ... Have you not rather kept your traditions to yourselves? ... Have you not regarded it rather as something which belonged only to Russians, or else to Greeks, to Romanians, to Albanians and does not belong to other nations, to people with other national backgrounds? Have you done what was your first responsibility?217
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND YOUTH MINISTRY
One of the principal areas where the changing membership and its concerns became manifest, especially between 1945 and 1960, was religious education and ministry to youth. Following some practical patterns established by Roman Catholics and Protestants, most of the Orthodox jurisdictions greatly increased the formal attention given to nurturing the young in the teachings of the church and keeping the youth involved in church-related activities.
From as early as the 1930s, there are signs of interest in developing programs for the religious education of young people. About 1932, for example, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese established a Department of Sunday Schools. This department encouraged the development of parish Sunday schools and eventually published some religious education texts in Greek. Sponsored by the Syrian (Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese, Father Michael Gelsinger wrote a Handbook for Orthodox Sunday Schools in 1938. It contained a small catechism and selected Bible verses. The Russian Orthodox Metropolia in 1935 appointed an Educational Council in order to encourage and standardize Sunday school instruction in the parishes. This led to the publication in Washington, D.C., of a series of leaflets known as The Orthodox Sunday School, which contained a discussion theme and Scripture reading for each Sunday class.218
Although this series was published in English, this was an exception to the rule. The limited religious education pamphlets and texts published in the period between 1930 and 1950 and used in the parishes were usually not written in English. During this period especially, those Sunday schools or afternoon schools that existed in local parishes normally had the dual tasks of imparting religious instruction and teaching the language and customs of the old country.
It was difficult for many Orthodox clergy and laity, especially those born elsewhere, to recognize the distinctive importance of religious education and the need to teach classes for children in English. As early as 1926, however, Bishop Joachim (Alexopoulos), the Greek Orthodox bishop of Boston, could see the direction that the church would have to take. In a rather insightful observation, he said:
We place the Sunday Schools in the series of priorities since we regard them to be greater in significance than the Greek Schools, as regards the desired purpose of molding character and preserving religious and ethnic conscience over a period of time, because we fear, whatever measure is taken to perfect the Greek School, the children will not be able to speak Greek fluently and satisfactorily, as they will speak and feel about English, which will become for them a living language while Greek will be forgotten and difficult, as it has already started in our day.219
Between 1950 and 1960, the movement among the Orthodox for sound and substantial religious education programs took on a greater importance. The Tenth Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1950 formally authorized the establishment of a Sunday school curriculum in English. At the Twelfth Clergy-Laity Congress in 1954, a formal program for the administration of Sunday schools was approved. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Metropolia established the Metropolitan Council Sunday School Committee in 1951, which led to a new series of Sunday school texts. At about the same time, the Syrian (Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese and the Carpatho-Russian diocese began the publication of their own religious education materials.
The work of religious educators in the various jurisdictions began to be coordinated in 1954 by Sophie Koulomzin, a distinguished Orthodox educator and a person greatly responsible for conveying to others the importance of Orthodox religious education. She was the first person to teach a course on religious education at St. Vladimir's Seminary in 1956. The religious educators who informally became associated with Koulomzin included Father Michael and Mary Gelsinger of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, Xenaphon Diamond of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, Father John Kivko of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia, and Father Vasile Hategan of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate.220
A conference of about twenty-five Orthodox religious educators was held in 1956 in Valley Cottage, New York. The representatives of the seven Orthodox jurisdictions present decided to formally establish the Orthodox Christian Education Commission. The aims of the commission were «to find an Orthodox approach to the readily adapted Protestant pattern of Sunday Schools .... to relate Orthodox teachings to the American situation and particularly to new approaches to education, and perhaps most significant, to seek to create an inter-Orthodox forum for the exchange of ideas, problems, and practical solutions for the educational needs of Orthodox parishes and dioceses.»221
During the first decade of its existence, the commission was responsible for publishing a bulletin that promoted research and the exchange of information in the field of Orthodox religious education. The commission also sponsored yearly conferences devoted to specific themes related to religious education and youth ministry. The early work of the commission did much to sketch the fundamental principles of an Orthodox approach to religious education in this country.
Despite the many accomplishments of the commission during its first decade of existence, it was unable to sponsor a unified curriculum for the Orthodox religious education of youth designed to be used by all the jurisdictions. Each of the major jurisdictions continued to publish and promote its own materials. The commission was able to provide its members with valuable advice and guidance in the areas of religious formation and educational psychology. Certainly, this contribution cannot be underestimated. Yet, the leaders of the various jurisdictions were simply not at a point where they could recognize the value of a unified curriculum. They could not see that a unified curriculum not only could embody the best approach to Orthodox religious formation but also could contribute to the establishment of greater unity among the Orthodox in America.
However, the significance of the commission must not be underestimated. Its work was, from the beginning, Pan-Orthodox in its composition, its scope, and its concerns. It did much to establish new relationships among clergy and laity from the various jurisdictions who were concerned especially with the religious formation of young people. While it did not establish a unified curriculum, it did a great deal to promote Pan-Orthodox cooperation and consultation. Indeed, it was a grassroots organization that did much to indicate that Orthodox from various jurisdictions had a great deal in common despite their past differences and their past isolation. Constance Tarasar, a distinguished Orthodox educator in her own right, said: «The very idea of bringing together Orthodox pastors and teachers from various nationalities and jurisdictions was, in itself, a relatively new idea, and the actual foundation and development of the Commission became the first successful cooperative Pan-Orthodox project on a national scale.»222
Closely related to these developments in the area of religious education were a number of Pan-Orthodox endeavors in the area of specialized ministry to teenagers and college students. In 1950, the Orthodox Christian Fellowship was established at Columbia University in New York by Father Georges Florovsky. This expression of pastoral ministry was designed to serve all the Orthodox students at that university regardless of jurisdictional affiliation. This fellowship became the model for similar associations established by Orthodox clergy and laity at a number of colleges and universities throughout the country in the 1950s.223
During the same period, a number of the jurisdictions acted to establish national organizations designed to serve the specialized needs of teenagers. The Council of Eastern Orthodox Youth Leaders was established in 1954. Its principal aim was to bring together on a regular basis the leaders of the numerous jurisdictional youth organizations. The council was designed to create a forum for contact and cooperation among all Orthodox youth and their leaders. During the same year, a Pan-Orthodox Committee was established to oversee the development of an Orthodox award for deserving Boy Scouts. Like the Orthodox Christian Education Commission, these organizations were essentially grassroots in nature. Yet, they did much to bring together Orthodox from a variety of jurisdictions and to encourage pan-Orthodox cooperation.224
Despite these noble accomplishments, little formal attention was given to the development of programs for adult religious education and faith formation during this period. This was a critical failure that would have profound consequences. In the period after World War II, most Orthodox young adults who were born in this country were furthering their education and were in constant contact with other Americans of different religious backgrounds. Yet, most Orthodox young adults were sadly limited when it came to understanding and expressing their faith. Many had been taught to understand the church chiefly as an ethnic community. Few had developed a genuine appreciation of the doctrinal and ethical teachings of the Orthodox Church. Few heard sermons that they could truly understand. Fewer understood the meaning of the church's ritual.
Many church leaders appear to have ignored these facts. Yet, these difficult facts led some farsighted clergy to begin to pay more attention to the importance of adult religious education and worship. As a result, there was an increase in the number of books and pamphlets in English designed to provide explanation of the teachings, customs, and traditions of the Orthodox Church. It is interesting to note that Archbishop Michael of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese published his study entitled The Orthodox Church in 1952. About the same time, Metropolitan Antony (Bashir) of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese published his study entitled Studies in the Greek Orthodox Church. Father George Mastrantonis, a pioneer in the writing of books and pamphlets for American Orthodox readers, published his What Is the Eastern Orthodox Church? in 1956. Father Timothy Andrews in 1953 provided a comprehensive bibliography of the growing number of books and pamphlets.225
This period saw the publication of a number of prayer books, often bilingual, that contained the text of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, no less than four such bilingual versions of the liturgy appeared between 1948 and 1955. While three of these were prepared by parish priests, one was published by the seminary press in 1950 and received the official sanction of the archdiocese. In addition to these prayer books, a number of guides to the liturgical services began to appear.226
It should be remembered that, for nearly all of the jurisdictions, the Eucharist Liturgy was celebrated in their own particular liturgical language. The most common were Greek, Church Slavonic, and Arabic. Other languages, such as Albanian, Romanian, and Ukrainian, were used by particular jurisdictions. During this period, English was beginning to be used in some degree by some clergy in certain jurisdictions, but by no means all.
Metropolitan Antony (Bashir), an early proponent of the use of English in liturgical services, expressed forcefully his view in 1957 when he said:
While we must still minister to many who remember the ways and customs of another land, it is our policy to make the Church in the United States an American Church. In my own Archdiocese, under my administration, we have pioneered in the introduction of English in our services and sermons. From the beginning of my ministry, I began printing English service books, and the training of English speaking priests. We are tied to no sacred language; we recognize all tongues as the creation of God, and employ them in worship. We have no desire to perpetuate anything but the Gospel of Christ, and that we can do as effectively in English as in any other tongue.227
Not all the leaders of the Orthodox Church in the United States would have stated the case for the liturgical use of English as strongly as Metropolitan Antony did in 1957. While many recognized the pastoral and missionary imperative to introduce the greater use of English into the liturgical services, others emphasized the historic value and cultural significance of the more ancient liturgical languages. Many clergy and laypersons viewed the use of English as an abandonment of ethnic concerns. The language question was by no means resolved between 1950 and 1960. Indeed, it continued to affect all the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States.
Despite the controversies that erupted, the 1950s saw a growing use of English in liturgical services. Often, it was used first at Pan-Orthodox vesper services or Divine Liturgies that brought together clergy and laity from a number of jurisdictions. During the 1950s, these services were often held in conjunction with retreats and conferences. In addition, the first Sunday of Lent, known as the Sunday of Orthodoxy, became a significant day on which clergy and laity from various jurisdictions in a particular city would gather together for the celebration of vespers. These Pan-Orthodox services of worship and prayer did much to bring the Orthodox closer together in professing the same faith and in enabling them to move beyond differences.
EARLY ECUMENICAL WITNESS
The entrance of some American Orthodox clergy and laity into the activities of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches provided them with an opportunity not only to cooperate with Western Christians in social activities and theological dialogue but also to work together in providing a unified Orthodox witness.
The participation of American Orthodox theologians in ecumenical organizations and conferences became more pronounced and more formal especially after 1950. We have taken note of some early positive contacts between Orthodox and Western Christians. While in California, Father John Veniaminov visited Roman Catholic missions about the year 1836. In the early decades of the twentieth century, both Metropolitan Meletios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and Archbishop Tikhon of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese sought to maintain cordial relationships with bishops in the Protestant Episcopal Church. An Anglican-Orthodox Fellowship was established in the United States in 1934 and served as the American counterpart to the more famous Fellowship of Sts. Sergius and Alban, begun in England in 1928. Both organizations reflected the conviction held by many at the time that Anglicanism and Orthodoxy had much in common and that these points of agreement deserved greater study.
These early attempts at building positive relationships and establishing opportunities for dialogue were frequently damaged, however, by covert and overt attempts by some Protestants to bring Orthodox Christians into their fold and also by the harsh reaction of some Roman Catholics to the entrance of Eastern-Rite Catholics into the Orthodox Church. The mutual respect and understanding that would later become part of the ecumenical movement were not always central to the relationship among Christian groups in America in the early decades of this century.
The National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. was founded in 1950. As a cooperative ecumenical association, it initially reflected a merger of the earlier Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1867, and the Federal Council of Churches of Christ, founded in 1908. Although the new council was dominated by Protestant denominations and Protestant perspectives from the beginning, it was viewed by some as an American counterpart to the World Council of Churches, which was established in 1948.
Within the first few years of the establishment of the National Council of Churches, a number of Orthodox jurisdictions formally became members. These included the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (the Metropolia), the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate, the Ukrainian Orthodox diocese, and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Between 1954 and 1958, Father Georges Florovsky served as one of the vice presidents of the council.228
The participation of Father Florovsky and other Orthodox in the early work of the council certainly brought to it theological perspectives that were distinctive. Yet, the Orthodox frequently found themselves in meetings with Western Christians who had little or no appreciation of the history and teachings of the Christian East. Because of this, the Orthodox frequently found themselves engaged in theological deliberations that were dominated by Protestant perspectives. While the Orthodox were full members of the council, their impact upon its work during its early years was minimal.229
The Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches, held in Evanston, Illinois, in 15–31 August 1954, provided a number of American Orthodox theologians with a valuable opportunity for active participation. At the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam in 1948, there was a total of eighteen Orthodox delegates present. None of these came from America. At the Evanston assembly, there were twenty-eight Orthodox delegates present. Of this number, nine were from America. In addition, there were two consultants and eight accredited visitors from the Orthodox jurisdictions in America. Because of this, a number of American Orthodox took a very active part in the activities of the assembly. Father Georges Florovsky, for example, delivered one of the major addresses, and Archbishop Michael of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese was elected one of the copresidents of the council.230
Speaking of the importance of Orthodox participation in the Evanston assembly, Archbishop Michael said:
Did our participation in Evanston result in gain or loss? Beyond all doubt, in gain and even very great gain, prodigious for the prestige of our Mother, the ancient and most holy Orthodox Church. We were not there without being noticed. We did not mingle with the other representatives so as to lose our own color and to become agreeable to them. We were not afraid to proclaim to those present the whole truth on the subject of the faith of the Church.231
Another significant ecumenical conference occurred only a few years later in 1957: the North American Study Conference on Faith and Order held at Oberlin, Ohio. Jointly sponsored by the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, the conference was devoted to the theme «The Nature of the Unity We Seek.» Of the over 200 delegates, only 10 were American Orthodox, representing four jurisdictions. Despite their small number, the Orthodox contributed to the work of the conference, which came in the wake of the Evanston assembly.232
The Orthodox delegates presented the conference with a brief but very significant commentary on the theme. This statement remains one of the most cogent and precise articulations of the Orthodox Church in ecumenical conferences.233 A portion of the statement says:
"The Unity We Seek» is for us a given unity which has never been lost and, as a Divine gift and essential mark of Christian existence, could not have been lost. The unity of the Church of Christ is for us a unity in the historical Church, in the fullness of faith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us this unity is embodied in the Orthodox Church which kept, catholikos (fully) and anelleipos (flawless), both the integrity of the apostolic faith and the integrity of the apostolic order.234
The early activity of the National Council of Churches, as well as the Evanston assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC), provided the Orthodox participants from America with valuable opportunities to present the teachings of their church and to enter into theological dialogue with Western Christians. Although the Orthodox presence in North America dated from 1794, the opportunities for genuine dialogue between Orthodox and Western Christians in this country had been minimal prior to the 1950s. While these new encounters were not without their difficulties, the presence of the Orthodox clearly reflected their desire to acquaint the delegates from the Western Christian traditions with the distinctive faith perspectives of the Christian East.
For the American Orthodox, this period marked their fledgling steps into the arena of inter-Christian dialogue, a movement that would become much more pronounced in subsequent decades. In these early ecumenical meetings, the Orthodox delegates demonstrated that the presence of the Orthodox Church and the distinctive character of its teachings could no longer be ignored in inter-Christian dialogues in the United States.
These ecumenical organizations and conferences also provided the Orthodox delegates from the various jurisdictions with the opportunity to have greater direct contact with each other. Faced with the challenge of presenting the Orthodox faith to Western Christians, the Orthodox delegates recognized the need to cooperate with each other and to present a united Orthodox witness that transcended the differences of ethnic languages and cultures as well as Old World rivalries. The jurisdictional divisions did not prevent the Orthodox from affirming their common faith and presenting it in a unified manner.235
Closely related to the unified Orthodox ecumenical witness was a drive to have the Orthodox Christianity better recognized as a major faith. This movement had its origin in the work of the old federation and was associated at first with the movement to have Orthodox military personal during World War II receive their appropriate religious designation. During the period after the war, committees of Orthodox clergy and laypersons organized to have state governments and federal agencies grant the same recognition to the Orthodox faith that had been given to others. Throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s a number of states and governmental agencies passed resolutions that designated Orthodox Christianity as a major faith insofar as this could be done legally.236
The concern expressed by so many Orthodox over this issue was an important sign that they were looking for greater recognition from the wider society. In earlier decades, the Orthodox were concerned primarily with survival in an environment that was seen as hostile. Bolstered by movements toward greater cooperation and unity as well as the presence of Orthodox theologians in high-level ecumenical forums, many Orthodox had now come to believe that the Orthodox faith deserved to be recognized as one of the major religious traditions in American society.
Throughout the period following the close of World War II, there was a demonstrable increase in contacts and cooperative activities among the members of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in America. As a consequence of ethnic and political differences, divisions continued to afflict many parishes and many dioceses. Yet, there was a growing recognition that all the Orthodox shared the same faith. Indeed, among many there was a growing recognition that the Orthodox Church had a distinctive witness to make in American society. With joint liturgical services and joint educational projects and through unified participation in ecumenical gatherings, the representatives of the major Orthodox jurisdictions began, in some measure, to overcome the isolation from one another that had generally characterized the Orthodox in America for decades. At the same time, the American Orthodox began to recognize, in some measure, their responsibility to all Christians and to the society in which they lived.
* * *
George Papaioannou, The Odyssey of Hellenism in America (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute, 1985), pp. 379–392; Constance Tarasar and John Erickson, eds., Orthodox America 1794–1976 (Syosset, N.Y.: Orthodox Church in America, 1975), pp. 141–142.
Arthur Peipkorn, Profiles in Belief, Vol. 1 (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), pp. 69–84.
Robert Donus, «Greek-Americans in a Pan-Orthodox Parish,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 18:1 (1974): 44–52.
John Meyendorff, Vision of Unity (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 66–67.
Ibid., pp. 70–71.
Georges Florovsky, «The Responsibility of Orthodox Believers in America,» The Russian Orthodox Journal 2:6 (1949): 15–18.
George Nicozisin, The Road to Orthodox Phronema (Brookline, Mass.: Department of Religious Education, 1977), pp. 33–38; Tarasar and Erickson, Orthodox America, p. 202.
Nicozisin, The Road to Orthodox Phronema, pp. 42–47.
Tarasar and Erickson, Orthodox America, p. 234.
Ibid., p. 235.
Andrew Blane, ed., Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual-Orthodox Churchman (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993), p. 100.
Ernest Villas, «Toward Unity of Orthodox Youth in America,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 2:4 (1954): 31–32.
A valuable list of significant books of this period is in Dean Timothy Andrews, The Eastern Orthodox Church: A Bibliography (New York: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, 1957).
Ibid., pp. 25–36.
Metropolitan Antony, «The Antiochian Church and Christian Unity,» The Word 1:6 (1957): p. 145.
Paul Schneirla, «A New Tendency in Anglican-Orthodox Relations,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 4:1 (1960): 23–31.
Paul Schneirla, «American Orthodoxy and Ecumenism,» Orthodoxy 10:9 (1966): 266–267; Georges Florovsky, «The Challenge of Disunity,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 3:1/2 (1954–1955): 31–36.
«Survey of the Second Assembly,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 3:1/2 (1954–1955): 5–15; Blane, Georges Florovsky, pp. 106–109.
Archbishop Michael, «Reflections on Evanston,» Istina 2 (1955): 202.
See Paul Minear, ed., The Nature of the Unity We Seek (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1958).
Alexander Schmemann, «Report on Oberlan,» St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 2:1 (1958): 36–41.
«Statement of the Representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church,» in Minear, The Nature of the Unity We Seek, pp. 159–163.
Alexander Schmemann, «Notes on Evanston,» St. Vladimir s Theological Quarterly 3:1/2(1954): 16–22.
Miltiades Efthimiou and George Christopoulos, eds., History of the Greek Orthodox Church in America (New York: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, 1984), pp. 371–376.