I, an American expat living in France, converted to Orthodoxy almost four months ago now. I was interested to hear Father Chris and Mr Dreher discuss the problem of the Coptic language in use in the Egyptian Orthodox Church as "alienating" to the young people, explaining their disaffection of the Orthodox Church for various evangelical churches. I might add that I have been a teacher of high-school age young people for over twenty years and so disaffection by the young folks of anything that requires a certain amount of intellectual effort comes as no surprise to me. It is a process that has gradually been taking over the teen mindset here in France and could well explain the dumbing down of the liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church here, what with their international youth happenings every year. It just so happens that the Orthodox Church I attend in Vanves (just outside of Paris) has a liturgy in both French and Slavonic. When I decided that I wanted to attend this parish and be chrismated in this parish, I put my nose to the grindstone and started trying to learn some of the prayers in Slavonic. I have gradually come to be able to read the Slavonic prayers written in cyrillic. And now I am studying Russian with one of the Church members. Certainly, I can understand having some of the liturgy in the vernacular, but it must always be kept in mind that part of the richness of the Orthodox faith lies in its traditions from the various cultures of the old world. I really disagree that the "language barrier" is the one factor that explains youth alienation. Youth has always been wont to opt for the easy and comfortable track. Why not choose a balancing of the traditional with the new? This is where Vatican II "reforms" ran afoul.

And now I am studying Russian with one of the Church members. Certainly, I can understand having some of the liturgy in the vernacular, but it must always be kept in mind that part of the richness of the Orthodox faith lies in its traditions from the various cultures of the old world. I really disagree that the "language barrier" is the one factor that explains youth alienation. Youth has always been wont to opt for the easy and comfortable track. Why not choose a balancing of the traditional with the new? This is where Vatican II "reforms" ran afoul.

You make some good points, but as a father, I'm not sure you are looking at this correctly. First of all, there is no such thing as a naturally liturgical language. Why is there a Slavonic liturgy? Why didn't Sts. Cyril and Methodius simply bring the Greek liturgy? Why is there is a Coptic liturgy, or any other liturgy?

The reason is that all languages can be used to glorify God. There is no reason to hold on to a language in an alien environment as if it were somehow required. English can serve just as well as Greek, Slavonic, Inuit, or any other language.

The big problem with Vatican II was that it was not limited to language in its 'reforms.' Vatican II completely changed the liturgy, turning the priest around, adding women as Eucharistic ministers, changing the prayers, order of service, etc.

Orthodox are not at all on-board with anything of the kind. But translating hymns and writing new ones in English or French does no injustice to the Gospel. The missionaries who came from Russia to Alaska did this. Missionaries all over the world who go out to African or Asian countries do this as well. In purely missionary environments, the Church does its best to incarnate the Gospel in terms of local language and traditions. Here is an excerpt on the Indonesian Church:

During these times, Fr. Daniel made an effort to make Orthodoxy incarnate itself within the local culture. Besides using the local language, it also used the local culture, such as: sitting on the floor for worship, all the women wearing veils, all shoes to be taken off upon entering the Church, using the traditional coned rice for commemorating the dead instead of wheat kolyva etc. The Eastern Church in Indonesia had become really eastern in its cultural expression.

This is wholly to the good. The churches in Western Europe and the others labeled as 'diaspora' have yet to come to grips fully with the role they need to play locally. Language is part of the problem, but not the sum total. As a father raising two cradle Orthodox children, I welcome the English of the OCA liturgical practices, and would never wish to cope with trying to not only impart the truths of the Church to may offspring, but at the same time trying to teach them to understand an extinct foreign language.

There is no reason why Orthodoxy must, somehow, go the way of Vatican II simply because the everyday language of the people is used. There is no reason that the Orthodox Church must become less 'mysterious' simply because people without linguistic training can understand the prayers.

The youth of today may, indeed, be lazy. We homeschool because we demand a higher level of performance from our kids. But even so, I would prefer not to cope with my four-year-old not being able to even understand the words in which her church prays, even as she struggles to understand the meaning of those prayers.