To preface this: this came up in a discussion among servants and youth, and we never reached a consensus. Personally, I am very much on the "yes" side of the debate, and so are many of the prominent voices on this forum, but I believe those who do not agree with us have valid concerns that must be addressed.
The discussion began when we did a veneration for St. Philopateer the night of his feast. There were around 10 of us (socially distanced with masks) with myself and 2 other deacons leading the rest. Among the congregation was an Ethiopian college student who does not read Coptic or Arabic. After we finished, one of the other servants came up to us and asked why we did not do all English for his sake, especially since us leaders know the Tamgeed in English. Our answer was... shrug. It didn't cross our minds at the time, and there wasn't very many of us in the room, so we went with what we do most of the time- a mix of English, Arabic, and Coptic.
The discussion continues until he says "I think that we should just do all English all the time. No more Coptic." Here's where I leave it to you.
A summary of the points talked about:
Common Ground (things we all agreed upon):
- It is crucial to understand the words of the hymns we say
- The current structure of service, and the societal forces that be, cause this to not be true.
- This is mainly due to 2 things: growing diversity in the Churches (including more people who did not grow up in the Church, and do not know Arabic or Coptic); and the Coptic being a language not spoken in people's houses.
- This is a hindrance to Church growth and unity.
- The end goal is to have a congregation that is in unity with the deacons' chorus, saying the hymns and responses in once voice with full understanding.
- Said understanding can be in English or Coptic- the goal is understanding.
Pro-Coptic Points
(Coptic should remain a part of our Church services and rites)
(Again, this is where I stand, so please be aware that I have a bias.)
- We are the Coptic Church, and therefore knowing the language of our fathers and forefathers is important.
- There's a reason St. Samuel the Confessor was so against Arabic overtaking Coptic in the Church.
- The solution to the lack of understanding is to systematically and rigorously revive Coptic through the channels we already have (Hymns/Deacon Prep classes and Sunday School)
- Not everyone was as on-board as I was with the idea of teaching an entire generation Coptic, since they viewed it as unfeasible.
- The proposed alternative was that the translation is right there- anyone who does not already know what the hymn says can glance 5 inches to the left or right and learn. Again, I don't think this is enough, but it is a valid point.
- The hymns have a meaning and depth that only comes from Coptic, and changing them into English loses that depth.
- St. Paul says that using tongues is acceptable as long as one can understand what is said (1 Corinthians 14). The translation is there (or people know the language), so we are in the clear.
- The deacons and leaders all know the hymns in Coptic. To teach them in English would require the translation, modification (so the words do not sound clunky or out-of-place with the melody of the hymn), and standardization across the Church, and THEN teaching said standardized version to the congregation.
- If we switch to all English, many of the original hymns and, with them, a part of our Church's history will fade away.
Anti-Coptic Points
(Coptic should not be a part of our Church services and rites- instead, the local language [usually English] should be used.)
- We are the Alexandrian Church. What links us is not hymns or language, but faith. That is more than strong enough to unite us as a Church.
- "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations..."- not Egypt, or specific nations, but all. Therefore, the Church must have open arms to
- It is soooo much easier to learn the hymns in English because you know the language! Why add an extra step?
- Coptic is a dead language. Why devote time to learning it when we could better spend that time learning the sayings of the fathers, or memorizing scripture?
- Language drives converts away. A study was done in Coptic churches that showed that the biggest reason for converts feeling unwelcome was language (Arabic or Coptic).
- No one nowadays truly knows Coptic- instead, they know how to translate the words in their head.
- Someone reading a Coptic word first has to translate it to English or Arabic, understand that word's meaning, and put in in the context of the rest of the sentence. That's so many unnecessary steps!
- The depth of the hymns is in their melody, not the language they're in.
- On Pentecost, the Spirit did not cause everyone to understand the language the Apostles were speaking- it caused everyone to hear them in their native tongue. Our native tongue is English. When the Church speaks to us, it should be in our native tongue.
I have responses to those points, but I want to open this discussion to you all: Should we stop using Coptic in the Church?
Comments
@Daniel_Kyrillos please note that St Paul's references to tongues was not meant for foreign languages. In that era there was a phenomenon of "spirit taking control over one's own body and producing unintelligible sounds that are interpreted by themselves or others through the emotions and bodily movements" - something along those lines..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
"The depth of the hymns is in their melody, not the language they're in."
--You cannot tell me that it's not about the language and ask me to take away that language that the melody was originally constructed in. It's contradictory to say the least. It's not about steps, it's about prayer. And when it's not about prayer, it's about understanding, in which case the readings are read in the local language.... that has been the case for probably a couple of decades now--prayer is done mainly in Coptic, while the readings or sermons or senixar or lectures are done in the local language--the Church sees a different in what needs to be "understood" and what needs to be "prayed"
Moreover, I don't think your similitude would be accepted since it would propose a separation within the Church as I mentioned above. Is that what is desired?! If it is, then make that public.
Another point that is a bit complicated to discuss: "our orthodox liturgical tradition" -- I have a problem with that. Our orthodox liturgical tradition is defined by being Coptic, either in language or rite. You cannot just refer to the "Orthodox liturgy" without referring to which rite are you talking about. Because, and as I mentioned before, we share the same faith with the rest of the Oriental Orthodox churches and, technically, with the EO churches too... yet all have different rites for the liturgy and each is identified as such. You take that identification away.
The "Mission Statement" of the church is to spread the gospel, the sacraments and teach. I wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years it will be called "Alexandrian" Orthodox to teach the dogmatic and theological principles of the church of Alexandria. The culture you all grew up in will be a memory to your children and an unknown to your grandchildren.
Keep the Coptic as the Liturgical Language of the church. It would be extremely beneficial. You aren't the first people to go through this. Sometimes I read what so many Copts say about the diaspora and think " Do they know they aren't the first Christian immigrants?"
It will be fine. As long as the structure of the church is strong, and our clergy is teaching correctly, language will evolve naturally based on necessity.
There is nothing against Orthodox dogma or practice in using or not using Coptic. It is a blessing to sing things in the historical church language. But it is a hinderance to many, one that some never get over
If a parish is not created for this purpose, then keeping Coptic and Arabic are natural. The three languages would be used in whatever combination serves the people.
Maybe a "Father, Son and Holy Spirit..", Stand up for Prayer, a call to listen to the gospel, bow to the Lord, etc.? Maybe the first part of the Litany of the Saints?
As a convert I can say that there is no proper way to cover every conversion. A woman came to our church (someone whose husband is Pakistani of all things) and she didn't convert because it is mostly Arabic. She became Greek Orthodox. Yet, I have never heard an entire English Liturgy in a decade and serve the Altar. It varies from person to person.
Yes, it is great to hear things in English and I completely agree with what you're saying. Getting rid of Coptic is useless. It's not that difficult of a language, and learning a sentence here and there isn't going to make someone not convert. If they convert solely because it's in English, then it's for convenience, not substance. We'll turn into the modern Catholic church and be a shell of what we are now.
Catholics took Latin out in the 1960s, and it came back 50 years later because people saw the value in it. Most Roman Catholic Priests study at the Vatican and have a basic concept of Liturgical Latin. Catholicism is far more diverse than our church,i.e., clergy from non-Latin based language countries. There is no excuse to take Coptic out of the Liturgy of the Church, even in a "mission" church. In 30 years 95% of churches will be in English or French in North America. My culture went through this already. Keep the traditions.
Why then in the Church, which is our true world, would we “drop what we don’t know”?
Since this is what matters, should we not make efforts to learn it?
What’s wrong with teaching missionary churches bit by bit? Is that not what we do with them about God when we Teach them bit by bit?
I usually restrict from speaking about this topic, but let me just say this:
If there was a church that offered its services in ALL Coptic, that’s where you’d find me.
In our Faith, Life & World, Christ is our mission and in our Home, the Church - Coptic is our Language.
+ God Bless +
Very well said @Jojo_Hanna.. God bless you and please do not forget me in your prayers..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ