Possible Futures
Part I: Deepening the Problem of An American Orthodox Music
The transmission of Orthodox music to the Western world in the early 20th century faced significant challenges, largely due to the adoption of Western musical forms more for their perceived cultural prestige than their effectiveness in evangelization. This shift compromised the integrity of traditional Orthodox chant, disrupting its theoretical foundations and oral transmission. As musical education declined and reliance on external systems increased, traditional practices weakened, leaving the Church with music that struggled to maintain its intrinsic logic nor effectively connect with Western audiences.
In this installment, we will explore potential solutions, starting with the most straightforward approach (Part I): recovering traditional Byzantine Chant. This chant has recently seen an unprecedented revival, with faithful liturgical scores and accessible psaltic education now available. Alternatively, we will examine the complexities of Slavic Chant compared to its Greek counterpart.
These considerations inevitably lead to deeper questions about Orthodox evangelization in the West, particularly in the United States. Specifically, does the continued use of established chant systems from other Orthodox cultures signify a failure of evangelization in America and a departure from historical patterns of the transmission of the Faith?
Those who argue against this view often highlight the unique circumstances of Orthodoxy's arrival in America and the distinctive challenges American secularized and post-Christian culture poses to Christianization.
To address these challenges effectively, we will explore some of the ways in which American evangelization differs from traditional patterns and what these differences might mean for the future (Part II). Most significantly, the fact that our culture has an existent though diminishing and perhaps unsuitable sacral musical tradition in its own right.
Finally, we will examine a few ways forward given these reflections, and introduce our own solution, the recovery of Gregorian Chant as the core of any emergent American, and indeed, Western Orthodox musical tradition.
Byzantine Chant in the Occident: An Authentic Future
Perhaps, the most pressing obstacle to the emergence of an American Orthodox chant tradition is that it is simply unnecessary. Orthodoxy already has music ready at hand.
Byzantine Chant has experienced an unprecedented revival in recent years, with a widespread availability of liturgical scores that faithfully represent the authentic Byzantine tradition. Alongside this, high-quality cantorial education has become increasingly accessible, offering a new generation of church musicians the opportunity to deeply engage with the intricacies of the chant. Notably, the decline in general musical education, which is detrimental to the musical situation we discussed previously, has counterintuitively provided a unique opportunity for would-be chanters to immerse themselves in the psaltic craft without the need to reference or conform to Western musical conventions. This freedom allows Byzantine Chant to realize its full potential, rooted in its own tradition and internal logic and particularities without the need to constantly translate these into an extrinsic and oft-ill-suited idiom. The decline of musical literacy in the broader culture, rather than being a setback, has thus created a fertile ground for the flourishing of traditional musical practices within the Church.
Most importantly, while the chant remains distinctly Byzantine, there is a growing awareness among contemporary composers and psaltists of the necessity for the music to fit the English text, rather than forcing the text to conform to preexisting melodies. As the theoretical understanding and mastery of Byzantine Chant continue to advance, church musicians are increasingly able to cantillate the text directly, without the need to adapt Greek or Arabic melodies. This shift has made high-quality Byzantine chant more accessible and faithful to the tradition. For, greater fidelity to the authentic tradition achieves, and not by happenstance, greater effectiveness.
This approach is entirely fitting, as Byzantine Chant, since its emergence in Late Antiquity, was never limited to the Greek language nor is it absolutely geared to the particularities of this language. It has been and continues to be used by Slavic, Romance, and Arabic-speaking churches. And in none of these expressions of Byzantine Chant has the music tradition been unwilling or unable to deeply engage with the expressive possibilities of each language, realizing the worlds of prayer and worship from within a language not imposing a form from without. The previous inadequacy of English Byzantine Chant was, in fact, a departure from the tradition. However, this was an understandable aberration, as achieving such fluency in musical idiom necessitates both a deep understanding of the language and a high level of theoretical and practical competence in the authentic chant. Today, however, if a community wants high-quality Byzantine chant, it has never been more accessible.
The Future(s) of Slavic Orthodox Music in the Occident
Church music within the Slavic Orthodox world in the Americas presents a unique set of complexities, especially when compared to its Greek counterpart. Greek Orthodox music ventured into new Western musical forms, believing these innovations better represented Greece’s evolving role in Europe and the American diaspora after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. However, these changes were more experimental and lacked deep historical roots. In contrast, shifts in Russian liturgical music occurred much earlier, in the Old Country, and were heavily enforced by ecclesiastical authorities. Historical opposition to these new musical styles was often linked with resistance to the necessary liturgical reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon. Although Nikon’s reforms aimed to conform Russian practice with broader Orthodox traditions rather than to Westernize it, the two reforms became intertwined in practice. Consequently, traditional Russian church music was either associated with schismatic groups or exiled far from centers of culture and thus starved of requisite cultivation an artistic tradition needed to flourish.
This historical backdrop significantly influenced how Slavic Orthodox music was received and adapted in the Americas. By the time Slavic Orthodox music reached the American context, it had already taken deep root in Russian piety and religious consciousness. The music, while not entirely Westernized, had undergone enough theoretical and stylistic changes to make it accessible to Western listeners, particularly those familiar with choral traditions. It thus occupies a unique position where it neither sounds completely alien to Western ears nor does it conform entirely to Western musical norms. This tertium quid doesn't disappoint those expecting a certain degree of familiarity, nor does it strike as excessively exotic, and for some is just not something that needs fixing.
Those who view contemporary Slavic Orthodox church music as functional and effective may not find the concerns highlighted in our previous article particularly compelling or insurmountable. This perspective is understandable, and there is no need to reiterate those arguments here. However, for those who have identified these challenges, there are pragmatic solutions within the Slavic musical tradition available to address them.
One effective approach is to draw from the array of traditional Slavic chant systems, such as the Kievan Chant, or Znamenny Chant. Znamenny Chant in particular, with its deep modal roots and textual focus, make it ideal for executing propers, especially the offices. Similarly, Kievan Chant, with its distinctive melodic patterns, is readily memoizable.
Additionally, if choral compositions remain popular within the community, they can be effectively integrated into a more traditional modal chant system being used for the ordinary parts of the Divine Liturgy whereas the traditional chant is employed for the propers and services that necessitate better handling of proper texts. Many communities have already adopted this obvious and functional approach.
A Failure of Evangelization?
These approaches—whether embracing Byzantine Chant in all its depth or recovering one of the many forms of Slavic Chant—are certainly workable solutions for the challenges facing Orthodox music in America. However, some have raised questions about whether these approaches are truly appropriate for the American context. They argue that throughout the history of the Church, there has been a clear aptitude for authentic enculturation, where Orthodoxy has consistently demonstrated a unique genius for balancing the dual poles of ecclesial reality: unity and catholicity. That is to say, the Holy Faith can both reflect the deepest aesthetic instincts and cultural possibilities of its local instantiation without impinging upon the oneness of faith and practice. A propensity that has oft proven to be illusive or impossible for heterodox confessions, and we would posit, this is precisely due to that heterodoxy, (though we cannot develop this thesis more fully here).
Thus, Orthodoxy has thrived in diverse cultures and historical periods precisely because it is not bound by any one cultural expression but participates in the eternal reality of its head, Christ. It can be argued that not pursuing this deep enculturation in the West, and the United States, represents a departure from a long and successful tradition of Orthodox evangelism. Further, this historical praxis suggests that there can and ought to be a distinctly American expression of Orthodox chant that emerges naturally from the soil of this land and the hearts of this people.
Those who advocate for the retained use of preexisting chant systems might respond by pointing out the unique circumstances of Orthodoxy’s presence in the Americas. Unlike the intentional missionary endeavors that characterized Orthodoxy's spread in other regions and historical periods, Orthodoxy in America largely grew out of waves of immigration. Many Orthodox Christians came to these shores as immigrants or refugees, with no intention of severing their religious connection to their homelands. Evangelism was not their primary goal; rather, survival and maintaining their faith in a foreign land were the primary concerns. As these communities integrated into American society, Orthodox Christianity grew gradually, with the most significant expansion among those without ethnic ties to the Faith occurring only recently.
Given this context, one might ask whether it is realistic to expect a uniquely American Orthodox chant tradition to emerge fully formed at this stage. Historically, indigenous chant traditions in other Orthodox nations took centuries to develop, often under the tutelage and influence of their mother Sees. The gradual emergence of a distinct musical expression was a natural part of the Church’s organic growth in those contexts. Should the American experience be any different? Perhaps, rather than viewing the use of existing chant systems as a failure, it can be seen as part of a necessary and ongoing process.
An Orthodoxy for Whom?
Perhaps an even more penetrating critique is that the challenge is not only the historical circumstances but the very nature of America itself. Unlike the traditional recipients of past evangelization efforts, who were distinct peoples or ethnic groups (ethnos/natus), America does not represent a unified people in the classical sense. Instead, America is more accurately understood as a modern nation-state, an economic and political zone that functions more like a multi-ethnic empire than a cohesive nation. While America certainly has a culture, it is largely a pop culture—reduced to the most banal and basic aspects of life to serve as a common ground for a diverse and often disparate population. This pop culture, with its emphasis on consumerism and entertainment, lacks the depth and substance that could be deeply evangelized and transformed into something suitable for the Church's life in the world. The American cultural landscape is fragmented, with anything of real substance happening within various subcultures or para-cultures, where cultural engagement, if it occurs at all, is often isolated and compartmentalized.
In this context, it is understandable that immigrant Orthodox communities in America felt the right, indeed the need, to maintain strong ties with their cultural past rather than dissolving into the shallow and homogenizing force of propositional Americanism. A superficial Americanization did take place in these immigrant communities, but things of depth—like the Faith—were kept in the idiom of the Old Country. The historical model of evangelization, where a nation or ethnos is gradually transformed by the Church, simply does not apply in the same way here. America’s fragmented and subcultural reality means that ethnic Orthodox communities are not just remnants of a bygone era but are here to stay and will continue to play a crucial role in the Church's life in this country.
Moreover, the persistence of these ethnic communities is not merely a matter of historical inertia. Even as Orthodoxy experiences significant growth among American converts, many of these new adherents are drawn to the faith precisely because of its rootedness in distinct cultural traditions. Where American mass culture often leads to a sense of deracination and alienation, the stability and identity offered by these faith communities are seen as a powerful antidote. “Ethnos-centrism” as it turns out may not be the archnemesis of evangelization it has often been made out to be.
Far from being an obstacle, the confederation of distinct subcultures within Orthodoxy in America may actually be central to its continued vitality and growth. In a somewhat cynical view, this diversity within the Church seems to be functioning as a mechanism of self-sorting—a necessary pressure release valve in a society where what once united us, namely our propositional ideology (a shared commitment to civilizational values and a shared vision of legitimate governance), now serves to divide us. There is precious little working against the centrifugal force of diversification and particularization along almost every imaginable fault line in American society. In this context, the strength of Orthodoxy may well lie not in seeking to forge a monolithic expression of faith but in embracing the “optionality” provided by its varied expressions. This could allow Orthodoxy to survive the broader disintegration of American culture intact, insulating particular communities from these fragmenting forces and offering layers of abstraction, be it from parish to parish or even jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Put simply, America, perhaps unlike historical recipients of Orthodox evangelization, is not a people, or is no longer a people…and whatever it is, it seems to be disintegrating before our eyes. Orthodoxy in America, then, may not—and indeed ought not—evolve into a singular, uniform entity meet to a nonexistent people only to suffer the same fate as our fragmented society.
Rather, it will likely persist in America, not as a homogenized institution but as a diverse yet confederated reality, and perhaps providentially so. In this model, each subcultural expression brings its unique cultural heritage and practices while remaining comfortably distinct. This approach, far from being a compromise, may indeed be the most authentic and effective way for Orthodoxy to thrive in a nation as complex, multifaceted, and contentious as the United States, offering a spiritual home to all who seek it within the American landscape. And even if not viewed as a positive state of affairs, this diversity (some would say division) within Orthodoxy in America may simply persist as an inescapable de facto reality. A more local instantiation of Orthodox music need not take place, or ought not to take place lest the traditions of the Faith be subjected to the decadent solvent that is contemporary American culture. Indeed, some may argue that the very instinct to undertake such a project is likely more rooted in the distinctively Western preoccupation with perpetually forming and reforming the life of faith and tinkering with the liturgy in particular, which is at odds with the Orthodox ethos of gradual and experientially unnoticeable development over long periods of time. Whatever will become of Church music in the United States, it will reflect the diverse streams upon which it has arrived, and any enculturation will take a very very long time, if possible at all.
In considering the future of Orthodox music in America, we are confronted with a paradox: the very fragmentation of American culture that seems to challenge the formation of a unified Orthodox musical tradition may, in fact, be what allows Orthodoxy to maintain its vitality in this context. In this light, the question of whether an authentic American Orthodox music is necessary may be less urgent than ensuring that the various traditions we have inherited continue to thrive and adapt in their own right. The future of Orthodox music in America, then, may not lie in forging a new, unified tradition but in nurturing the rich, existing ones that continue to resonate with the diverse and multifaceted reality of the American Orthodox experience.
As we move forward, it becomes clear that the fragmentation and subcultural reality of American life provide both challenges and opportunities for Orthodox evangelization. In Part II, we will explore how the American context, with its existent but diminishing and perhaps unsuitable sacral musical tradition, differs from traditional patterns of evangelization, and what these differences might mean for the future of Orthodox music in this land. Most significantly, we will examine the possibility of recovering Gregorian Chant as the core of any emergent American, and indeed Western, Orthodox musical tradition, offering a potential way forward that is both faithful to the past and responsive to the present.