Or one could simply have no ethnicity mentioned on the sign.
Absolutely. This is already the case in several EO churches I've visited, and I think it's a step in the right direction. My only point is that separate from what you call the church on the sign outside (ethnic identifier or not), plenty of people are uncomfortable with the basics of the faith itself, or what they perceive to be an unwelcoming environment purely because they are from whatever background they are from (i.e., feeling unwelcome because they are a convert or potential convert, which certainly can have an ethnic component, but is also not -- strictly speaking -- something that can be fixed by de-emphasizing the ethnic roots of the church. In other words, if a church without an ethnic identifier is still majority X, then non-X might still feel uncomfortable, and it's obviously not a fit solution to get on other people about being Russian, or Serbian, or Greek, or whatever they are in an environment where that's already consciously de-emphasized).
I know that's heresy in some areas, but I don't see anything wrong with taking the "Russian" off of St John's Russian Orthodox Church, especially when according to one priest who was at a dieing parish, removing the ethnic nomenclature would encourage the fourth generation non-Russians in town to become Orthodox.
One would hope so, yes. If that's all it takes, it'd be stupid to insist on keeping it.
Besides, with fasting being a matter between one and one's spiritual father; if there were an honest candidate for, say president, and he was poked and proved about his fasting habits than he simply would have to have the spine to answer adequately.
True enough.
Unfortunately I do know from experience that attending a parish that is mostly of a certain ethnicity is not a mere talking point in conversation. It can, and in my case may or may not have, lead to accusations of disloyalty to the USA, being a terrorist or, my personal favorite, an ISIS sympathizer.
Yes. I don't mean to be flippant, but did you at some point consider telling these people who said those things that they don't actually know what they're talking about? Because that stuff is routine for people of my church purely because the majority still speak Arabic as a native language, even if all our liturgies are in English (which they by and large are, very consciously so). That sort of gets to my point: Even when/if you do all the right things to blend in or be welcoming, the fact that you're not a WASP is enough in itself to send some people into paroxysms of fear. How do you address that? It seems to me to be something a bit more deeply rooted than the sign on the door, since it's the characteristics that such critics associate with people from "over there" that makes them think that Christians could even possibly be ISIS sympathizers, and those characteristics are apparent the second that our priests, deacons, parishioners, etc. open their mouths, or even just step outside of their houses. I'm sure there are Assyrian Baptists or Arab Mormons or something that still also have to deal with this stuff. How is that fixed by changing signage? Forgive me, but I think that is overly optimistic. Would that it were enough that we spread around "Coptic American and Proud!" bumperstickers (complete with Coptic cross set against the American flag) so that the community would not be under suspicion of those who think it's patriotic to attack others for being brown and having accents. That's sadly not the world we live in. And I know plenty of EO deal with the same, especially if they're recent immigrants from Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.. It's really discouraging.
I like to believe that in ceasing to raise ethnic ties on a pedestal we could at least be a marginalized minority that IS NOT seen as being a potential fifth column for an Eastern European country.
I guess I'm just more pessimistic than you are concerning these things. Unfortunately, you cannot control other peoples' perceptions of you, even as you seek to influence them by showing that you're Christian, you love America, etc. Some of my Coptic friends have even joked with me sometimes (well, semi-joked) that they must love America more than I do because they make a bigger deal out of the Thanksgiving holiday than I do, holding big celebrations of it in individuals' houses and eagerly talking about experiencing this "Black Friday" that the news keeps talking about (blehhhh). Yet none of that makes them American enough to satisfy some people's prejudices. They're tan to black skinned, they speak English with noticeable accents, they sometimes pray in "terrorist" languages (even if they're really praying in Coptic...it's not English, so it must be that terrorist mooslim secret code), etc. That's the problem for all Middle Eastern Christian immigrants, I would imagine: in their home countries they're half a Westerner by virtue of being Christian, while in their adopted countries they're half a Muslim by virtue of being from the Middle East (which means 100% terrorist to the kind of people who intimidate them just for being here).
Besides since 1948 has it ever been widespread opinion, outside of neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic groups, that the Jews are all a fifth column for the State of Israel?
I don't know. Furthermore, I'm a bit confused as to the thinking behind this question. It can be argued that the Jews have assimilated nearly to the point where Judaism is more an ethnic identity than a widely-practiced faith in this country...isn't that exactly what you're arguing
against by writing about the dangers involved in placing ethnic identity on a pedestal, above practicing or spreading the faith? I'm not sure I understand you. Can you please clarify? Thank you.
