Download the Full Report

The priests in this study serve in three of Indiana’s counties within those two regions: Hamilton and Marion Counties in central Indiana and Lake County in the northwest. Both regions are similar in the diversity of their overall Orthodox ethno-religious distribution (nine different branches in the central region compared to seven in the northwest). The eight congregations in this small study represent those various traditions.

How do the priests of these congregations view the topic of polarization? All of the priests were, by their own definition, “conservative” or “traditional” in their theological outlook. One cultural issue that best illustrated this point concerned the role of women in the Orthodox Church. All of them discussed the roles that both men and women could serve in the life of the church, but none of them thought women should be serving as priests. They saw “no liturgical role” for women, and while they knew that they “wouldn’t have a parish if it weren’t for women,” there was nothing wrong with having different roles for different people.

This traditionalism shapes the way the priests think about polarizing issues in the wider culture. While acknowledging the value of many modern accomplishments, they are very concerned about modernism writ large. A priest in Indianapolis put it this way, “The modernism being pushed lately is disgusting and hasn’t done anything good for men, women, children, or families . . . if we don’t wake up and turn back to our traditional values, we will continue to have more and more mental, psychological, and physical issues. There is a reason people follow the old ways—the ways refined over centuries. Change for the sake of change leads to bad things.”

Because of their commitment to tradition, Hoosier Orthodox leaders recognize that on some level, their church must be involved in the political arena. As a priest in East Chicago, IN, noted, “To pretend that the church stays out of politics is kind of cute. Of course, the church is involved in politics—always has been, always will be.” These leaders believe the Church’s job is to talk about “morality” and “what God desires,” not to advocate for a specific political or legal remedy.

Yet, even without directly talking about politics, the same issues still seem to surface. If there was a cultural issue that the priests were most willing to talk about, it was abortion. Several of the Orthodox leaders discussed the “sanctity of life.” Teaching and preaching about that topic, instead of merely talking about the politics of abortion, instilled it as a value amongst their members, leading the laity to advocate for certain outcomes (and vote accordingly) in the secular sphere.

Many of the leaders expressed a much more nuanced view, especially in light of ongoing polarization. A priest in Hammond, IN, believes, “the Church’s solutions [to societal problems] aren’t political solutions.” Helping the poor, for example, is part of the Church’s duty. Another priest said, “I never preach politics from the pulpit . . . [but] our Lord commanded us from the beginning to be socially aware.”

In taking this approach, the Orthodox Church’s traditionalism seems to be expressed in adherence to an older “separate spheres” notion, one that sees the world in both religious and secular terms. Whether that stance is tenable in our current age of polarization is another question entirely. But as one priest simply summed it up, “ultimately faith must be above politics.”