Contemporary Worship Destroys Congregations

I left the Lutheran Church right in the midst of its "Worship Wars"--the never ending battle between advocates of the historic/ traditional Liturgy of the Western Rite and advocates of the "do-what-you-feel", "happy-clappy", "Everything's gonna be OK", "Raise your hands" type of "worship."  I remember walking out of the church whenever the worship ensemble would start to play and figuratively dusted my shoes off at the entrance.  Sure, I was probably being rude, but I knew even at that age (I was in my late teens) that this was not worship.

While I was reading some of the other blogs out there, I came across this one from Fr. Peter's blog, Pastoral Meanderings. This congregation, a Lutheran WELS church, did everything it was supposed to do according to the church growth movement people.  It took out the pews and put in more comfortable chairs. It replaced the organ with a contemporary worship ensemble. It put in a coffee shop. It created a casual atmosphere. The pastor was stripped of vestments and replaced with polos and khakis.  Sermons were replaced in favor of kids' messages.  Sin was replaced with "God loves you anyway so why strive to be better." Attendance peaked at 50 and then declined to nothing.  The church building is now for sale.

The pastor of the church is quoted as saying that this was the right move but at the wrong place and the wrong time.  If I may be so bold, it was the right move at the right time and right place, but the problem for its failure is that you didn't keep building on the high.

Contemporary worship and contemporary music is like being addicted to a drug.  Eventually, the same old stuff on Sunday mornings just won't get you that same "feeling" that will last for a long time.  Then, what happens?  Congregants search out for a new high, a new church that will breathe new life into their desire for more contemporary tunes, more comfortable chairs, more varieties of cappuccino, etc.  What's worse is that the church in question realizes that congregants are leaving to "shop" around and so it is constantly retooling things so much that it cannot keep up with all the changes and the same result ensues but only delayed for a short time.

Now, I will grant that there are many churches that serve the traditional liturgy and that people may leave searching out a church that is even more traditional, that chants instead of reads, that does it in Latin versus English, where priests are decked out even more so than the last guy.   And many of these churches try to rebuild themselves as being more and more traditional.  But, this scenario is the exception that proves the rule.  I've seen very few traditional churches, whether in the Protestant or Catholic traditions, that try to go "more traditional" than what they are already doing. The converse situation is by far the more common and that is destroying more congregations than building new ones.  It's a failed model, but the CCW people just don't seem to get it.

So, you'll forgive me if I don't gloat a little that this church is no longer.  Some may say that because this church is gone that even those 50 people will not be hearing the Gospel.  To be honest, knowing the constructs of contemporary worship, I doubt they heard it anyway.  Contemporary worship is about pleasing oneself and doing it quickly.  When it doesn't serve that purpose, the parishioner trots off somewhere else to get his spiritual "high."  That's not worship of God, but worship of self. 

Need Proof that Lutherans are Iconoclasts?

Give this a listen. 

Now, I don't know how mainstream or accepted Pr. Curtis' viewpoint is on the subject of the depiction of images and their use in the liturgical life of the church, but considering that this program aired on a station that is aligned with the LCMS, I'm sure it has some official imprimatur.  Essentially, Pr. Curtis disagrees with the way that iconoclasm arose and was implemented throughout mainly the confines of the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire), but agrees with their overall intent.  Images can be worshipped and since they can be abused and misused, they must, therefore, be removed or only used as pictures of art for strictly education purposes, but never used as devotional objects for a deeper spiritual relationship with the Lord.  This is really quite fascinating since the Lutheran Confessions subscribe to the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, because (quia) they agree with the Scriptures not insofar (quatenus) as they agree with the Scriptures.

This is nothing more than gnostic dualism, a total disregard for the material world as something evil and that the body, the flesh have no role in repentance or in our salvation.  Of the five senses, Lutherans only will allow one in worship:  that of hearing which comes from an overreaching interpretation of the passages in the Gospels that faith comes from hearing.  Given the propensity of Lutherans to define everything in strict categories, I'm sure that some Lutheran theologians have wanted to insert the German word allein after those passages as Luther did with Romans 3:28.

This just proves that as much as the LCMS is trying to reassert some degree of its confessionalism, it is picking and choosing from its tradition.  Quite unfortunate.

The Apolytikion of the Feast of Dormition

A Lutheran friend of mine decided to give me guff this morning about the Feast of the Dormition, particularly focusing on the Apolytikion (Dismissal Hymn).  I got the usual "talking points"--it's not Scriptural, Mary's no different than the rest of us, invoking saints is bad, etc.  I don't think he actually read the hymn's text which I posted in Greek (if he knows any Greek, I'd be surprised; Lutherans are particularly weak on language).  I'm going to go through the hymn line by line and I would encourage anyone (especially my Lutheran friends) to find anything objectionable:

Ἐν τῇ Γεννήσει τὴν παρθενίαν ἐφύλαξας.  Translation:  In birth-giving, you guarded your virginity.  Was Mary not a Virgin when she gave birth to Christ?  Did not the Prophets prophesy that it was a virgin who would be the Mother of God?  See Isaiah 7:4 and then the fulfillment in Matthew 1:22-23 which quotes Isaiah (Septuagint version) directly.  

This does not address the issue of the semper virgo, whether Mary was ever-virgin.  Of course, we Orthodox do believe that Mary was ever-virgin as did the Luther. In the Lutheran confessions, she is always referred to as semper virgo.  I don't understand how something from the confessions which demands a quia subscription by Lutheran pastors AND laity is now reduced to a "pious opinion."  But, I digress...

ἐν τῇ Κοιμήσει τὸν κόσμον οὐ κατέλιπες Θεοτόκε.  Translation:  And in your Dormition, you did not forsake the world, O Theotokos (God-bearer).  The unnecessary categorical distinction between the church militant and the church triumphant only causes confusion.  Does not St. Paul say that in Christ shall be made alive? (1 Cor 15:22).  Doesn't that even extend to those who are no longer in the world (ο κοσμος)?  If not, why not?  The saints make intercession for this world though they are no longer of this world, having been changed.  If it is considered good and worthy to ask for your friends and family to pray to God on your behalf, why not for those saints to do so?  

Now, with regards to the term Theotokos, most appropriately translated as God-bearer, but sometimes erroneously translated as Mother of God, this term has been applied to Mary for as long as there has been a Church catholic.  The term is not found in Scripture, but there can be no doubt (especially from the long introduction of the Gospel of St. John that the Jesus is BOTH man and God, Thenanthropos) that whom Mary gave birth to was God, born in the flesh.  The term Theotokos came under assault by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, desiring to protect the honour and integrity of the God-head, favored the term Christotokos--Christ-bearer.  But such a description would divide Christ into two persons and we know (from Scripture) that the members of the Trinity are individual persons.  Nestorius was rebuked at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. though he still has followers in the Middle East. (I believe the Jacobites in India are Nestorian as are the Assyrian Church--I'll have to check that).  Lutherans accept the 7 ecuemnical councils because, according to them, they agree with Scripture.  Calling Mary only Mother of Jesus is Nestorian and too many Lutherans have unfortunately accepted this as correct and that is heretical.

Μετέστης πρὸς τὴν ζωήν,  translation:  Thou wast translated to life.  A note first about translation.  The verb is active, but rendered here passively.  It's not intended to be reflexive for that would imply she went into the heavens by her own power, which is not held in Orthodox theology.  This was simply the best way to render it into English.  

The Greek prefix μετα implies material change.  And doesn't St. Paul say that we shall all be changed when we enter into our Lord's glory.  Mary is glorified because of the glory that her Son gives to her.  

μήτηρ ὑπάρχουσα τῆς ζωῆς, Translation:  Being the mother of life.  This is pretty self explanatory.  Mary is not only the mother of God, but God is the author of our life.  There are a myriad of Scriptural references on that.

καὶ ταῖς πρεσβείαις ταῖς σαῖς λυτρουμένη, ἐκ θανάτου τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν.  Translation:  delivering by thine intercessions our souls from death.  In many churches, the participle λυτρουμενη is rendered as an imperative verb.  You will hear "Deliver our souls from death" which is not correct.  So instead of merely describing what Mary is doing, it looks like an invocation which rubs Lutherans and other Protestants the wrong way.  Of course, we Orthodox do not shy away from invoking the saints and asking for their prayers (see above), but, there is none of this here.  

Lutherans will say that there is no doubt that the saints intercede for us.  See Revelation 8:3-4 for example.  So, why then the objection to this hymn?  The hymn restates the  fact that the saints (all of them, both in the world and in the heavens) pray for us and probably pray for any number of things for us.  And why shouldn't those prayers include deliverance from death (i.e. the Devil and his ways)? 

There should be nothing objectionable to this hymn from Lutherans, none at all.  It fulfills  your artificial criterion of Scriptural support, even though there is much more to Mary and the saints in our theology than just this hymn which may or may not find direct Scriptural support.  But, what is more significant is that many Scriptural "proofs" do exist for other doctrines and beliefs that Lutherans find objectionable, but those Scriptures were removed by Luther. These are the so-called Apocrypha which include books like Sirach, Tobit, III Maccabees, etc.  Luther excised those because he didn't like that they actually supported doctrines that he himself didn't like.  Luther wasn't only trying to correct abuses that had snuck into the Medieval Catholic church and return the church to the doctrinal purity of the apostles or those following, but wanted to purge doctrines that he himself hated because Luther thought that he was above the church despite the Scripture that it is the Church which is the guardian and bulwark of Truth, not the Bible.  

I again challenge how this hymn could be objectionable.  Of course, debate over doctrine is generally fruitless and futile so I'm sure that if I do receive anything, it will be more in the form of polemic and invective.

Quote of the day

One thing I find funny about the "sola"s [i.e. referring to the Lutheran solas of sola fide, sola, Scriptura, sola gratia, solo Christo] is that if they are all "alone", why is there four of them?--Anonymous

Ignorance of Basic Church History and the Fathers

The Orthodox Church is rightly called the Church of the Fathers. Why?  Because the Church Fathers are a living reality in the church with their writings, the hymns and melodies they composed, their prayers and their lives as models for how we are to live the life in Christ.  It is thus imperative that we study them and get to know them, both East and West (with certain caveats and a cutoff date).  Other christian schools of thought have otherwise erased the fathers, quoted them only when those church fathers agree with them (more accurately, whenever the words of a church father are mangled or twisted to fit what the person wants--nowhere is this more apparent than with St. Augustine) or bring them up to help create the fiction that their respective church bodies were not born in 1517 or 1534 or in 18th century United States, but are continuations of the apostles (which cannot be supported, at all). 

In such churches, ignorance of the fathers can be excused, but this just takes the cake.  This is an interview on Issues, Etc. a very confessional radio program sponsored (I think) by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.  The topic is on the 9th century fathers, Sts. Cyril and Methodius.  I don't know why this person was invited to speak about these great saints.  There is nothing to indicate that he specializes in history of the Eastern Churches.  But, he never brings up the Eastern Church.  Listen to the interview.  This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.  Some examples:

1) Never does he mention the (Eastern) Roman Empire.  He does mention the recently fabricated Holy Roman Empire of the West (which, as Voltaire said, was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire).  This (the Eastern Empire is the milieu in which Sts. Cyril and Methodius were born, raised, educated and prayed.  He brings up Islam a lot, but Cyril and Methodius NEVER had interactions with the Arab caliphates.

2)  He mentions that Greek Christian thought was preserved almost exclusively by the Arabs.  True, but the incomplete picture.  The Eastern Roman Empire had been doing that for much longer and much better than the Arabs. 

3)  Cyril and Methodius did not invent the Cyrillic alphabet.  They invented the Glagolithic alphabet which later gave way to Cyrillic which is more simple. But the creation of that writing system was NOT so that the Slavic speaking people of these regions could have the Scriptures and Liturgy translated into their language, but was invented as a means to help them learn the Greek prayers and liturgy. 

4)  Never is there any mention of the fact that the Slavs were converted to Orthodox Christianity.

5)  This pastor can only speak about the western church whose liturgy and practice were radically different from the east yet he assumes that there is a monolithic Christianity.

I could go on, but this should suffice.  Ignorance of the church fathers is a problem that stretches across the Christian world.  We Orthodox need to do a better job of studying, reading and knowing the fathers.  Their words are not historical documents.  As I wrote the other day, the fathers' writings are every bit part of the word "Scripture" as the New and Old Testaments along with the prayers, the liturgies, the icons, the decrees of the councils, etc.  Nor am I trying to pick on any one denomination in general (i.e. Lutheran) for their ignorance of the church fathers.  Though, as I wrote above, the Lutheran preoccupation with the fathers is to twist their words so that it meets their current school of thought. 

The Church fathers are above all to be revered.  They are saints standing at Christ's right hand interceding for us and our salvation.  We are correct to ask for their protection and aid.  We cannot be ignorant of the cloud of witnesses and what they do and have given us for our salvation in Christ.

Sola Scriptura--What is Meant by Scriptura

As a Lutheran, I was taught the three solas:  sola fide, sola gratia and, probably the biggest one, sola Scriptura.  Sola, alone, is such a limiting word and it compartmentalizes the faith in such a way that it is little wonder that the Reformers jettisoned so much from the historic liturgy, historic praxis and catholic faith to fit into those categories.  Of course, the Reformers, in particular the Lutherans, rather than correct the necessary abuses, came up with these three categories and then pushed the faith into them. Whatever still remained outside was to be considered an error, heresy, etc and thus was pushed out, too.  Besides the problem with the word, sola (alone), is what the Reformers thought the words fides, gratia and Scriptura meant. We'll deal with the latter here.

Frequently, Lutherans and Protestants, in general, will quote church fathers arguing that when they use the term Scriptures, they mean "Bible."  Here are a few examples:

St. Athanasius-- The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, I:3)

St. Gregory of Nyssa--For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection)  and   Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (On the Holy Trinity)

St. John Chrysostom--Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast. (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem--For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17)

These are some common "proof texts" from some of the Eastern Fathers about sola Scriptura.  To a Protestant, the word "Bible" can be be used synonymously with Scripture.  But what did Scripture mean for the early fathers?  Did it mean Bible?  It couldn't have been.  First, the concept of the Bible was unknown to the early fathers.  There wasn't even a codified "New Testament" before the 5th century or at least one that was agreed upon universally.  (Also, the Gospels were kept in their own codex, which is still preserved in the Eastern Churches called the "Evangelion" and the letters of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. Jude and St. James and St. John were kept in another codex called the "Apostolos."  During the Liturgy, the Gospel and Epistle are never read from a Bible but from the Evangelion and Apostolos, respectively.)  Even when used in the New Testament, Scripture refers exclusively to the "Old Testament."  In the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Faith, when we confess secundum Scripturas or, in Greek, kata tas graphas, which mean "in accordance with the Scriptures" or "in fulfillment of the Scriptures" we are referring again to what is know as the Old Testament. And that is what the fathers quoted above mean by it, too.

But what did later fathers mean by Scripture?  A New Testament had been codified by then.  Did the terms Scriptura(e) or Graphi come to be synonymous linked with the term "Bible" maybe in the sixth century?  Even if we assume that it did (and I'm not conceding that point), it refutes the notion of the Reformers that the doctrine of sola Scriptura, referring to both the Old and New Testaments as the foundation of all doctrine does not hold up to historical scrutiny.  The Reformers and her modern heirs, frequently boast that their churches had returned to the church of the apostolic age. So, does Scripture mean both Old and New Testament by the middle of the first millennium?  Very hard to even come to that conclusion.

What is the basic meaning of Scripture, Scriptura, Graphi?  In Greek and Latin, it derives from the word meaning "writing."  By the middle of the first millennium, there were many writings beyond just the Old and New Testament concerning the witness to the revelation of Christ. (Aside:  Just to clarify, and I've said this many times. Word of God is a who not a what? The Word, the Logos is the God-Man (Theanthropos) Christ incarnate.  The Scriptures are a WITNESS to Him who revealed Himself).  This is from the introduction of a recent edition of St. Isaac the Syrian's Ascetical Homilies:

Saint Isaac very often writes about the reading of ‘Scripture’. In English this word has come to mean the Bible and nothing else. In Greek and Syriac, however, this is not the case. We may recall Saint Peter’s words, ‘For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Peter 1:21). For the Church, ‘Scripture’ refers to the writings of all holy men who were moved by the Spirit: the Prophets, Apostles, and the holy Fathers. Therefore, by ‘Scripture’ Saint Isaac means both the Bible and the writings of the holy Fathers. On a few occasions it is evident from the context that he can only be speaking of the writings of the Fathers; here to avoid confusion, we have used ‘writing.' (emphasis mine; p. 573, published by HTM, 2011)

Now,  St. Isaac the Syrian was no innovator and he is not some minor figure in Orthodoxy (Aside:  I love how certain Protestants demand that the Orthodox faithful name a church father who defends what the Orthodox believe and when such a father is produced, the Protestant retorts that such-and-such is a "minor" figure.  Pr. McCain is particularly guilty of this).  St. Isaac is a very crucial witness in Orthodox theology.  Keep in mind that he lived and wrote in what is modern day Yemen.  Though he held a Christology that was near Nestorian (name me one church father who was completely right on everything), it shows that such a tradition of thought with regards to how to identify the Scriptures as meaning Old/New Testament and the writings of the church fathers was widespread even past the oikoumene of the Eastern Roman Empire which had long lost any political or military hold on the Arabian peninsula.



Orthodox can hold to sola Scriptura, then provided that the meaning of Scriptura is not just Old and New Testaments.  Not only would we include the writings of the holy fathers, but the decrees of the ecumenical councils, the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Dialogist and St. James and even icons as Scripture (icons are "written" not painted).  Of course, I doubt seriously that any Protestant would willingly expand the meaning of Scriptura to include all those other witnesses.  Such is why Protestantism cannot be considered to be "catholic" nor the historic faith.

My thanks to Under the Dome for pointing me to this quote from the new edition of St. Isaac's homilies.

Reformation Day 2011

On October 31, 1517 (old calendar) a young priest by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg in the duchy of Saxony. All over the world, Lutheran churches are paying homage to their founder and many other reformed churches which owe their own existence to this act of defiance.

I was raised Lutheran and I admit that I was not spiritually happy in the Lutheran tradition or what has become Lutheran tradition. So I left and I have no regrets about doing so. The only thing that I do regret is that in my own zealousness and desire for self-justification and self-vindication I have been less than charitable many times towards continued adherents and even converts to the various reformed churches. This does not mean that I cannot engage in debates of substantive concern with regards to Christianity.

Reading some articles today about the Reformation and how churches are celebrating, I came upon an article by Paul McCain, who is a Lutheran pastor and has his own blog, Cyberbrethren. I will admit that I have had several confrontations with him and I will further admit that I do not much care for him personally. His destructive rants against anyone who has left the Lutheran church have damaged the reputations of many good people. I also have some qualms with him on academic integrity, but those are not the issues. On his blog, today, McCain writes what it means to be Lutheran. He writes, "To be Lutheran is to be a person who says, 'This [i.e. Lutheranism] is what God’s Word, the Bible, teaches. This and nothing else is true and correct.'"

His description highlights one of the main reasons why I left Lutheranism. As a Lutheran in catechism class I was taught the three solas: sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura. As I studied and read more I found that the last, sola scriptura, was not only historically untenable, it is theologically untenable. Sola Scriptura is also the wrong answer to the wrong question. Lutherans ask "what is the Word of God?" They should ask, instead, "Who is the Word of God?"

The Word of God is NOT the Scriptures. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity who became man. The Scriptures, or Bible, if you prefer, are the witness to Christ. The Scriptures are an icon, an image, of God, but no one would say that they are God. Such a position would be rightly denounced as ridiculous. But the reformed tradition's insistence on sola scriptura replaces Christ as the head of the Church with a book. Catholics go in the other direction and replace Christ as head with their pope. The Lutherans, and other Protestants, did a 180 but are still in error.

This issue was not the driving force behind my leaving, but it is important. I wanted to engage in a practice that fed my soul. I read my histories carefully about the importance of asceticism, fasting, starving the passions, vigilant prayer, worshiping with the Liturgy and offices in the early church, all things which were considered unnecessary by my Lutheran teachers, even condemned because they were not "prescribed in the Bible." Sola Scriptura threw out such good practices and disciplines which I only found and have applied (though poorly) since I became Greek Orthodox. I think that if Lutherans would examine their own history, they would find that the practices I mentioned above were still retained by the Lutheran churches until Pietism in the eighteenth century reared its ugly head.

Luther made some very necessary demands on the church of the west at the time. They were largely ignored and schism ensued, but I think Luther would even have a hard time identifying the Lutheran Church of today (in its thousands of manifestations)as the heir to what he taught. But I know that I could only have become Orthodox if I was Lutheran first. For that, I am very thankful.

Mother of God vs. Mother of Jesus

Today is my parent's 40th wedding anniversary (God grant them many more years together) and so when I got home from my church, my parents informed me of what went on with their service. I think my parents paid extra special attention since I'm sure that they were mindful of all the blessings and headaches (i.e. me) that have come with 40 years of marriage. Anyway, they mentioned to me that the theme of this the fourth Sunday in Advent was about Mary and Elizabeth. (On a side note, Fr. Peters over at Pastoral Meanderings has a blog on his flock's response to Mary in today's service) I responded that in our church, the Sunday before Christmas is referred to as the Sunday of Genealogy where we read the forefathers and foremothers of Christ our God, born in the flesh and that we stress that God did not simply appear but became as we are to make us what He is. I then asked a question, because I was genuinely curious: Did the pastor refer to Mary as "Mother of God" or "Mother of Jesus?" Nearly instantly, my parents responded "Mother of Jesus." I had to shake my head in disbelief and responded with a typical shockingly "What?" My parents thought I was making a big difference over nothing. But then again, I wonder how many Orthodox (cradle and convert alike) would also assume that there is no fundamental difference in the terminology.

I would never, ever accuse Lutherans of holding a heretical Christology, never. Then again, I think, as with the case of my parents, they see (and probably many Lutheran clergy) that there is no difference in "Mother of God" versus "Mother of Jesus" even though there is quite a difference in those two descriptions. I then responded that to call Mary the Mother of Jesus is to make a Nestorian distinction between the Logos and the man, Jesus. My parents, in all honesty, did not know what Nestorian means.

As far as I understand the term (and I have been reading +Fr. John Meyendorff's book, The Person of Christ in Eastern Thought lately so that sort of helps), a Nestorian understanding of the person of Jesus Christ arises when one believes that there can be no union of the divine and the created together in one substance since that would presuppose that as the mortal part grows old and dies that hence God would die as well, which, of course is impossible. Also, Nestorius said that in His very nature, God could not assume that which He is by nature not (i.e. creator assuming the created). Hence, Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ only and gave her the epithet "Christotokos" which is Greek for "Mother of Christ." Now, to be fair to Nestorius (though he was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.), and like most other heretics who were without doubt pious men, he probably just felt that the idea of Mary giving birth to the Divine God with human attributes would somehow rob the Godhead of the glory that is due to Him. So Nestorius' solution to his own problem was that there were in fact two persons, the Divine Logos and the human Christ and Mary was the mother of the latter.

Of course orthodox Christian doctrine (notice I use the small "o" deliberately to refer to Christian confessions such as Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and some other Protestant sects as well as the Orthodox) is that Jesus Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Nicene Creed) and thus he is both God and man in one union. There is only one person, Jesus Christ, but there is present two substances, which, clarified by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which were neither commingled nor confused but contained in one hypostatsis, i.e. the God-man, Jesus Christ.

But let's get back to Mary. Lutherans, it seems, will object to the term Theotokos for Mary because it assumes that Mary is supplying the Divine chromosome, so to speak. Of course, this is not Orthodox theology or belief. But to say that she only gave birth to a human is to deny the reality of the incarnation. Again, Lutheran theology, especially as it is contained in the Book of Concord which are the Lutheran confessions, is very orthodox (again, notice the small "o") on this point since it explicitly says that Mary gave birth to ONE person, the God-man Jesus Christ. Thus, Lutherans do accept the tenets of the Council of Ephesus, but, according to them, the only reason they do is because they say it agrees with Scripture (that's an argument for another time).

It's easy for me to shake my head in disbelief when I hear Lutherans call Mary only the Mother of Jesus since I know that they are not heretical in this regard. But when you insist that there is a vital difference in calling her Mother of God versus Mother of Jesus, it will often result in a "it makes no difference" or "well, that's your way of looking at it." I think, though, that if people (and I mean all Christians who accept the incarnation as an article of faith handed down by the Church) really understood that one description does damage to the understanding of why God became incarnate, without which we could not have possibly been saved, then I think the terminology will take care of itself. The only remedy, for Lutherans and Orthodox alike, is continued catechesis and insistence that the two titles do NOT mean the same thing.

Why fear Mary?

Last night, I went to the mid week Advent service at Hope Lutheran Church with my parents. My reasons for going were many. After being there on Monday night to help my mom decorate the church (she needed my long legs and strong frame) for the season, I was reminded that a good portion of my life growing up in this area was shaped by being a member of this church. I was confirmed in this church. In fact, in the narthex, I saw the picture of my confirmation class back in 1990. A lot of my friends whom I still connect with I met through this church and I got to see and catch up with a few of them last night at the dinner given prior to the Advent Service. Unfortunately, most of my memories of the worship of this church were clouded with my complaints (not undeserved) that it was ahistorical, novel and more about outreach than worshipping the One God in purity and in truth.

The order of service used was from the Lutheran Service Book (LSB) which was recently published. It has 5 settings of the Divine Liturgy, a Matins, Vespers, Compline and several other services as well. The one used last night was Evening Prayer. Prior to the service starting, Pr. Harries (whom I don't know well since he came after I became Orthodox) explained the order of the service for the congregants. It never fails to amaze me how often Lutheran pastors have to explain the liturgies in place to the congregation; it just shows how impoverished liturgically much of modern Lutheranism has become. Fewer and fewer Lutheran churches prefer the traditional Liturgy and prefer an "whatever the pastor feels like doing" mentality...but, I digress. Anyway, the Evening Prayer service in the LSB is, in its framework, the Order of Great Vespers from the Eastern Rite Churches of which the Orthodox are included. The hymn "O Gladsome Light" is sung as well as Psalm 140 (though they begin with verse 2 and don't use incense), but the thing that floored me was the use of the Eastern Rite Great Ektenia (Litany). Word for word, it was exactly like the Litany that Orthodox use at Vespers, Orthros and Divine Liturgy. What floored me was the very end where the pastor says "Rejoicing in the fellowship of all the saints, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ, our Lord." We say "Christ our God." But in the Orthodox version of this ending, we say "Calling to mind our most pure, most blessed, Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary with all the saints, let us commend...etc."

The ending of this prayer is not a prayer to Mary or the saints. But why is Mary excised from this ending? I think that Romaphobia (at least in this respect) infiltrated the committee on worship and excised it. "We can't call Mary by name so we'll just cover her up by just mentioning all the saints. If we mention Mary people will think that we are worshipping her like those Catholics." Even if I'm not spot on with the words, I'm next to certain that such was the sentiment to justify their rewording of this petition.

Why are Lutherans so afraid to mention Mary's name? The reason we Orthodox call to mind Mary at the end of these litanies is because of Christology. Lutherans confess, rightly, that Christ is both God and man, has two natures, not commingled but united in His person. We Orthodox confess that as well. Our remembrance of Mary is to remember Christ's emptying of himself to become a servant, i.e. His incarnation. I'm sure people would object to this saying that we can remember Christ's incarnation without mentioning Mary. Really? How? If Mary is removed then there is no incarnation. Christ assumed everything we have (excepting sin) so that we may be entirely healed and that was done through Mary. Removing Mary from the incarnation is to deny one of the basic tenets of the faith. Even in the Nicene Creed which Lutherans and Orthodox alike confess (minus the filioque), we say that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary. If we confess Mary in the Nicene Creed then what is the possible harm in remembering he incarnation of Christ, because of which our prayers are set before God the Father, through mentioning His mother at the end of the litany? I'm sure the response would be that mentioning her could possibly lead to worshipping Mary rather than God and that's what Catholics and Orthodox do. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth, since we commemorate and honor and commemorate her. Because Lutherans and other Protestants can't recognize the difference is their problem, not ours.

But still, why fear her? I've even noticed that in a lot of Lutheran circles, Mary is called not Mother of God (Thetokos in Greek as codified by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) but, instead, Mother of Jesus, which is to make a near Nestorian distinction. If Mary is not Mother of God, then the Logos did not become man. IF you don't want to pray to her, fine (it's your loss, in my opinion), but we're not praying to her in that petition; we are honoring her because it was through her that Christ became incarnate and thus saved us from sin and death.

The point I am trying to make: Mentioning Mary is not the first step to idolatry.

A sermon on the Nativity of the Theotokos

This is a sermon on the Nativity of the Theotokos (celebrated September 8 in the Orthodox Church) by +Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory. My priest read this sermon, not quite in its entirety, and it shall not be reproduced here in its entirety for the Liturgy and I think really sums up the Eastern ethos with regards to the Theotokos. As a Lutheran, Mary's place and honour in the church varied from either being totally ignored (Romaphobia)or honored very little but with a near Nestorian understanding and approach. Chris Orr at Orrologion, rightly, I think, points out that modern Lutheranism is willing to speak of Mary as the mother of Jesus, but almost never as the Mother of God. And there is a distinction, a radical one, which, if not properly remedied can lead to the path of Nestorianism. I'm not saying Lutherans are Nestorians, though. But there is, in Lutheranism, a mainly academic understanding of Mary as Theotokos (i.e. Mother of God) that it, in many ways, is lacking. Lutherans will claim that their church can still be incarnational in its theology (and they are) without venerating Mary. But, I believe it is incomplete.

Anyway, I'm posting large snippets of the sermon here and I would really like my Lutheran friends to comment on whether this is really contrary to orthodox (notice the small "o") Christianity.

The Church's veneration of Mary has always been rooted in her obedience to God, her willing choice to accept a humanly impossible calling. The Orthodox Church has always emphasized Mary's connection to humanity and delighted in her as the best, purest, most sublime fruition of human history and of man's quest for God, for ultimate meaning, for ultimate content of human life. If in Western Christianity veneration of Mary was centered upon her perpetual virginity, the heart of Orthodox Christian East's devotion, contemplation, and joyful delight has always been her Motherhood, her flesh and blood connection to Jesus Christ. The East rejoices that the human role in the divine plan is pivotal. The Son of god comes to earth, appears in order to redeem the world, He becomes human to incorporate man into His divine vocation, but humanity takes part in this. If it is understood that Christ's "co-nature" with us is human being and not some phantom or bodiless apparition, that He is one of us and forever united to us through His and forever united to us through His humanity, then devotion to Mary also becomes understandable, for she is the one who have Him His human nature, His flesh and blood. She is the one through whom Christ can always call Himself "The Son of Man."

Son of God, Son of Man...God descending and becoming man so that man could become divine, could become partakeer of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), or as the teachers of Church expressed it, "deified." Precisely here, in this extraordinary revelation of man's authentic nature and calling, is the source that gratitude and tenderness which cherishes Mary as our link to Christ and, in Him, to God. And nowhere is this reflected more clearly that in the Nativity of the Mother of God. Nothing about this event is mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scriptures. But why should there be? Is there anything remarkable, anything especially unique about the normal birth of a child, a birth like any other?..The Church began to commemorate the event with a special feast...because, on the contrary, the very fact that it is routine discloses something fresh and radiant about everything we call "routine" and ordinary, it gives new depth to the unremarkable details of human life...And with each birth the world is itself in some sense created anew and given as a gift to this new human being to be his life, his path, his creation.

This feast therefore is first a general celebration of Man's birth, and we no longer remember the anguish, as the Gospel says, "for joy that a human being is born into the world" (Jn. 16:21). Secondly, we now know whose particular birth, whose coming we celebrate: Mary's. We know the uniqueness, the beauty, the grace of precisely this child, her destiny, her meaning for us and for the whole world. And thirdly, we celebrate all who prepared the way for Mary, who contributed to her inheritance of grace and beauty...And therefore the hfeast of her Nativity is also a celebration of human history, a celebration of faith in man, a celebration of man. Sadly, the inheritance of evil is far more visible and better known. There is so much evil around us that this faith in man, in his freedom, in the possibility of handing down a radiant inheritance of goodness has almost evaporated and been replaced by cynicism and suspicion...This hostile cynicism and discouraging suspicion are precisely what seduce us to distance ourselves from the Church when it celebrates with such joy and faith this birth of a little girl in whom are concentrated all teh goodness, spiritual beauty, harmony and perfection that are elements of genuine human nature...Thus, in celebrating Mary's birth we find ourselves already on the road to Bethlehem, moving toward to the joyful mystery of Mary as the Mother to God.

An addendum to why I left the Lutheran Church

I have told myself many times that I should no longer concern myself with the matters of other church bodies. I am Orthodox and that should be sufficient for me. Besides, what business do I have as I am not even a member? I often say the same thing to those people who ridicule the Roman Catholic Church because they don't allow women as priests. When I ask them if they are Roman Catholic and they say "no" then I ask why that is their concern. And such should be the same with me.

Yesterday, the nation's largest "Lutheran" body voted to allow actively practicing homosexuals to serve in church positions, including that of the priesthood, as long as they were in committed, long-lasting relationships. However, this policy would be decided on by individual parishes and bishops could no longer take disciplinary actions.

This vote came as no surprise to me since the ELCA has ceased to be a Lutheran body from the time of its formation back in 1989. It is apostate. Now, there are good and faithful members of the ELCA who, for whatever reason, have decided to remain in the ELCA. Some are trying to reform the ELCA from within, but such a hope is lost and the ELCA will continue to go adrift without any spiritual anchor, namely the Word of God (I'm talking Christ, not the Bible). ELCA "scholar-theologians" thinking they know better than the consensus patruum or phrosyne patron, decided that the "spiritual" meaning of Scripture trumps an y "literal" meaning. Well, in a blog I wrote earlier this week, thanks to the inspriation of Mr. Christopher Orr who always has gems of wisdom on his page, the literal meaning of the Scritpure IS the spiritual meaning. And that has always been the rule of guiding interpretation in the Church until the Roman Catholic Church decided it was the pope who was the rule and then Martin Luther who decided that his own conscience dictated otherwise.

What has happened is that the heirs of Luther, following in his footsteps, have decreed that their own reason, their own interepretation, their own egos are far superior than to acknowledge and be obedient to the rule of faith handed down once and for all to the saints! Many are saying that Luther would be rolling over in his grave upon hearing what the ELCA has done. Maybe, but they are merely following his lead. Luther was an egoist. Everything was about him and how unworthy he was. While a monk, Luther would often go on for hours saying "Ego non sum" or "Ich bin's nicht", both of which translate to "I am nothing." Even if that seems like a selfless statement, it is anything but. The word "I" dominates Luther's writings and teachings, mostly in the negative sense. Since when did the Kingdom of God and salvtion revolve around you exclusively? Luther's guilt trips are almost the stuff of legend. I would encourage people to read Eric Ericsson's biography Young Man Luther, an invigorating and insightful psychological look to the reformer. The inevitable result of Luther's stand against the Roman Catholic Church, misguided as it was, saying that his own conscience dictated what is right set a standard which the more than 20,000 brands of Protestants use today. If I don't like a doctrine, we'll change it since I am bound by conscience.

Egoism destroys the love of God and it also destroys the human. Are all Lutherans egoists? Surely not. I would venture that I am even more of one than they. However, they are heirs to a church whose founder's dictates were based on personal preference and interpretation.

I know that there are many, within the ELCA and without, who are very happy with this decision. Let them be. But for those whose faithfulness to the Word of God has been questioned as uncaring and unloving, they have a difficult road ahead. ELCA churches, many of them, will be torn by infighting about this issue. Many members will leave. Many will reluctantly stay. But this is but another domino to fall in the great quest for apostacy.

I hope that the LCMS never goes this route, but leaders and "scholar-theologians" in their midst are still Luther's heirs; personal, egoistic interpretation rules there as well. The conciliar nature of both churches has been replaced with the democratic notions of the individual. Though Luther was a staunch opponent of democracy, because it was nothing more than pandering to the lowest elements of society, democracy, too and ironically, the tyranny of the majority, is his legacy as well.

Is the Orthodox Church immune to this? Sadly, no. It hasn't come to this extent of realization, but after what I have seen, even in my own archdiocese, it still may. Egoism is not merely a Lutheran matter; it is a sinful matter. The Orthodox may be buffeted against it for awhile, but there needs to be some deep soul-search and change.

"O, Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, granting to Thy people victory over all adversaries. And by the power of Thy Cross, preserve thine estate."--Troparion for Exaltation of the Cross, Tone 1

So, why did you become Orthodox?--Part 2: College and Graduate School and coming to Nebraska

Here's a little summary from the previous entry. I grew up Lutheran in the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod). Though a conservative church unlike the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) which basically reduced Christian teachings on "settled" theological issues to mere options or suggestions and that Scripture really didn't mean what it said and that God was ever changing. But with the LCMS, I felt it was too fundamentalist, almost Baptist. The historic liturgy was more and more becoming just a mere option and personal preferences and praise bands became more of the established status quo. I thought that the way for me to attain a greater spirituality was to become Roman Catholic. I thought that all the historical research I had done would justify my claim.

Anyway, I remember being dropped off to college. I had just turned 18 and I was as a deer in headlights. I didn't know what I should do. To top it off, I didn't have a car to transport me around. Anyway, after getting settled in for a few weeks, I really noticed that the college culture was very different from the sheltered one I had encountered under the care of my parents. People thought much more radically and differently than I did. And there was such a range of opinion that I had never encountered before. I was in a very secular and liberal mindset on campus. And if you believe that, that's fine, but it's not for me so I started seeking out spiritual refuge. I knew there was a LCMS church in Kirksville but I thought Catholicism was the way to go. So, I started attending Mass. My friend Dan Baack, a friend of my roommate, Matt, from Joplin loaned me his car so I could drive over there. Anyway, I started attending Mass and, falsely, I already regarded myself as a Catholic which, I knew in my heart, was wrong. I even remember partaking of the eucharist and I should have known better but I did anyway. However, I soon became disenfranchised with the Catholics.

Why? I noticed no different in the Catholics than what I saw with the Lutherans. The liturgy was abandoned and more "happy-feely" hymns replaced the staples of the Catholic Church. So, in other words, the Catholicism I read about was not the Catholicism that was practiced. And that should never be a surprise. Reading about something is almost never the same as experiencing it. And that especially goes for matters of faith. So, I stopped going. I didn't go over to the Lutheran church in Kirksville, either. I was in a spiritual vacuum. When I went home I went to church with my parents still, but I was still unsatisfied. Tradition and history were still being replaced with what feels good and right. Nonetheless, I endured. This was pretty much the standard that I followed through the rest of my college years.

Now one might think that if I wasn't going to church that I started on a deep descent into bad habits and bad morals. Well, not really. I never considered myself to be a big partier or anything of the sort and I didn't do that. I just studied and hung out with my friends. I didn't date mostly because there was no one interested.

HOwever, at the end of my junior year, I was a preceptor at Joseph Baldwin Academy at Truman State University. This academy drew students from seventh to ninth grade to take college level courses. My fellow preceptor was Nichole Torbitzky (now Nichole Torbitzky-Lane) who had decided to go off to seminary when she was done with college. She was a member of the UCC, whose theology was way too liberal and care-free for what I was looking for. Nonetheless, she was trying to persuade me that my spiritual enlightenment could be better achieved if I wasn't so hard of heart and actually invited love into me. I think she was right, but I would never have given her credit at the time. But this is also where I met my first girlfriend, Sally. When I returned for my senior year, she and I continued to date for two months and then it ended.

My senior year ended and I still was in my spiritual void. I was going to go to graduate school at the University of Missouri-Columbia. When I went, I didn't even attempt to go to Mass or Church. I just wasn't interested. Now a question may be asked about why I wasn't doing more individual praying? And I've only found the answer to that question recently. It is hard, very difficult to pray on one's own. It is a work. We have to remember that our prayer life is ultimately communal. Just as it is difficult to really get workout results without a partner to help you and motivate you and encourage you, so it is difficult to come to prayer without someone else. I didn't realize it like that at the time, but it makes sense.

Eventually, I started going to the Lutheran Church which wasn't far from where I lived in Columbia, but it was not a good experience. I hated it. First, the church architecture was horrendously ugly. Why is it that whenever I go to a new town, the most ugly church in town is always the Lutheran one? I'm sorry, but that is just my opinion and I've been proved right far more than wrong. The worship was stale and it was no different. So I stopped going there too.

I only came back when a very terrible event happened. My very good friend, Sara, committed suicide. I loved this woman with all my heart and I cherished her though the feelings were not reciprocated. I won't go into the details, but, needless to say, I was thrown into a pit of such despair. My parents did their best to help me out, even calling Pr. Gerike at the Lutheran Church to come visit me at where I was working at the time. Eventually, I went over to the church, since it was Lent, and the other pastor heard my confession. But, I really can't say I felt better as I was carrying a lot of guilt and I carried that guilt with me for a long time.

I got a job up here in Bellevue, NE and I moved here in August 2004. My parents still were trying to find me a church and they found one for me here in Bellevue, but I decided to go to the Lutheran Church in Papillion, the town next door. But I was doing a lot of church shopping and everywhere I went I was disappointed. Everything was about modernism. I couldn't worship at these places. Eventually, I found a very traditional Lutheran congregation that worshipped way out there in Papillion and I felt at home for awhile. But then I started to feel isolated again. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate what the pastor was doing. This pastor even practiced private confession, something which is regarded by many Lutherans as something too "Romish" and therefore to be thrown out. But, it was a very shallow form of confession. This congregation also made the sign of the cross, which again, was a very "Romish" thing to do and celebrated feast days that fell on regular weekdays. But it seemed fabricated.

Eventually, I found a Roman Catholic Church here in Omaha that actually served the extraordinary Rite of the Mass, sometimes known as the Tridentine Mass. They chanted everything in Latin, in the Gregorian style and it was magnificent. So, again, I made serious inquiries into becoming a Catholic in this parish since this was the Catholicism I had read about, that was traditional, that was more concerned with true worship than what was popular. I thought that would be the end of my spiritual journey and I would become, as I originally thought, a Catholic.

During the summer of 2005, I was taking classes at Creighton Univeristy. The class was on a break and I went out into the hall and looked around. I kept coming to this one flyer which advertised the local Orthodox Churches and their service times. I thought to myself that I never had seen a Greek Orthodox service. I had done some research into it. A paper I wrote during my senior year of college dealt with the schism of 1054 between East and West. My paper was mainly focussed on the Western side of the schism, but it was at that time that I had come into contact with books written by Sir Steven Runcimann who was and is the greatest authority on the Byzantine Empire. So, I did a little reading about the history of the late Roman Empire, but knew next to nothing of its Christian history. I had heard of such great illuminaries like St. John of Damascus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and others but I only knew of the "filioque" which separated them from the West. So, I was curious. I found a church that offered a Saturday night service (there was only one).

So, on Saturday, July 24 (St. Christina's day), I attended a Great Vespers at St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church. And I never stopped going.

Part III will go into the Orthodox phase of my journey.

So, why did you become Orthodox?--Part 1: The Lutheran Years

This will be my first official entry on my new blog. And I thought it best to answer the age old question, "Why did you become Orthodox?" And then, of course, there are always the follow-up questions, "Weren't you happy as a Lutheran?", "Why would you go to something so...ethnic?", "What do your parents think?", etc.. So, I shall lay out here why I became Orthodox, though you shouldn't expect a thorough retelling of cause and effects, of a natural and organic sequence to come to a realization which I had not had before. Now, I should also point out that I am always becoming Orthodox. It is a process, it is not a state of being. The ontological, or state of being that I want, is becoming like Christ, partaking of Him so that, like He prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, that we become as one as the Father and the Son are one. This will be lengthy. Please, be patient.

I grew up Lutheran in the LCMS. My parents are both good, faithful, God-fearing people who raised my brother, my sister and me correctly and well. They took us to church every Sunday and I was active in the church's youth groups. That is not to say that I was always diligent or even desiring about going to Church. I remember that I hated it for a long time until I remember distinctly my parents saying that I was getting to the age where I needed to be more participatory in church and take it seriously. So, I did, reluctantly and, funny enough, I took a liking to it. Later, I was made an acolyte and I took my job seriously on Sundays when I was expected to serve. I later became a torchbearer and upon my confirmation, a crucifer.

I remember that I probably did not take confirmation classes, which was during my seventh and eighth grade years, very seriously. I don't know why exactly, but I think it was because I wanted to get more into materials and theology, if that idea can even be understood by a seventh/eighth grader. I just felt that I was being cheated out of something. I suppose, also, at that time, that my interest in history became more paramount. I started to research into the past and my favorite times were the Roman Empire and the Medieval eras. My sophomore year in High School, I took AP European History which focussed a lot on the Late Roman Empire and the Middle Ages as well as the Renaissance. The more I looked into those times, the more I also inquired into how this era related to the religious instruction I had and was receiving. And I was trying to understand why I was Lutheran. I couldn't seem to understand how Lutheranism fit into the grand scheme of history of Europe that was mainly dominated by the Roman Catholic Church.

I was different from my classmates, but in no way was this contrast more demonstrable than in music preference. I hated, absolutely hated, rock n'roll. I thought it was ridiculous and unartistic. I was not only listening to the symphonies and concertos of such illuminaries like Mozart, Bach and Beethoven but also their sacred works, most of which were written in Latin. At that time, I began to learn the Latin of the mass on my own and learned quite a lot. I also noticed that much of these texts were used in the Lutheran services, week in and week out so I naturally put forth the question, "why doesn't our worship sound like this?"

At Hope Lutheran Church, where I was confirmed, we were very fortunate to have a wonderful pipe organ. Our organist, Rick Deasley, also a friend of my Uncle David, also a world famous organist was spectacular and he and I enjoyed the same styles of music, particularly that of the Baroque. But Rick was also very much into modern praise band music and started to put one together which would perform every now and then on Sundays. I detested this. This was the basest and lowest common denominator music I could think of. There was nothing particularly reverent about the texts. They say that praise band music is basically pop music on the radio. The only difference is you substitute Jesus for baby! :) Why on earth would we discard such a heavenly instrument like the pipe organ for loud and cacophanous guitars, drums and bass? Not only was the music changing, but the structure of the services became rearranged and new every week as well. The orders of service we had in the hymnal (the red hymnal of 1943 p. 5 and 15 respectively) were routinely altered. I also noticed in the front of the hymnal were the propers (parts of the service that were changing for each Sunday and feast day) and that we never used those. I later found out that these were part of the historic Liturgy which was never celebrated. I also found out that major feast days were also not celebrated. I suppose if it wasn't on Sunday, it wasn't important.

My frustration kept growing. It was at this time that the Roman Catholic Church seemed to be calling to me. From my historical resarch, I thought that the Roman Church was the church of all time, free from innovation and free from the stale and ephemeral worship I experienced. I even started to incorporate some "Romanish" practices into my spiritual life--I made the sign of the cross, I knelt as I came into the sanctuary, I said the prayers in Latin (which drew much ire from my dad so I had to say them very quietly), I bowed as the cross came by, etc.. People started to notice and to openly criticize me because Lutherans don't do things like that. I would ask why since Luther himself did that. But we're Americans and we don't do Catholic things. Nonetheless, I couldn't make any move in that direction since I was living at home and I knew my parents would have had a very difficult time in understanding my desire for a belief system which was different from the one that they imparted to me. Out of respect for them, I did not go forth and become a Catholic, but my heart yearned not to be Lutheran any more. I kept participating in youth activities and I have many friends from these days still to this day, two of whom are now LCMS pastors and are true men of God. But I know that I was the lone voice. I went to summer camp where everything was geared towards such a emotional and feeling based version of Christianity. I just got more and more frustrated. I couldn't reconcile the Lutheran faith with my historical research and the answers I seemed to get from Lutheran pastors and elders in the church did nothing to dissuade me from my calling. I would have to wait to pursue my journey until college and that will be the next entry.

Now, you may want to ask, didn't Lutheranism do anything good for you? Oh, yes. It gave me a good appreciation for good music and a yearning for higher theology. But I could only go so far as a Lutheran. I needed something more. Now some may say that if I was in more of a confessional congregation where the historic Liturgy was preserved and such "Romish" practices were actually encouraged or, at least, not censored that I might have stayed Lutheran. Perhaps, but we'll never know.

Part II will deal with my spiritul journey in my college and graduate school days.