I've noticed a LOT of threads on switching to traditional churches, and I have ???s.

[Lovedtodeath]

On the other hand, what if Luther had been able to contact the EO church back in the day?

I have wondered that too. I need to get into some more church history I think.

[simka2]

I have wondered that too. I need to get into some more church history I think.

 

One of our priests was telling us a story (so I don't have source to link to :tongue_smilie:) He said that either Luther or someone close to him had sent a messanger to talk to the EO. Travel was dangerous at that time, and the messenger was killed. Another attempt was made years later, but by then "Lutheranism" had moved to far down their own path and they were not able to agree on theology.

 

PJ, beat me to it!

[ktgrok]

He was repeating his own personal prayer and supplication.

 

I found this regarding this subject. I hope it helps the discussion at hand:Regular heartfelt prayer that includes praise, thanksgiving and petition to God is an important part of true worship. (Phil. 4:6) But it would be wrong to say the same things over and over again believing that such uninterrupted repetition is necessary to inform God of our needs, as if God were ignorant, inattentive and absentminded. A person should pray in full recognition that he is communicating with the One who “knows what things you are needing before ever you ask him.â€

 

I don't understand this idea. I pray daily for more patience. I pray daily to confess my sin and ask for forgiveness. Are you saying I should pray once for patience or forgiveness, then never do it again? My words are exactly the same, "God, please grant me patience and help me be a better mother and wife, Amen." And if it IS ok to pray that repeatedly, why would it be wrong to pray say, the Lord's prayer daily, as long as I truly mean the words I am saying? Or any other prayer?

[Carol in Cal.]

But if The RCC made many of those changes (I'm new to this, I know they made changes, not exactly which ones yet) that were of the 95 thesis, and Luther never really wanted to start a new church, why would he be want to be a confessional Lutheran when he could just be RC?

 

Hahn talks a lot about discovering to his amazement the Real Presence, early Church history and its effects on the Canon and some sacramental practices, and the ancient liturgy. The Lutheran church, unlike his protestant denomination, retained all of these. Hahn grows up in a faith which is much stronger on Bible teaching of the laity and priesthood (not just some professors) than the Catholic church tends to be. In fact, he talks about teaching the Catholics their own faith in college, before he himself was fully Catholic. The confessional Lutheran faith has that Biblical focus as well. In fact, we pretty much reintroduced it to the West. This all is why when I read Hahn, or many others here on the boards who have protestant backgrounds but think that there is something to this historical stuff, I always, ALWAYS think, wow, if only you knew all about confessional Lutheranism. Because it retains all of that, but also cleans up some things that were really problematic in the RC church, some of which continue to this day.

 

Have you ever read "Papal Sin?" Written by a Catholic history professor, who followed it with a book call "Why I am Still A Catholic," which I have also studied, it pulls into one place the variations in RC teaching over the centuries. Presenting the RC faith as though it has never changed and also as though it is taught consistently in its current form to all or even most of its people is completely ahistorical, and that book documents that extremely well.

 

Having said that, I have never, EVER been taught that Catholics are not Christians, and I have defended them as a Christian faith often on these boards. Often. My DD is currently attending a RC high school. As a confessional Lutheran I freely acknowledge with love and respect the fact that my church has RC roots. I believe that all Christian churches should be united in faith and truth, that Christ meant us to be one body--His.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I don't understand this idea. I pray daily for more patience. I pray daily to confess my sin and ask for forgiveness. Are you saying I should pray once for patience or forgiveness, then never do it again? My words are exactly the same, "God, please grant me patience and help me be a better mother and wife, Amen." And if it IS ok to pray that repeatedly, why would it be wrong to pray say, the Lord's prayer daily, as long as I truly mean the words I am saying? Or any other prayer?

No... what the article is saying is that one should not say the same thing over and over... to the point that it has no meaning to the one praying, but is just a habit. The examples given are also of people praying to gods that they think don't hear them unless they repeat the same sentence or two over and over for hours. I cut out a couple of paragraphs. I probably should have left them in.

[ktgrok]

The quote of Hahn is an unfair representation of the totality of Lutheran teaching. I think that Hahn does not and never did understand confessional Lutheranism. If he had, he probably would have gone that way, as I read his path. Most of the early changes in his thinking and the things that he grows to value most about Catholicism are retained in confessional Lutheranism. I read his books all in a clump about 12 years ago, and my overwhelming response was, if only he had seen that path instead of thinking that his protestantism was the only one.

 

It's not that we get off scot-free. God Christ puts His righteousness onto us--like the wedding garment in the parable. The only merits that count are Christ's, the ones that He has by virtue of living the sinless life that no one else did or could. He won in the strife against Satan, the strong tempter and deceiver, and claimed us as His own. In every communion service that we celebrate, the ancient words "to them gave He power to become the sons of God, and hath promised them His Holy Spirit" is proclaimed. Then the pastor turns to the altar and prays (for and with the congregation): "Grant this, Lord, unto us all." We are sons and heirs of God by His free gift. It's not just a legal exchange. It's far more. A relationship, individually and corporately, as we are part of Christ's Body, the Church. A covenant with God and each other. We don't deserve or earn this in any sense, but receive it freely from God through faith, His gift. In thankful response we serve Him and our neighbors.

 

 

Can I ask, and I don't mean this to sound snarky at all, I promise. If all these things are found in Lutheranism, why be Lutheran instead of, say EO?

Katie

[ElizaG]

Because it retains all of that, but also cleans up some things that were really problematic in the RC church, some of which continue to this day.

 

Have you ever read "Papal Sin?" (...)

I thought the OP asked us not to get into arguments about the relative merits of one "traditional" Christian group vs. another. :confused: Not wanting to single Carol out; there have been similar posts from some Eastern Orthodox members.

 

I'm assuming that Catholics haven't been responding to these sorts of allegations because we don't want the thread to derail into a slanging match. That's certainly the case for me. It's getting a bit hard to sit on my hands, though. Garry Wills is no more an unbiased expert on Catholic history than I'm the Patriarch of Timbuktu. ;)

[Avila]

I thought the OP asked us not to get into arguments about the relative merits of one "traditional" Christian group vs. another. :confused: Not wanting to single Carol out; there have been similar posts from some Eastern Orthodox members.

 

I'm assuming that Catholics haven't been responding to these sorts of allegations because we don't want the thread to derail into a slanging match. That's certainly the case for me. It's getting a bit hard to sit on my hands, though. Garry Wills is no more an unbiased expert on Catholic history than I'm the Patriarch of Timbuktu. ;)

 

:iagree: Wills doesn't represent the Church.

 

And the issue that Hahn and other prominent converts had also extends to the issue of authority and the papacy, which would not be settled in Lutheranism. To suggest that he and others didn't end up Lutheran only because they were ignorant of a branch of it is a tad presumptuous.

[at the beach]

Every time I read Scott Hahn's story or hear from anyone who changes from mainstream or born again Protestantism to either RC or EO, I think, "Wow, if only they had known thoroughly about confessional Lutheranism. That's what they really are."

 

Why do you presume that mainstream or born again Protestants who convert to EO or RC don't know about confessional Lutheranism? Why do you presume to know that "that's what they really are?" Former LCMS member here. For a time, I was also a member of ELCA. I know all about Lutheranism and especially about LCMS. I am currently in RCIA. I am converting to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil this year with my three daughters.

[Xuzi]

Original Sin:

 

Because I've recently read Hahn's conversion story, that is what's in my head to answer this with, and it goes back to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and why they are not accepted within RC or EO

Ach. It's not letting me quote your quote. :lol:

 

What a lovely description of the Atonement! More and more I find similarities between Catholic, EO, and LDS belief (of course, there are also HUGE differences, but the similarities between LDS and Catholic/EO are more numerous than I would have ever thought).

 

The explaination you quoted, even though it's not from an LDS person, could be quoted without objection, IMO, in an LDS chapel. That particular view of the Atonement is one (of many) reasons why we refer to God the Father as "Heavenly Father" rather than just "God", to remind us of that relationship, and the word Covenant is used often in LDS theology, particularly when referring to Baptism and the Sacrament (communion). We're far more than just debtors to Him. Far, far more.

[simka2]

Ach. It's not letting me quote your quote. :lol:

 

What a lovely description of the Atonement! More and more I find similarities between Catholic, EO, and LDS belief (of course, there are also HUGE differences, but the similarities between LDS and Catholic/EO are more numerous than I would have ever thought).

 

The explaination you quoted, even though it's not from an LDS person, could be quoted without objection, IMO, in an LDS chapel. That particular view of the Atonement is one (of many) reasons why we refer to God the Father as "Heavenly Father" rather than just "God", to remind us of that relationship, and the word Covenant is used often in LDS theology, particularly when referring to Baptism and the Sacrament (communion). We're far more than just debtors to Him. Far, far more.

 

:iagree:These discussions have been wonderful in helping me realize how many misconceptions I have held. I'll be honest in that it's a bit disorienting, but it's good :D.

[MamaSheep]

Ach. It's not letting me quote your quote. :lol:

 

What a lovely description of the Atonement! More and more I find similarities between Catholic, EO, and LDS belief (of course, there are also HUGE differences, but the similarities between LDS and Catholic/EO are more numerous than I would have ever thought).

 

The explaination you quoted, even though it's not from an LDS person, could be quoted without objection, IMO, in an LDS chapel. That particular view of the Atonement is one (of many) reasons why we refer to God the Father as "Heavenly Father" rather than just "God", to remind us of that relationship, and the word Covenant is used often in LDS theology, particularly when referring to Baptism and the Sacrament (communion). We're far more than just debtors to Him. Far, far more.

:iagree:

 

This is what I thought too. I'm glad you responded first, though, because you said it better than I would have. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I'm assuming that Catholics haven't been responding to these sorts of allegations because we don't want the thread to derail into a slanging match. That's certainly the case for me. It's getting a bit hard to sit on my hands, though. Garry Wills is no more an unbiased expert on Catholic history than I'm the Patriarch of Timbuktu. ;)

 

I've been extremely slow to get involved with this thread, for this exact reason. I hate to devolve into denominational controversies in public.

 

There have been a lot of flat statements in this thread (not by you) that people have to have known would be controversial, and those pain me and others. I try very hard to at least to say, "I think" when I'm posting something along those lines, and I tend not to participate. That really amounts to my sitting on my hands, and I do it A LOT. Those who make flat statements that are not facts or who promote a specific denomination in a snippy, condescending, or snarky way (and there have been a lot of posts like that on this thread) usually stop discussion, and often stop many (including me) from even participating. I wish that we could all discuss these things in a mutually respectful way. It seems like there is an ire and a feeling of 'don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up' that comes into a lot of these threads, and it's not helpful. BTW, I want to be very clear, I don't mean this about you, but about some prior posts by others.

 

The reason I finally posted (after well over 200 prior posts) is that Confessional Lutheranism is another historic Christian Faith, and so it needed to be mentioned in summary fashion at least.

 

BTW, I don't consider Garry Wills 'an unbiased expert' but I do think that it's good to consider the historical record and not from just official perspectives. That's why I appreciate, for instance, SWB's writings on church history, and the postings by Patty Joanna of links that are beyond the other church websites as well as those to church websites. I think that although I disagree with Wills in a number of areas, (quite a number, actually), he does bring in some facts that are useful to have all in one place, and so I think he's one helpful source among many, albeit one with an axe to grind, which I disagree with. We should all read widely but identify as fact only those things that are beyond dispute or that at least have achieved a decent scholarly consensus. After all, that's what WTMers do!

 

I hope that you and others noticed what I said about the Body of Christ--that we should be One. That's one of my core beliefs and the teaching, I believe, of every historic Christian church. And I mean it. I assume that we are sisters in Christ, and that that bond should help us transcend our differences.

[Carol in Cal.]

Why do you presume that mainstream or born again Protestants who convert to EO or RC don't know about confessional Lutheranism?

 

I think I answered this in the subsequent post about Hahn. Because the specifics that he mentions as wonderful revelations are all things that confessional Lutheranism still holds, while adding in the the focus on the Bible and the Gospel and God that most protestant churches hold up so strongly.

 

I don't speak for every single person on this path, and I clearly don't speak for you. That's not my intent.

 

But it is VERY often the case that when these early explorations are posted, what is drawing mainstream or megachurch protestants to historic faiths is the liturgy, the Real Presence, the knowledge and respect for the early church, infant Baptism, and the church year--all of which are among the valued characteristics of confessional Lutheranism. Thus it's at least maybe worth a mention :)

[Sparkle]

I want to apologize again. I'm very sorry for having offended you or anyone else on this thread.

[iwka]

I know all about Lutheranism and especially about LCMS. I am currently in RCIA. I am converting to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil this year with my three daughters.

 

Not only you. :-) Many prominent Lutherans are converting during the last decade. "One of the most under-reported religious stories of the past decade has been the movement of Lutherans across the Tiber."

 

Interestingly, I have not heard of Catholic priests becoming Lutherans. :-)

[BikeBookBread]

You say "we," but did one of you feel this way first, and then convince or talk the other one into it, or did you both spontaneously feel this way simultaneously? I am in sort of a similar situation, but my wife isn't on board...

 

It was a simultaneous decision... and we both came to the decision independently. It seems like the Holy Spirit was moving in both of our hearts at the same time. Thankful for that, because it would be a difficult place to be if my spouse wasn't on the same page as I was. I hope you are able to come to some agreement with her!

[justamouse]

Ach. It's not letting me quote your quote. :lol:

 

What a lovely description of the Atonement! More and more I find similarities between Catholic, EO, and LDS belief (of course, there are also HUGE differences, but the similarities between LDS and Catholic/EO are more numerous than I would have ever thought).

 

The explaination you quoted, even though it's not from an LDS person, could be quoted without objection, IMO, in an LDS chapel. That particular view of the Atonement is one (of many) reasons why we refer to God the Father as "Heavenly Father" rather than just "God", to remind us of that relationship, and the word Covenant is used often in LDS theology, particularly when referring to Baptism and the Sacrament (communion). We're far more than just debtors to Him. Far, far more.

 

I never knew that-I'm so glad you posted the similarities. (my next door neighbor growing up is LDS and I love her to pieces, but we never got into theology)

[justamouse]

I think I answered this in the subsequent post about Hahn. Because the specifics that he mentions as wonderful revelations are all things that confessional Lutheranism still holds, while adding in the the focus on the Bible and the Gospel and God that most protestant churches hold up so strongly.

 

I don't speak for every single person on this path, and I clearly don't speak for you. That's not my intent.

 

But it is VERY often the case that when these early explorations are posted, what is drawing mainstream or megachurch protestants to historic faiths is the liturgy, the Real Presence, the knowledge and respect for the early church, infant Baptism, and the church year--all of which are among the valued characteristics of confessional Lutheranism. Thus it's at least maybe worth a mention :)

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I never even thought of becoming a confessional Lutheran because I wanted to stay with a church that was prior to the protestant reformation. And, God didn't lead me that way. What I was reading pointed to either EO (which if my family would have joined, I would have) or RC. I didn't make an Excel sheet on theology of all the churches, I followed where I was being led. I truly am sorry if I have offended you in any way, that wasn't my intent. Mea Culpa.

Edited March 21, 2011 by justamouse

[iwka]

The quote of Hahn is an unfair representation of the totality of Lutheran teaching. I think that Hahn does not and never did understand confessional Lutheranism. If he had, he probably would have gone that way, as I read his path.

 

He understands Lutheranism perfectly. He is not a confused scholar. You would have to read his other popular and scholarly books and papers to see that his choice was the only he could made.

[justamouse]

Not only you. :-) Many prominent Lutherans are converting during the last decade. "One of the most under-reported religious stories of the past decade has been the movement of Lutherans across the Tiber."

 

Interestingly, I have not heard of Catholic priests becoming Lutherans. :-)

 

I read that an amazing amount of Anglicans are going to be RCC members this Easter Vigil, too.

[Alenee]

Christianity Today has run several articles in the past few years about these issues as well. Here are a few:

 

What the ancient faithful would see today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/may/11.34.html

What is the draw for the 21st Century Christian: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/30.40.html

Why one man looked at EO and did not convert: http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1997/january6/7t1032.html

 

And for those who would like to read conversion stories, http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/#axzz1HBYQv1Dj

 

Please note that these address only EO; that is not intended as a slight to others who can answer the question about return to liturgy, tradition. It's just that EO is my wheelhouse. :0)

 

The two articles from Christianity Today are GREAT articles! Thanks for posting!

[ktgrok]

I've been extremely slow to get involved with this thread, for this exact reason. I hate to devolve into denominational controversies in public.

 

 

The reason I finally posted (after well over 200 prior posts) is that Confessional Lutheranism is another historic Christian Faith, and so it needed to be mentioned in summary fashion at least.

 

 

I hope that you and others noticed what I said about the Body of Christ--that we should be One. That's one of my core beliefs and the teaching, I believe, of every historic Christian church. And I mean it. I assume that we are sisters in Christ, and that that bond should help us transcend our differences.

 

I think there is a sincere difference of belief in what is a historic church, or at least, a difference of degree. Although Lutheranism has a rich history, it is not in the same category as the ancient churches when it comes to history, by about a thousand years. That matters to some, and to some it really doesn't, which is ok.

 

Katie

[Starr]

I read that an amazing amount of Anglicans are going to be RCC members this Easter Vigil, too.

 

An amazing amount might be a stretch here. :D They have disagreements with the Anglican Church but they aren't changing their liturgy. They are really keeping things more the same way they've been for a long time. This is different than say a Baptist becoming a Catholic.

[justamouse]

An amazing amount might be a stretch here. :D They have disagreements with the Anglican Church but they aren't changing their liturgy. They are really keeping things more the same way they've been for a long time. This is different than say a Baptist becoming a Catholic.

 

lol. True dat!

 

I couldnt find the original article I had read that mentioned more than that.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have also been very pleasantly surprised at the similarities between the beliefs of many of the Christian denominations since I have been discussing these things on message boards. :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

I am sorry if my statement wondering about Church History offended anyone. I truly said it because of my ignorance in that particular area... I never learned about the Orthodox Church at all.

[Colleen in NS]

Here we go. :D I've been working on this for awhile, and now I have to break it up into parts. Sorry it took so long!

 

I hope your journey is an awesome one!

 

Thank you; it is. I also think that because of what I'm learning via homeschooling, it is being made richer.

 

I find myself constantly questioning things I've been taught...

 

Me, too. I think it's because of what I'm learning, or rather, how I am learning now. Learning to think critically.

 

I wonder if the rise in homeschooling is affecting the rise in interest in traditional worship.

 

I'm not sure, because homeschooling has now been around for a good bit of time. I first encountered homeschoolers in the early 80s, but they were in a non-denom. church. It seemed to me the opposite there - people left "traditional" backgrounds to join this non-denom. church, and proceeded to get involved in this newish movement called homeschooling.

 

Our "classical" schooling thought process had nothing to do with any of it. If classical schooling draws anyone into traditions surrounding the Church that is AWESOME :D

 

Maybe what I really meant in my OP is this: I'm just wondering, because I am now being taught mental tools to use to read and think, if this is causing me to revisit what I have always assumed to be true (not really about God, but about all the North American Christian culture I have been around all my life). I think it is.

 

When I was in high school, my friends who went to Catholic school were required to learn Latin, as well as things that weren't even offered at my school, like logic. It was just part of the tradition.

 

I wish I had known, back in my schooling days, about this part of the tradition. I would have done so much better with learning.

 

...for me it was politics, or wanting to be away from politics when I am worshiping. Politics have crept into a lot of churches. Including the more modern one I was attending a few years ago. I bounced around trying to find a place where politics was not present in church, and I found it in an traditional Anglican church.

 

One thing with the more modern churches, they are newer. They have had less time to figure out how to keep politics out of church. The Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist (and I am sure a few others). Have been around for centuries and I think they understand that worship on Sunday is about God.

 

That is just my thought on a possible reason

 

Thank you for sharing. I do remember politics being a part of that non-denom. church I was in, in the 80s. But now I question if that is something a church group should get involved in, or if church should just be a place for people to come and worship God (and not be told how to do that). Teach people about God, and teach them how to study.

 

So what is the deal with all these people wanting to know more about the Catholic or EO church? Like the anology I used before, I just think many people are tired of being fed just bread. Yes, it sustains, but many people want the meat and veggies. Maybe the Catholic or EO church holds the meat and veggies. Many of us want more than smoke and mirrors. We want something that has lasted. We want something concrete and real.

 

Thanks for sharing your story, too.

 

he read a book "Fulfillment of All Desire" by Ralph Martin, Catholic Charismatic leader. He came to the conclusion that he was very presumptuous of wanting the grace that these saints had and their closeness to God without believing and practicing what they had believed. He realized that all of them talked about intimacy coming mostly from receiving Holy Communion as the real Body and Blood. He wanted it. One day he decided he will stop protesting. Few months later he went to his first confession.

 

You can pm me if you want.

Blessings.

 

At a YWAM arts training program I participated in, we read a book that had prayers of (I think they were called) desert fathers in it. The book was about "practicing" the presence of God. Because my family left the Catholic church when I was pretty young, I'd never heard this stuff before. It was fun because we'd take this book individually and do the simple exercises in it, and then get together in groups and talk about what we'd experienced while praying or doing some of the exercises. I enjoyed it.

 

Funny you should mention Ralph Martin - I can still picture him from the backs of books my mother used to read in the 70s and 80s. I, too, noticed you are in Steubenville - and all I know about that place is that it was a magnet for Catholic Charismatics back then. Like I said, I was steeped back then, but never learned how to think for myself.

 

...Conservative Christians started voting Republican because of abortion and now many "Christian leaders" hold to the whole Republican party line as God's way. This disconnect from what the Bible really says has caused many, especially younger, conservative Protestants to re-evaluate everything about their theology. They are re-examining scripture, Church history, and other denominations.

 

Yup. I remember when this was getting started.

 

As I'm answering these posts, I'm realizing that what I was really after in my OP, was to try to see a bigger picture of the history of Christianity, from the 60s to the 2000s. Did others have similar experiences as mine? And now I am seeing that yes, many did, and as a result, many are going back further in history. But I still can't help but think that this wave is just (and I don't really mean that trivially) another wave of humans in history, seeking to refresh themselves and go deeper in faith in God. I do think it's the same thing that motivated people years ago to depart from tradition and start non-denom. churches.

 

Why? Well, the one thing that book did for me (even though I knew we wouldn't travel the road to Rome as that preacher did; we couldn't get behind papal supremacy) was to show me that there is a church history you can KNOW. In all my 23 years of Christianity to that point I did not know that. I think I just sort of thought it didn't matter -- that the Spirit of God was moving TODAY in the "new things."

 

So, that's our story. I hope it helped a bit.

 

Yes, thank you for sharing it. I hear you on the fact that there is church history and we can learn it. That is why I think that my homeschooling methods are causing me to start questioning.

 

I wonder if it isn't part of a general trend of trying to recover lost skills and ideas of community.

 

Rosie

 

Interesting - I've wondered this, too. Esp. in our dizzying society.

 

I feel like I am lost in a sea of mass religion :confused:

 

I hope you've gotten some helpful things to think about. Looks like you have, from later posts of yours that I read. Journeying along together...

 

Well I was Catholic and switched after College due to the politization in the Catholic Church

 

Looks like politics wasn't just in non-denom/protestant circles, then. I guess I should know that, with finally reading history during my homeschooling years.

 

If any church ignores Scripture or adds in things to be as important as Scripture that aren't, you should be leery.

 

There are 'lists' on the internet that can help you focus some questions to ask any preacher when you are visiting a church. I used to call preachers before I visited and ask them questions that were important to us so that I would not waste our Sunday visiting them. They were always nice and accommodating, after all they are preachers. :)

 

Once you have a few Biblical churches to choose from it will come down to personal taste and style. We go to a very traditional church, which is also very conservative. I like it because I want to be challenged every Sunday to strengthen my walk with Christ.

 

Now, if you don't know what the Bible says about how churches should run or what the Bible says about certain topics, a church hunt will be more difficult. An internet search of good lists/questions would help you.

 

However, reading John in the Bible will help anyone with her own walk/salvation experience.

 

I wasn't looking for advice on how to choose a church; I was looking to find out why there seems to be a trend going opposite to what I had known in my early Christian experiences.

 

After having grown up in basic non-denominational Bible Churches, my husband and I just joined a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America).

 

Lots of reasons, but primarily because we wanted more. More Bible teaching, more history, more substance than we had found in recent years in Evangelicalism.

 

Thanks for your story, too.

 

Overall, I think it is an example of the inevitable pendulum swing. Society swings far to one side then starts heading back the other way, passing through the middle. Remember that what we see as "traditional" now was at one point in history as fully "out there" in the terms of its culture as anything existing today, sometimes more so.

 

This is what I'm thinking, too, after reading all the replies, and then thinking about what I've learned about world history in general so far. I've also seen the pendulum swing in my own lifetime, and I think I'm just reacting to it swinging back the way that I always stayed away from, lol. Which means that I have to look at it through a historical lens, rather than so much a personal lens, I guess. I am only figuring this out as I've pondered this thread and my own questions.

[Colleen in NS]

Right now, if I had to guess why there are so many threads on switching to traditional churches, I'd have to agree with a pp that it is God working in lives. Calling, moving. Having said that, I am still not sure whether that calling is, indeed to traditional worship, or just a calling to honest worship.

 

Is it God moving in particular right now? Or is it that God is always and has always moved in the hearts of humans? And when things get stale, that natural, answer-seeking part of us starts seeking and moving to deeper thirst-quenching waters? I'm not really asking *you* (though you can answer if you like :D); I'm asking myself. I'm starting to distrust the "God is moving now and doing new things" sentiments that cycle around churches.

 

Colleen,

I've noticed it too, and find myself pondering our/my choices here.

 

Then I hope this thread has been helpful to you, too. Thanks for piping up.

 

I would probably best be described as a seeking agnostic :D. The only churches that even remotely interest me are the EO and Catholic Church and that is because of their traditions. They seem comforting in a world that seems to be spinning faster and faster each day.

 

I think that is part of why many are looking into them. The liturgical year has a predictability that feels comforting and secure.

 

Interesting perspective - thank you for adding it. You've made me think.

 

And Simka's quote, that in studying the church fathers you come to the knowledge that if you want a historical church, you have either the EO or the RC to chose from.

 

 

(saying reluctantly and unsurely) I don't think I'm convinced about that....but then again, I haven't done much reading yet about the early church. When I wrote my OP, I wasn't limiting, in my mind, "traditional churches" to EO and RC, but this thread kind of turned into that. I guess it's because many of the other threads I was talking about were talking about EO or RC. Sorry if that was unclear to everyone! Still, it has been interesting for me to read more deeply about EO and RC beliefs, practices, and history. But anyway, I'm just not convinced that a turning to historical church practice the way Jesus may have intended (and I don't know every detail that he intended) gives us only two choices. Although many times the ritual of my early Catholic days seems comforting to me. Occasionally my church will do corporate Bible readings, and I like that - we are doing something in an organized fashion, together. Back in the early 90s, I attended a dance seminar given by a woman who participated in Jewish dance festivals in Israel. At this seminar, she had us all holding hands in a circle, and doing dance steps *together.* I really liked that, because in the non-denom. circles I was in, there was pressure for *individuals* to dance and raise hands during the music time, and I hated that. I hated feeling like I had to go display myself (even though supposedly it was "for the Lord.")(and I never did get up to dance individually during these times - I just kept quietly refusing). But I could get into the *together* dance, because the organizedness, the artistry, the methodicalness of it appealed to me. I have performed in my time, but only when it was on stage, in a staged performance of drama or dance. After many rehearsals and training.

 

I have found that I really, really enjoy incorporating this formality into my prayer time!

 

Thank you for sharing your whole story, Regena! And I am thinking I might just need to go dig out that desert fathers book I mentioned previously. OK, I just went to find the name of it - Space for God.

 

This rings true to me. I came to traditional Anglicanism in college, while I was attending a great books program, and the two events were very linked for me. I came into this church, and there they were, praying in the words of St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, John Donne, George Herbert - the very authors I was studying in school . . . and every week they said the creed - the same creed I was finally learning the significance of, as I read the Apostolic fathers, the church councils, etc. I couldn't help but stay. Finally, my heart and my head (and my body) were in concord when I worshipped.

 

I still am abundantly, terribly, overwhelmingly grateful for the Book of Common Prayer.

 

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

 

OK, I'm responding to the OP's question without getting into the protestant vs. RC/EO stuff.

 

Thank you.

 

But people are seeking rest, quiet for their souls and eternal truths which do not change with culture or time.

 

Yes. This is true for me.

 

There are almost an infinite number of types of churches to choose from. And with so many out there, it's left to me to decide what I want in a church.

 

Ah yes, another reason. The abundance of choice in our culture.

 

I do think that a drive to learn, understand, and know does lead to further inquiry and searching in history, which leads you to RC and EO.

 

OK, you're the second person to say this - I need to read up. But part of me still thinks that what may have started in the first century or two A.D. might still be a formalization of what Jesus did organically? I don't know. It's like YWAM (started 50 years ago) or Vineyard (church I'm currently in - started in the 70s I think) - I am sure some things have naturally changed as these movements evolve even a historically short period of time. Are they really what the beginnings of these groups looked like? I don't think so. And I think it's just because we are human and faulty, and humans change.

 

I'm not trying to argue against EO or RC. I'm just thinking aloud for myself as I read about others' experiences.

 

but the holy experience of the Church over time, is what led us to convert.

 

...I just knew that I was becoming more and more frustrated with our experience at our non-denom. community church. Going to Bible studies with wonderful Christians for years, BUT it eventually ends up with what does this passage mean to "ME" and since I knew that my heart was not always reliable I wanted more DIRECTION, not the opinion of the guy next to me.

 

I guess I'm seeing a theme through most everyone's posts - a deeper experience of faith, and frustration at what wasn't deep enough anymore. I know that's what I'm experiencing, and I continue to wonder about what I can do about that. That's why it has been interesting to me to read all those other threads of late.

 

DH was raised Catholic, and I was raised in a very anti-Christian household. DH wants our children raised with Christianity b/c he wants them to have a strong moral foundation. This isn't to mean that you can't have a strong moral foundation elsewhere, but he felt that since Christianity as a whole is such a globally encompassing religion, that it helps w/a contextual understanding. We decided on the Episcopal church as it has a definite separation of the sacred from the profane. We want ritual. Ritual (and tradition) is comfort. I like walking into a church and knowing it's a church - not some modernist rendering.

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing your story, too.

 

If they did anything other than wish you the best, they are meanies. And we should do our best to ignore meanies unless we are married to them, working for them or they run our country. ;)

 

Rosie

 

:lol: A little humour injected into a deep thread!

 

Then I just got to the point that I needed to be IN a church.

 

It's what we Christians need, isn't it. And I think it's also about a basic human need for community - to live out what we believe, with others.

 

To get back to the OP.

 

I don't know what happened, but I copied and pasted what you wrote into this so it would be quoted, and now it has disappeared. Anyway, thank you for answering my questions, too.

[Colleen in NS]

There was no dancing. Now, the Pentecostal church that I once visited... but that's another thread. :laugh:

 

I don't remember now why I quoted this part, but I think it had something to do with what I previously wrote about my past experiences with church-related dance. Even as I think about it, I realize that I like that I believe I can know God myself (without others telling me how to live/how to worship/how to pray/what to think); yet I didn't like the individualistic dance that I used to feel so pressured to do in certain churches. I even had someone (well-meaning, mind you) take my baby from my arms and say to me one time during music time, "Go dance, Colleen! Be free!!!!" I didn't WANT to be free, I wanted to hold my baby and sit quietly!!!!!!!! I was so mad. But also too young and intimidated to say NO. I can really relate to what SWB wrote on her blog yesterday:

 

"The assumption is that I’ve got an unspoken agenda. I’m not just writing a history of the world, I’m out to push a particular worldview on them, preferably without their noticing, so that they’ll be ready for conversion.

 

Why do they resent this so much?

 

Because it’s so impersonal. Were I trying to convert them (which I’m not; I was just trying to write ancient history), it wouldn’t be because I have a deep personal concern for their souls. It’s because I’m part of a movement that’s out to convert as many people as possible, by whatever means are necessary. That’s so…depersonalizing. And manipulative. "

 

She put into words what I have felt for YEARS. Manipulated to be and do and act and think in certain ways compatible with what N. American Christianity deems to be true Christianity.

 

We stumbled upon a Tridentine Mass and DH said, "This is where we need to be." He feels that now he really worships; it is just him and Jesus for that 1+ hour every week. For the weeks he has, he needs that time to connect, to take him out of this world to the closest thing to heaven we have here, the holy Mass.[/font]

God bless you on your journey,

 

Thank you, and thank you for sharing your story, too.

 

I want something deeper, not something that will attract the local teens. There are other opportunities for that but I want a deep, meaningful worship of God that I feel is lacking (even in a church filled with wonderful Christians).

 

Everyone is so similar! :D

 

I am not inclined to change churches & join an EO church although my beliefs are pretty much in line with their theology with a few (IMO minor) differences. I do consider it to be the true ancient church & also consider myself to belong even though I don't worship in the same way. I'm not sure how the EO church would feel about that but there it is. I know that I belong to God & that's enough.

 

I've enjoyed reading this thread, thanks OP.

 

You're welcome. And I enjoyed reading your reply here. Would you care to elaborate here or in a pm as to why you are not inclined to join EO even though your beliefs line up? I am just asking, because even though I'm asking some bigger questions for myself, I'm not really looking to change churches. Just figuring out how I can dig deeper into faith in God, while worshipping Him with some really great people in our current church. We've been there a long time, and there are particular people we really like being around.

 

Well, since you asked :D, in my case, it was because the five solas don't hold up historically. When you look at the ancient Christian Church and the early Church Fathers, all of it is Catholic. The five solas are ideas put up by men 500 or so years ago that clash with everything that was taught for the previous 1500 years.

 

Looking for the historical church in the Reformation is like looking for classical music with the Beatles. The Beatles may seem classical to today's 20 year old, but they still a very modern band! ;)

 

But not everyone is looking for the historical Church. I just simply couldn't ignore it once I found it.

 

Thank you for sharing your story, too. I know I keep writing that to people, but I do mean it for each individual story. I appreciate that people took the time to write.

 

As a life long Catholic...

I want so much more from God. I want him to be my god- all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless and immortal. I want to tremble before His majesty, not ask Him, "How's it hanging."

 

I hear you, and I hear you on the previous thing you wrote about not wanting Jesus to be your best buddy. I waver back and forth. But I've always felt more comfortable with the bit that I quoted you about.

 

That's why "new" was in quotes and I meant that it is new to those who haven't done church that way.

 

I understood what you meant. Thanks for sharing those thoughts about that - it's true - if you haven't experienced something, it's "new" to you.

 

I think the bottom line was that I came to believe there was one objective Truth and that it wasn't a matter of Our church is bursting with converts too and I've heard that from a few other friends around the country. It's not just on this board.

 

Thank you, too, and thanks for saying the trend is elsewhere.

 

I also want to worship as close to the way the Apostles and early church fathers did.

 

Thank you.

 

Why the change is a HUGE question, you know!

 

I know, I remember that thread you started! That was one of the threads I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

Our worship is based to a great extent on passages from Scripture. We sing most of the service, joining our voices in simple harmony to ancient melodies. Our worship is focused on God, not on our own enjoyment, fulfillment, or fellowship.

 

This sounds so appealing to me.

[Colleen in NS]

Every time I read Scott Hahn's story or hear from anyone who changes from mainstream or born again Protestantism to either RC or EO, I think, "Wow, if only they had known thoroughly about confessional Lutheranism. That's what they really are."

 

Retention of the liturgy and church year? Check

The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Check

Infant Baptism? Check

Respect for and knowledge of and continuity with the earliest/historic Church? Check

The Communion of Saints (and the historic Creeds) Check

Sola Scriptura--which only means that the Bible trumps Tradition where they contradict, not that it fell perfect from the sky in year one and should be the only thing ever considered? Check

Sola Fide--which means that salvation itself comes through faith, but not that works are unnecessary, just that they ARISE from faith in gratitude, rather than being a prerequisite for it? Check

Sola Gratia--which means that salvation is God's gift and that none of our merit helps us get it or even keep it? Check

The importance of clear, straightforward Biblical and church history teaching at all ages? Check

The precedence of knowledge of God and His Word and actions over knowledge of saints and their actions, but still knowing about them? Check

Repetitive, community prayer as well as personal extemporaneous prayer? Check

The precedence of talking to God Himself? Check

Acceptance of Christian art in all its forms--music and visual and written art, particularly? Check

Vibrant, present-day life in the Spirit? Check

 

We are catholic but not Roman Catholic. We are the historic evangelicals. (In Germany, where Luther taught, we are called Evangelisch, not Lutheran. To this day, older confessional Lutheran church in North American almost always have the word 'evangelical' in their names. Evangel means Gospel or good news. Our focus on the Gospel gives us our original name.)

 

This is what confessional Lutheranism is and has. We are historical and traditional and Gospel-centered. We are a continuation of the historic and traditional Church.

 

(We are also, pretty much, the best-kept secret in Christendom. Unfortunately.)

 

Thanks Carol, for adding a different perspective to this thread. And for explaining those Latin phrases - I've heard them tossed around IRL, but wasn't sure what people were talking about.

 

I believe that all Christian churches should be united in faith and truth, that Christ meant us to be one body--His.

 

I really, really appreciated reading your perspective.

 

I thought the OP asked us not to get into arguments about the relative merits of one "traditional" Christian group vs. another. :confused: Not wanting to single Carol out; there have been similar posts from some Eastern Orthodox members.

 

I did, and I am not reading Carol's posts as being argumentative. I can see why you pointed this out, though, for the general thread. Thank you.

 

I started this thread to just find out why a trend is happening. I wasn't looking for the pros and cons of particular denominations, but rather people's personal experiences and why they thought this trend is happening. Still, when pros and cons are talked about politely, I learn from them. And I am glad Carol talked about her denom..

 

I try very hard to at least to say, "I think" when I'm posting something along those lines

 

me too!!! Very important, I think. ;) IMO IMNSHO and all that jazz :lol:

 

I hope that you and others noticed what I said about the Body of Christ--that we should be One. That's one of my core beliefs and the teaching, I believe, of every historic Christian church. And I mean it. I assume that we are sisters in Christ, and that that bond should help us transcend our differences.

 

I did notice, and I agree!

 

But it is VERY often the case that when these early explorations are posted, what is drawing mainstream or megachurch protestants to historic faiths is the liturgy, the Real Presence, the knowledge and respect for the early church, infant Baptism, and the church year--all of which are among the valued characteristics of confessional Lutheranism. Thus it's at least maybe worth a mention :)

 

Yes, definitely. Thank for getting off your hands for a few minutes. :D

Edited March 22, 2011 by Colleen in NS

[Carol in Cal.]

He understands Lutheranism perfectly. He is not a confused scholar. You would have to read his other popular and scholarly books and papers to see that his choice was the only he could made.

 

I have read at least 5 of his books and transcripts of several of his talks. I have also listened to several of his tapes. Several of them include summaries or extended versions of his conversion process. I saw quite a bit of evidence in these that he did not understand Lutheranism. Certainly he was never Lutheran. If there is a specific resource of his that demonstrates that understanding, please point me to it and I would be glad to read it.

 

Thank you!

[Carol in Cal.]

I think there is a sincere difference of belief in what is a historic church, or at least, a difference of degree. Although Lutheranism has a rich history, it is not in the same category as the ancient churches when it comes to history, by about a thousand years. That matters to some, and to some it really doesn't, which is ok.

 

Katie

 

I think that that is one of the things that is so difficult about this issue.

 

The confessional Lutheran church looks at it in a way that catholics would take great offense to. I'm dancing around it because I don't want to give that offense.

 

Certainly confessional Lutheranism has existed demonstrably for almost 500 years. That alone would put it into a different category that churches that were started within the last few decades. Additionally, it has never discarded the connection with the longer term history of the Church as a whole.

[Colleen in NS]

And one more thing (for now, ha ha). I just want to make clear that I'm really just thinking about *why* this restlessness in me, why the desire for more depth, and then I noticed so many other threads about the same thing, and people talking about changing churches to go deeper in their faiths. While I may be sifting through some questions in my mind and heart, I'm not really looking to change denominations right now - there are people in my church whom I love dearly and have been there for us over the years. Things have changed there in many ways, and I'm not sure I agree with some of the things currently espoused, but I hold onto some of these people in my heart. People who do sincerely love God and want to walk that out with others.

 

And even though I couldn't respond to each and every person here (I had NO CLUE this thread would get so big - I rarely start threads, and they never mushroom, lol), know that I read everything, and appreciate the time each one put into participating. If anyone else would like to answer my OP, I'd love to hear from you! I'm going to keep reading the responses until the thread tapers off.

[Rosie_0801]

When I wrote my OP, I wasn't limiting, in my mind, "traditional churches" to EO and RC, but this thread kind of turned into that.

 

It's a shame there are no Gnostics around here...

 

Rosie

[OnTheBrink]

matthew 26:44 ;)

 

Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I'd lost a few chapters of Mark somewhere. LOL

[Parrothead]

Is this a typo? There is no Mark 26:44.

 

matthew 26:44 ;)

Yes thank you. I don't looked at it twice and still typed Mark. I suppose I should start reading Mark again. :D

 

I am converting to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil this year with my three daughters.

Congratulations! Welcome home.

 

It's a shame there are no Gnostics around here...

 

Rosie

Oh, I love the gnostics. Their history is so fascinating.

[JenniferB]

I just want to say, "aaaaaaaaaaah" [scream]. I'm only on response #41 out of 300-something responses. I want to read them all, "aaaaaaaaaah" [scream again].

[mommaduck]

nm

Edited March 22, 2011 by mommaduck

[MamaSheep]

It's a shame there are no Gnostics around here...

 

Rosie

 

Or Copts...;) Still, an interesting discussion.

[mommaduck]

Why do you presume that mainstream or born again Protestants who convert to EO or RC don't know about confessional Lutheranism? Why do you presume to know that "that's what they really are?" Former LCMS member here. For a time, I was also a member of ELCA. I know all about Lutheranism and especially about LCMS. I am currently in RCIA. I am converting to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil this year with my three daughters.

 

Dh and I know plenty about confessional Lutheranism. I have Lutheran friends and I used to be a nanny for a Lutheran couple. We used to listen to a Lutheran station. It led us to Reformed and caused us to actually look at the Catholic Church and reconsider some of our misconceptions. However, we jumped back, skipped the RC and went straight to EO ;)

[Colleen in NS]

It's a shame there are no Gnostics around here...

 

Rosie

 

Or Copts...;)

 

Seriously! Yes!

 

I just want to say, "aaaaaaaaaaah" [scream]. I'm only on response #41 out of 300-something responses. I want to read them all, "aaaaaaaaaah" [scream again].

 

You made me belly-laugh!!!!!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol: Keep reading, honey! (although you might not read *this* reply for awhile, lol!)

[Lovedtodeath]

I have a question. Have any of you been taught that God has four cardinal attributes?

[Caitilin]

I have a question. Have any of you been taught that God has four cardinal attributes?

 

No, I never heard of such a thing.:001_smile:

[OnTheBrink]

No, I never heard of such a thing.:001_smile:

 

Me, either. We're studying the attributes of God in Sunday school and he has way more than 4! And all are important.

[Lovedtodeath]

Here is where it came from:

In this vision, Ezekiel saw four angelic creatures who upheld God’s sovereignty. Each had four faces. “As for the likeness of their faces,†writes Ezekiel, “the four of them had a man’s face with a lion’s face to the right, and the four of them had a bull’s face on the left; the four of them also had an eagle’s face.†(Ezekiel 1:10) These four faces represent the four perfectly balanced cardinal qualities, or attributes, of God. These are identified in God’s Word as: love, represented by the man’s face; justice, represented by the lion’s face; and wisdom, represented by the eagle’s face. These three attributes work together with the fourth—power, as shown by the bull’s face.

Looking at examples of God's power and how God uses his power and how his actions show his ultimate examples of justice, wisdom, and love has really caused me to know him better and trust Christ as my King. I know that he has the ability to do anything and that he will use that ability for our greatest benefit. Holiness is of course another quality that is greatly emphasized in the scriptures.

[FrogMom5]

Are there any Coptics, Ethopian Catholics, Armenian Church people on this board? I would love to hear from them. I think there are other ancient churches too but I'm not familiar with them.

 

Just for clarification - the Ethopian Church is not related to the Catholic Church headed by the Pope. However, the Eastern Rite Churches are part of what everyone is calling the RC. It really should be RC/EC or just the Catholic Church. I don't mean to split hairs, I just don't want someone from, say, the Byzantine or Syrian Church coming on this thread and being offended. They are not Roman Rite but they are part of the Catholic Church headed by the Vatican.

 

Colleen - this really is a great thread. It is so interesting to learn about other churches and to listen to everyone's spiritual journey. In the end, we all want the same thing - to grow in holiness and to be close to God. I hope everyone here achieves that, regardless of your chosen church.

Denise

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Michelle and Caitilin. I was curious because we emphasize that quite a bit and we were just commenting on how surprisingly similar the different denominations are...

[Rosie_0801]

Or Copts...;) Still, an interesting discussion.

 

Oh yeah! If religion was based on artwork instead of, well, religion, I'd be a Copt. I'd decorate my house with Coptic icons if I didn't think it entirely inappropriate to use icons for such worldly reasons.

 

:)

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

Colleen - this really is a great thread. It is so interesting to learn about other churches and to listen to everyone's spiritual journey. In the end, we all want the same thing - to grow in holiness and to be close to God. I hope everyone here achieves that, regardless of your chosen church.

Denise

 

*Cough, cough*

 

:lol:

Rosie