Today I had the privilege of taking communion twice, at Zion UCC, then again at St. John's Episcopal Church in Worthington. Each was a very meaningful spiritual experience. At both I was able to help out with the service.

At Zion, our Association Minister, the Rev. Dr. Forrest Hoppe, preached and presided, wearing a rainbow stole with the UCC's Cross and Crown on it and a oatmeal-colored doctoral gown. His presence and his sermon helped remind us that being in a congregational church does not mean not being part of a larger fellowship. The communion elements were little cubes of white bread and little cups of red wine or white grape juice, plus a chalice and a large bun for the pastor, which Forrest broke and lifted up but did not eat or drink from (he took communion using a bread cube and small cup of wine). There was no liturgy for the people to take part in- Forrest improvised a Communion prayer. I did feel the spirit descend during the Communion prayer, and I do think that Christ was present for me there. All in all, the service felt very current, in tune both with events in the wider world and with events in my life and in the lives of others parishioners of Zion UCC. Also, the amount of trouble it took setting up the communion breads and trays of cups explains why once-a-month communion is seen as desirable. But could we move up to twice a month, please? (I think not, once a month is quite frequent for a church in the Reformed tradition, but I will keep floating the idea.)

OTOH, at the Episcopal evening service, there was a feeling of timelessness. I volunteered to read the Scriptures since it appeared that the usual reader was not there. I did well, I was told. The preist wore a lovely green chasuble and stole, and he preached a homily about Christian community. We used Eucharistic prayer D, which is a translation of one of the oldest Christian liturgies in exsistance. Through the service I felt united with Christians of the past and the future.

Finally, the most meaningful way to take communion that I have experienced was at the Columbus Hungarian Reformed Church (UCC, Calvin Synod) where I was offered the chalice of wine to drink from, and where the pastor actually took his hands off the chalice and let me drink from it. I found that extraordinarily empowering, in that I was trusted with the common cup of Christ's blood. I find both keeping a hand on the chalice, intinction, and small cups all less then desirable. But the small cups do give the congregation more control, more empowerment then the other two common methods of sharing the wine. However, as a pastor I will always drink the chalice. It's awkward otherwise.

After church, I volunteered to help plan a youth event during the holidays, so I'm committed at Zion until Christmas, unless I can get out of it. Me and my big mouth!

It really does seem like Zion needs my gifts, which is an important point. At the same time, my experience at St. John's today made me realize that I can find a place to serve in an Episcopal church as well.

In the end I will say that in the Episcopal church there are things which I miss in the UCC (weakly communion, the Creeds, a certain respect for Tradition), but the Episcopal church is currently in the middle of a huge political battle about homosexuality, it's polarized between liberals and conservatives, and that I DON'T need. That political struggle would be a real problem with becoming Episcopalian. That and Zion needing my gifts are why I will most likely remain UCC. But I will miss the Episcopal liturgy!

PS. Next week, I think that I will visit a different UCC church for a change, Radnor Congregational UCC.

PPS. Should I just stop visiting Episcopal churches and stick firmly to the UCC? Also, am I too naive to think that UCC conservatives are not a threat to my ministry?

I won't say that my period of discernment is over, but I'm leaning heavily twords remaining in the UCC right now, for several reasons:
1. I have found a friend IRL who agrees with me about eroding standards of faith in the UCC.
2. God put me in the way of the UCC and called me to join Zion UCC. Therefore I should stay.
3. I would find it impossible to obey an unjust bishop.
4. Congregationalism is Biblical- I can accept that now, and the parts of the Bible that seem to be anti-congregational are the Pastoral Epistles, which are not really Pauline.
5. Most UCCs big enough to have two services have weekly communion at the early service.
6. Some UCCs do use the Creeds or the UCC Statement of Faith, and I can introduce them in churches once I am a UCC minister.

It is not the creeds themselves that are important, but the thoughts, the doctrines behind the creeds which are important. While Zion UCC may not use the Creeds in worship, we do proclaim a solidly Trinitarian faith through our liturgy as a whole, despite the private doubts of some members. That is enough for me.

Also- I don't actually like bishops, and it doesn't seem like Episcopal governance makes TEC more peaceful or unified then the UCC- rather less so, if the truth be known. Only in the UCC have I known productive dialogue between 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and Christ the Victor atonement have something in common - they both posit the atonement for our sins of a Christ who is both Human and God at the same time. There is, however, a third vision of the Atonement, that of Peter Abelard, who posited that Jesus died to show us the vision of radical self-denial that we should endeavor to live by. In this view of the atonement Jesus dies for our sins not to appease the justice of the father or to destroy the dominion Death and the Devil have over humanity, but to show us how to live a sinless life. I dislike this third position, which seems to be that of John Shelby Spong and many other modern liberals just as much as I dislike penal substitution. My dislike is rooted in two issues:

1. Following the example of Christ perfectly is impossible- we have all sinned, we all know it. Therefore Christ must have to be God to have lived a sinless life, and He would not ask of us something that is impossible.

2. Seeing Christ's death as an example of love in the face of hate but nothing more obliviates the necessity of the resurrection (some forms of PSA also do this) - if Jesus had not risen from the grave, he would have been just one of many victims of Roman cruelty. Risen, he shows that the power and love of God is greater then any human cruelty.

1. Substiutianary Atonement is not, at present a useful model of the atonement for me. Calvin's penal substutionary atonement seems to me outright heretical because it impugns the justice of the Father- in that a just God would not allow an innocent victim to take the punishment due to a guilty party. I do not know enough about Anslem's formulation of substutionary atonement to say if I have the same theological problem with his formulations.

2. Christ the Victor makes much more sense to me- Luther, Dante, and most of the Mothers and Fathers saw the atonement as Christ descending into 'hell' to set free sinners and win victory over Death and the Enimey. In this view Jesus' death does not appease God's wrath, for God's love is stronger then God's wrath always. However, through our sins we had been enslaved to Sin, Death, and the Devil, and Christ took on our form, apart from sin to free us from this- to loose our chains. This is why I prefer the Apostle's Creed to the Nicene.

3. It follows from this that the work of loosing chains is how we best imitate Christ.

From the Roman Liturgy:


Father, all powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks. You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness, But makes us grow in your grace, Through Jesus Christ our Lord. In our joy we sing to your glory With all the choirs of angels: Holy, holy, holy Lord ...

With thanks to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

Thanks for all the help and support everyone has given during my mini-crisis.

A Shocking Realization:

While I may be in sympathy with many Episcopalians on many issues, I do not think that I could ever be fully a part of TEC because that would involve accepting that I cannot excercise my own theolgical judgment, build my own conclusions, and then act on them. I would have to submit to the authroity of the bishop, even when I disagreed. Therefore, I do not think I could be part of TEC after all....


My mind is spinning!

Edit: Of course, that's not a very Christian attitude to take! We should be willing to submit to correction, by the wider Church, not stridently proclaim our own correctness! Therefore TEC! My thoughts proceed apace!

Furthermore, I think I discount the value of civil dissobdiance... I need to remember that part too... also, most of my problems with episcopacy could be solved by not consecrating brainless bigots.

I visited St. Peter's Episcopal Church yesterday, and it was glorious. When I left the UMC I did not know how much I would miss reciting the creeds. St. Peter's is relaxed and on the low end of broad church- conversation, rather then meditation, was the order of the day before the Eucharist started, and there were few crossings of self, etc. I was the only person to kneel for the confession of sin and the prayers of the people, and there was no priest's host, just a plate of people's hosts. The priest wore a cassock-alb (or a white Geneva gown- I couldn't quite tell), and a stole, with no girdle. All in all it was a gentle and humble form of worship that was still very liturgical and Anglican.

The welcome could not have been more enthusiastic. A wonderful couple of saints treated me to lunch at a VERY nice restaurant, and then there was a house blessing after that. This parish knows how to do fellowship, and I will definitely come back next week.

I don't want to rush into confirmation, but I really do think that TEC is the place for me.

1. Authoritarian Bishops- especially the blatantly sexist Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth. At least the UMC wasn't conducting an actual witch-hunt for gay clergy the way the Diocese of Fort Worth and the Diocese of Dallas were.

2. An utterly ignorant African priest who served as a locum in the parish I was attending in Irving.

3. I wanted to attend church with Mom, and Mom was UMC.

4. The conflict between progressives and conservatives made respectful dialogue impossible.

Of those three reasons, 2 and 3 are no longer relevant. 1 is still a concern. If I absolutely need complete freedom from control from above, I need to be in a congregational denomination like the UCC. OTOH, if my problem was just with certain schismatic and ultra-conservative bishops, and I can get on with ordinary conservative bishops just fine, TEC would have a structure more like the UMC one I'm used to. Plus, I do think that episcopacy is biblical, though I don't think we have to follow Biblical models if we have a good reason not to. But we can't just abandon them for no reason. Therefore, I need to do more research into the Reformation and the Reformed and the Puritans reasons for abandoning Episcopacy.


As for Reason 4, I need to see if the conflict has died down a bit, to see if progressives, moderates, and conservatives can dwell in peace in TEC, as they do in the UCC. Because, if conservatives can get along in the UCC, and the UCC, though it's even more liberal then TEC,
can remain a member in good standing of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, then the UCC clearly has more of the essence of the Church then TEC, episcopacy notwithstanding!

I love my friends at Zion, but when I worshiped at St. Patrick's Episcopal Church, and was able to bow down to the Sacrament, to kneel, and to cross myself, and to recite the Creed, my heart leapt within my breast. I think that I am one of nature's Episcopalians! However, I will continue to attend both St. Peter's and St. Patrick's Episcopal Churches, while also attending Zion UCC for several months... and I intend to meet with a spiritual director once per semester. This will be a difficult process of discernment.

I also turned in an application at the new Kohl's in Delaware... I hope I get a new part time job, but God's will be done.

Edit: On further reflection, what I really need to do is go to an Episcopal church for a month or two, so starting on September 14th I will attend St. Peter's Episcopal and compare my experience there to my experience at Zion UCC.

As much as I like the cape-type robes worn by the pastors of the Calvin Synod and other Hungarian Reformed pastors, wearing one without a connection to a Hungarian ecclesiastiacal body would be cultural appropriation.

Lisa Withrow, my acidemic advisor, has suggested that I stay at Zion for at least a year, to get used to being out and back at school full time, so that I can have a clearer head when I do discernment about how God is calling me. She's right.

Therefore, I will remain a member of Zion UCC for the foreseeable future! :D God put me here for a purpose that I have yet to comprehend fully, but I have faith that God put me here and here I will stay. This does not mean that I will stop learning about the other branches of God's church, just that I intend to bloom in the soil in which I have been planted, the UCC.

I am still not sure when I will be ready to petition the council for in-care status. It may be later then I thought it would be at first, later then Christmas of this year, even.

Some Further Thoughts
1. My theology is thoroughly Protestant- I cherish the freedom to build my own personal relationship with Jesus Christ and see my role as a pastor as helping others to do the same.
2. Corperate means of grace, such as the Sacrement of Holy Communion, play a larger role in my theology then they do in most protestant thelologies.
3. I would like to use 'testimonies of faith' in worship ... this is not IMHO an un-UCC thing to do... even if it would annoy the former Bapitst contingent at our church!
4. The community of care at my church has been a great help to me... in gratitude I cannot but stay in the UCC.
5. At the same time, Episcopalian services do speak to me in a way that ordinary Protestant services do not.

Ok, so, through my reading of the Heidelberg Catechism, I have decided to spend 40 days and 40 nights "in the wilderness" denominationally speaking, and at the end of that time, either ask Council for in-care status at the next council meeting, or commit to joining another denomination, either TEC or the ELCA.

Thoughts on the UCC VS. The Episcopal Church

This is not necessarily in order of importance!

Things I like about the UCC
1. I am free to interpret the Bible however I like, guided but not limited by the historic creeds and confessions.
2. The Heidelberg Catechism
3. The Calvin Synod's vestments (capes are sexy) and habit of handing the chalice to the people as they take communion
4. Being openly gay and sexually active
5. Leslie Taylor
6. My friends at Zion UCC, who I would miss terribly
7. The UCC's commitment to ecumenism- the standoffishness of the UMC bothered me a great deal, and the Episcopalians are in some ways more standoffish
8. being able to adapt liturgies to each local church's context rather then using the same liturgy everywhere
9. The commitment to social justice, which is not just present but historic as well. See abolitionism, women's ordination, etc…
10. Being a member of an O and A church not 10 miles from the seminary
11. Continuing to attend MTSO
12. Unity in diversity- no denomination splitting fights going on.
13. Gay marriages
14. I felt called to join the UCC

Things I dislike about the UCC
1. The lack of churches in Texas
2. Zwingalian attitudes toward communion
3. Extreme liberalism (may be my imagination plus slanders I've heard)
4. Not saying the creed or a statement of faith in worship at least once a month
5. congregational polity
6. not having standards of faith to rely on (paradox, I know)
7. The attitude that beauty distracts from the worship of god rather then adding to it
8. Too many pastors end up in the UCC

Things I like about the Episcopal Church
1. The Book of Common Prayer, especially the daily office,
2. Weekly communion
3. Bishops, priests and deacons, a Biblical hierarchy
4. Most of the 39 Articles (I am by nature a Calvinist, though by upbringing a Armenian)
5. Having a creed in every worship service
6. Beauty in worship
7. St. Peter's Church people were very friendly
8. Some UCC people I trust think I should be Episcopalian rather then UCC
9. Worship is the primary purpose of a church for me, the Episcopalians seem to agree
10. I instinctively sympathize with the Cavilers rather then the Roundheads, and dislike the Puritans and admire Archbishop Laud
11. Prayers for the dead
12. Being openly gay and sexually active
13. Everyone agrees with me about the Real Presence


Things I dislike about the Episcopal Church
1. Social Snobbery
2. I would be an exile from Texas, for now at least
3. The denomination-splitting fight in the Anglican Communion
4. The intercession of Saints (not an official belief, but it appears in places)
5. Not being able to call gay marriages gay marriages
6. being wedded to one liturgy
7. having to change seminaries
8. I would miss my friends at Zion UCC and feel that I have abandoned them

Well, I am starting to think that actually I belong in the Episcopal church, not the UCC. Perhaps I will be more comfortable in a credal, liturgical denomination.

Perhaps this is just toxic second guessing. Only time will tell, but I'm scaling back my involvement at Zion UCC while I figure things out.

I'm going to visit St. Peter's this Sunday, and St. Patrick's in Dublin (they have an under-30s bible study) next Sunday.

One thing I can say is that after I made this decision I felt peace rather then worry for the first time in a long time.

Edit: OK, reverse things. I will attend both Zion and St. Patrick's this Sunday (St. Pat's has an evening folk mass using a liturgy from Kenya), St. Peter's next Sunday.

Hello, everyone! Sorry for the posting hiatus. I am happy and healthy, and have moved back on campus at MTSO. Some friends and I went down to the Alum Creek Beach, which was fun. We talked about our lack of boyfriends, etc...

Sorry, if I knew a magic formula for attracting a nice religious boyfriend, wouldn't I be using it by now!?!

I had a discussion with my prayer group this evening about salvation. Two members of the prayer group were strongly universalism. They believed that God's sovereignty and God's love, taken together, meant that universalism was the only logical position for a Christian to take.

I took the position that the presence of social injustice which is not punished in this life means that God's justice demands punishment of perpetrators of injustice in the next. Therefore, I cannot be a universalist- and if I was, I would not bother with being a Christian. (I would join the UUA and become a Hellenic pagan.) I am an Armanian- I believe that God's sacrifice was be sufficient for the whole world, but that some people choose to exclude themselves from Heaven by their own actions. This view is in accord with God's justice and mercy, but does seem to make God less sovereign, but in my view only because God has chosen not to limit human free will.

Edit:
I could summarize my position on salvation as being:
1. Jesus' incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection are the only way to eternal union with God
2. All persons could come to union with God through Jesus- God has not chosen to exclude anyone. Therefore, God will deal mercifully with those who could not know Jesus in this life. Therefore, all might be saved.
3. There is the potential for eternal separation from God ("hell") if a person will not, even at the point of death or beyond, avail themselves of God's grace. I do not know if this will happen, but respect for human free will means that the possibility must be there.

I hope this will not be too conservative for the UCC.