:: A Catechumen's Walk ::

:: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 ::

No

Last Friday, I wrote a letter to Fr. Sergious. It included more words and reasons, but basically it said, “I would like to become a catechumen.” I scheduled a time to go up there today and ask him about it in person. I had assumed I would become a catechumen, and that would be that.

To summarize a three-hour discussion in a word: “No.” Why not? “You are not ready.” And that was that. It was weird; I guess I saw becoming a catechumen more as a decision that I would make when I thought myself ready. In some ways, it was really discouraging. I was just finally ready to say “yes;” I had mustered the courage to ask, and even planned ahead and written a letter. But no. He asked me exactly what I thought a catechumen was, “One who learns by hearing,” I quipped back. “And how aren’t you a catechumen now?” He asked, seriously. “You know, that ‘official’ thing…” I lamely answered. Anyway, the idea was that I am where I need to be right now, and a catechumen is not where I need to be. He and I both knew that regardless of his answer, I will continue to pursue Orthodoxy, but am not ready to make a firm decision on it. He said to keep thinking, praying, writing, and going to church.

I guess it wasn’t all discouraging (all though it felt like it…). He said that I will eventually get to some concrete answers to my questions, but it may not be for a while. He answered some of the basic questions that I have (“Should I cross myself when I pray, even if everyone stares?”), and some other ones that I hadn’t thought about yet. It was good to hear that I am where I need to be, rather than being pressured into something I am so unsure about. He also implied that if a priest at one of the churches I attend (St. Seraphim or St. Andrew) would make me a catechumen, as long as I have real catechesis, it could work. Of course, that involves courage to actually ask one of them, but…God can do anything, right?…

Finally, as always, it was nice to get up to Calistoga and see Father. He hasn’t been feeling well, and his foot has been swollen enough that he has been canceling services recently. (If you know Father, this means he is really hurting). He will be having surgery to remove an infected tooth (which somehow is causing his foot to swell) on the day before Theophany. Of course, he plans to keep Vigil that evening (by which he means the monkish, all-night deal), so it will be interesting to see if he actually does. It is so nice to see him, living his very monkish existence in the modern world. He has such a different view of Orthodoxy from most of those with whom I speak; he is as cradle- Orthodox as could possibly be. His perspective, and his extensive intuitive knowledge, are quite a change from the usually views I see in the world of convert-Orthodoxy. I am blessed to know him.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:52 PM on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 [+] ::

Ironic Observation

How come the people who don’t seem to need to go to Confession are the ones who always go, and those of us who really need Confession don’t go?

How come people like Michael go, but I don’t? He is an older man (who the kids say looks like St. Seraphim), and is pretty holy; his sins cannot possibly be of the same magnitude as my own. But, he goes, and I don’t. It just seems funny. Those who don’t need it get it, and those who need it most don’t. Kinda like the Eucharist, in an odd way…

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 5:35 PM on Sunday, December 28, 2003 [+] ::

Wonderful Christmas

I had the most wonderful Christmas!

In the morning, after my family of four opened our Christmas stockings (Santa still comes to all four of us!), I was given permission to go to Church! Now, I have actually gone to every service but one this week, but it was without my parent’s knowledge. I wasn’t expecting to be able to go this morning (I was told last night that I couldn’t), but then my parent’s changed their minds. It was good; my 21 year-old brother came with me. It was his first time to an Orthodox anything, and while I think he enjoyed it, I am not sure if he will come again.

When we got home, we ate Christmas dinner with my grandmother and uncle, who drove up from San Francisco. We had ham, yams, rice, peas, carrots, pickled figs and vegetables, honey relish, and cranberry sauce. My mom loves to cook, so we had a delicious dinner, and lots and lots of cookies/candy for dessert.

After dinner, we opened gifts. While my family may not understand my Church, they know I love it, and they love me greatly. My brother got me a book about Fr. Seraphim Rose; it is a tome, and is over 1000 pages, but it looks very good, and will distract me greatly from my other reading. My dad got me (amongst other things) an ikon calendar and an ikon. I am not exactly sure if my dad looked at the ikon before buying it; he seemed to think it was an ikon of St. Seraphim, while it is in fact an ikon of the Theotokos. I am not exactly sure how he could confuse them, except that the only English on the package said “St. Seraphi, Mother of God: Joy of Joys.” It is the thought that counts; I know where he got it, and will probably exchange it for an ikon of St. Seraphim, but it made me smile that he thought to get it. Otherwise, I got a new dress, headphones, letter paper (I write lots of letters), and new shoes.

I got to see my family, both my immediate family, and my grandmother and uncle. My grandmother is getting old, and is pretty sick. I know she will not be around much longer, and I really cherish the time we get to spend together. My bachelor uncle is a lot of fun; he is very “open-minded,” and likes “religion.” Of course, talking “religion” with him is great fun for both of us; he doesn’t get why we need Church at all. “We are all a part of nature; just embrace the part of that nature that is good in you.” (Yes, he’s from San Francisco!). I love my family.

It was a wonderful Christmas. The fast is over; this is the feast! S'praznidkom! Christ is born!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:50 PM on Thursday, December 25, 2003 [+] ::

Christmas Thoughts

The songs from church today were both beautiful and instructive. This Christmas, I have made some new observations into the old, familiar customs of Christmas. Although I know that these are facile when you understand Orthodox hymnography, they really were revelatory for me.

1) When we emphasize that Christ was born among “ox and ass,” we are saying that he was born among us, not just the animals in the cave. We are as dull as an ox, and as stubborn as an ass when compared with God.

2) Each who came to worship him was a part of Him whom he worshipped. The kings came to worship Him as King. The shepherds came to worship the Great Shepherd. The “men” (Mary and Joseph) worshipped He Who became Man.

3) The cave was the best place he could be born. Compared to heaven, even the best and most royal castle would have been a cave. It made no difference to him, so he was born in a cave; the cave of this earth.

4) He came because of love. I ask Protestant friends why Christ became man, and I almost always get an Anselemic answer having to do with the redemption of man through sacrifice on the cross; this is true, but not complete. Almost all of them forget that it was because of love. It was not to do a work (of redemption) per se, but rather he condescended because he loved us.

These are my simple observations. They are all over the hymnography and the readings, and I am sure they are old information, but I have found them for the first time this year; they are new to me. Tomorrow…Christ will be born!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 6:13 PM on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 [+] ::

Getting up North

I am back at home in Northern California for Christmas now. It is nice to be back home, but I am more comfortable with religion at school. My dad still remarks on it each time I cross myself before I eat, and thinks that I am becoming Roman Catholic. He just doesn’t get it.
More than just getting up north to see home, I got up to Calistoga to see (Igumen) Fr. Sergious at Holy Dormition Monastery. I have not been up there since last summer, but have been writing letters rather regularly. It was very good to be up there, to see Father, and to remember that for all of my theology and studying, it comes down to God and the Church. I forget sometimes, and today I remembered. It was great to see Father, walking in with his unkempt hair, graying beard, grin, and accented-greeting, “Hello, Erica, how are you?� It was cold and wet, and he was sick, so we should have moved into the chapel (the only heated building), but he didn’t say anything, and I didn’t think of it until later. We talked for about an hour. Mostly, he just messed with me, showing me my own illogic. Nothing really theological or profound, but mostly just mocking my American, individualistic ways of thinking (he is from Venezuela, lived on Athos, and moved to the US rather recently; he is not American). It was fun; hopefully I can get back up there this break, but I do not know if that is possible. Thank God for men like Fr Sergious; he encourages me more than I can say.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 6:18 PM on Friday, December 19, 2003 [+] ::

The Necessity of the Holy Spirit

Jonathan posted some comments on my last entry , discussing the illumination of the Holy Spirit to assist the potential-believer to coming to God. Here are my responses. He defined illumination as

…insight into the spiritual mysteries of God's will and dealing with the world, that can only come through the grace of the Holy Spirit operating on (enlightening) your inward being.

Firstly, I do not have insight into anything. I am struggling to get plain sight; insight is still a long way off! As far as being able to see things from the view of God (which is teleological), I am too absorbed in myself to look into God’s will any further than the next 5 minutes.

As far as illumination, the Holy Spirit must enlighten us to any sort of “religious” experience we have. (No, not in the PoMo way!).We are trapped behind our wall of reason. We can either go Protestant, or “Church.” Protestants use the wall of reason, seeking to interpret Scripture by themselves, behind and through the wall. The other option is to abdicate the interpretation of Scripture to the Church. Even if you choose this option, however, you are still behind the wall of reason; that is, it is your reason deciding which is the right “church.”

Enter: Illumination of the Holy Spirit. Without this illumination, we cannot escape the wall and decide on any religion except by our own personal use of reason (which is corrupt as a result of the fall). This “wall” phenomenon is one of the reasons so many people rationally choose Protestantism; you don’t really need the “non-scientific” variable of the Holy Spirit, and Scripture and religion become formulaic, guaranteeing “salvation.” This lack of the Holy Spirit is felt deeply, however, as evidenced by the movement of the Evangelical Church to a sort of Pentecostal/Charismaticism. The illumination of the Holy Spirit, directing the believer to the correct Church to which he should entrust interpretation of Scripture (and therefore, submit himself to it as the Church), is the only way which someone can come to true religion. Without it, he only lives with his own fallen interpretations of religion.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 2:44 PM on Saturday, December 13, 2003 [+] ::

Decisions to be Made

I miserably failed my Torrey final, Don Rags. It was supposed to be an oral defense of my paper, and a synopsis of what I had learned this semester. It turned into a demonstration of my adrift, indecisive theology. My mentor allowed my paper to pass (I won't have to re-write it) only because I have already re-written it three times, and because "rewriting it at this point wouldn't help you in your theological struggle." I got an 'A,' and passed and all that good stuff. That's not the problem. The problem is that I don't know what I believe.
I wrote the paper from an Orthodox point of view; I can't tell if it is internally consistent from that standpoint, but I think it is. At Rags, I tried to dialogue with the tutors from the same point of view. The discussion eventually came to, "What is salvation?" I went into an explanation of how salvation is the process by which we become like God, and is achieved through discipline, prayer, and the help of the sacraments/Church. That explanation fell about as flat as it possibly could; it went really, really bad. I was trying to stay away from words like 'sanctification,' 'imputed righteousness,' 'justification,' 'atonement,' and other Calvinist catch-phrases. Of course, the first thing Dr. Thoennes said after hearing my explanation was, "Where do justification and sanctification play into salvation?" Then, Miss Weirich asked, "You didn't mention the sacrifice on the cross in your explanation of salvation." So, it was really, really bad. At that point, I just kind of gave up. I can't defend any one point of view, so I just passively agreed with what they were saying, "You still believe in sola scriptura, right?" Was I supposed to say "no"? That wouldn't have worked; I can't defend that point of view. I did poorly; I can't defend my beliefs because I don't know what they are! My mentor thinks I am a heretic, or at least a Roman Catholic (the two are equivalent in her eyes); she is genuinely worried that I am not "saved." She suggested that I meet with Dr. Sanders, the resident Torrey theologian, to discuss salvation and what I believe.
The point is not that I cannot write to save my life, choke up when I have indefensible views, or that I lie about my beliefs when I get into a tight spot. It is that I do not know what I think. It is stupid for me to join the Orthodox Church at this time. When I came here from a public school as a Protestant, I had a hard enough time defending Arminian-Protestant views to Calvinist- Protestants, since they were so well educated in apologetics and doctrine. I know I will regularly get eaten alive if I try to 're-learn' Christianity in the view of Orthodoxy. I could not possibly do it and keep up intellectually with my peers; if I cannot keep up intellectually, there is no point in trying to switch views while in Torrey.
I am passionate about the idea of a unified body of Christ, existing unchanged through the ages, willing to accept Her prodigal orphan children home, and solid in a world where change is continuous. I desperately desire to belong to such a thing. But I cannot bring myself to accept the theology espoused by any body claiming to be such. I have spent hundreds of hours in the last year trying to figure out exactly where I stand on theology, but I cannot seem to convince myself to change my views. I seem to be unable to 'convert.' If I weren't so passionate about it, it wouldn't matter as much. I really wish I could let go of the idea of 'Church' and go be a good Protestant. I love it too much, though. I wish I didn't.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 3:08 PM on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 [+] ::

Nativity

Half-way there...20 more days until Christmas!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:11 PM on Friday, December 05, 2003 [+] ::

Extreme Sacramentalism

Firstly, this blog will show my wonderful inability to make up my mind. To my Protestant friends, I am very, very sacramental. This is true; I personally hold a high view of the sacraments, and they are one of the major reasons I pursue High Church. That aside, let me voice what I believe to be the major objections against a sacramental world-view.
God became man. Logos took on sarkos. The argument is that in doing so, he sanctified matter; in fact, it is Gnostic to say otherwise. Jesus did sanctify matter with his descent, but his words showed him to be against sacramental theology. In his first miracle in the Gospel of St. John, where he makes the water into wine at the Wedding of Cana (John 2), he uses the water contained in 6 pots of purification, which were set out by pious Jews for ceremonial purposes. In doing this, he is openly mocking their right of purification and the corrupt Law espoused by the Pharisees. He is mocking their exterior cleanliness, comparing it with their interior filth (Luke 11:39, Matt23:25). Physically, they were good, but spiritually, they were dead. Directly after this, he seeks to purify the temple from the filth which it contained; like the jars, it should have been clean, but it was full of blood (cp. wine). Although the physical outside of the temple may have been good, Jesus was more concerned with its spiritual aspect, and was even willing to destroy the physical to make a point spiritually. Jesus is significantly more concerned with spiritual than physical.
The Law is what binds man; the physical world is the Law, which does not contain grace. If I drop a ball in the physical world, it will fall; if I sin in the spiritual world, I am in trouble, but other things, such as forgiveness, exist. The spiritual world is much greater than the physical world, for in it are “grace and truth,” rather than “the Law” (John 1:17).
By doing things like sprinkling holy water about a room, we are saying that there is something inherent in the water that the “non-water” could not give. Is there any more “virtue/grace/goodness/blessing” exercised when Father throws holy water on us with hyssop than when he simply blesses us? Why can’t we just pray, and have the same thing happen? I heard a (non-Orthodox) very ecumenical, well-educated priest speak last week about the Eucharist. He was saying that it is what we make it; “spiritual communion” is more important than physical communion, and if physical communion is unavailable, then spiritual communion will suffice. It seems like the physical is secondary, and if we make it primary, we will end up like the 15th century RCC, with Masses the people cannot understand, elevating the Eucharist; the physical is so much more important than the spiritual. If I don’t have the word, is the sign any good to me? (Martin Luther) Why have the sign, if it is only the word that is good for me? (John Calvin) The sign is actually evil; it stops me from focusing on the word. (Zigwilli, Ulrich)
These are my non-sacramental views. Of course, shortly I will be posting my sacramental ones, so to start an argument with myself ;-P

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 9:02 PM on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 [+] ::

What is Church?

You all believe Orthodoxy is the correct Church, and we talk about it like we know what it is. But trying to define it is more difficult. We can use the spiritual ideas of the New Testament; the Body of Christ, the Bride, &c, but these are not solid definitions. I am trying to define it in a paper I am writing; I have an implicit definition throughout the paper, but I cannot say it in so many words, and I need to. I have been thinking about it for a while, and I will post ideas as they come, but what are any of your ideas? What is Church?

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:12 PM on Monday, December 01, 2003 [+] ::

RANT on Switching Majors

So, after much prayer, consideration, and speaking to authoritative sources, I decided I wanted to change my major from mathematics to church history. I decided that if my parents would OK the move, I would make it; if they refused, then I would stay a math major.
I told my Dad. He said that I was an idealistic youth (probably too true!), that he thought it was not the best course for me, but that he saw that I was passionate about it, and so he would allow me to do it. He went into a whole spiel on the philosophy of God, and how he likes to think of the world as having no God, and then try to think of the best religion he can: he comes up with Evangelical Protestantism. I am not sure if this was as a mockery to what I think, or if he were trying to encourage me; I honestly have no clue where he stands on religion and such issues, but I don’t think I ever will. I know he thinks I waste my time with it, and flat out tells me such beliefs as the presence in the Eucharist is just empty superstition. He can’t understand why I want to waste my time and “talent” studying something so useless and potentially false.
My mom took it a completely other way. I thought she would be the easier one to convince, but that was not true. She has always known that math was an “interim” major until I could choose something else; she knew this well. But she is the only practical one in our family; while my Dad and I live in the clouds, she lives on earth. “What are you going to do in four years?” Those were the first words she said, and the same ones she repeated in different forms for over an hour. If I can find a practical means of supporting myself, I can do whatever I want.
It is interesting; my parents concerns are so different on the issue. My mom knows me well enough to know that I am passionate about this, and that I have wanted to study something related to theology/religion/ecclesiology for most of my life (although she has always been openly adverse to the idea); she is really, really adamant that I have a good means of supporting myself after four years. My Dad couldn’t care less about me supporting myself; he wants me to study something difficult and challenging, but he thinks religion is not an academic subject, and is not true enough to be studied.
I am not sure if I have their permission to change; they will get back to me on it. Right now, it may be that I try to fit in a 5th year in my 4-year program so that I graduate with a teaching credential. It is not something that I would choose to do, but if it means being able to major in church history, I will do it.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 3:20 PM on Friday, November 28, 2003 [+] ::

“I believe…” or do I?

I say “I believe in one God…I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ…I believe in the Holy Spirit…”, but I am slowly realizing this is not true, for neither myself nor for most of the people who claim it. Now, lest you think I have gone crazy, I would be more truthful with the following statement: “I know there to be one God…I intellectually acknowledge the existence of one Lord, Jesus Christ…I give cognitive assent to the proposition of ‘Holy Spirit’…” I don’t believe it; I only intellectually know it to be true.
There is a difference between knowing and believing. As a little child, I believed. I believed that Jesus was really God and really man; I didn’t understand the theology, but I believed the truth. Now, I fear that my knowledge has robbed me of my belief. At first, I thought knowledge would strengthen my belief, but now I realize it has almost robbed me of it.
Don’t misunderstand; I am not turning anti-intellectual, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, as I am blessed with examples of very holy, very smart people. I know more many people who are both significantly smarter and more holy than I will ever be. Knowledge is not the evil then, but merely knowledge misapplied is evil (it is not fulfilling its proper function). I think even knowledge about theology is good, but I am not sure how to prevent (intellectual) knowledge about God from replacing belief about God.
If I really believed, and did not just know things about God, I would live differently. I have forgotten the joy of simple belief. The world looks at Christians today, sees us doubting, and wonders why, since we seem to have such strong faith. In fact, I don’t think we have any faith, since we “know” so much. We doubt because we have absolutely no belief, since you cannot doubt knowledge.
So, I once believed. And now I don’t. When did this change? This is not in anyway to say I “doubt” any parts of the creed or my “beliefs;” I am simply wondering how many of them are truly “beliefs.” How can I get back? I have decided that I want to try to become holy. I don’t think I’ll succeed, but I think that striving for holiness is a good way to straighten out “beliefs” versus “knowledge.”

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:34 PM on Sunday, November 23, 2003 [+] ::

Youth group, or Church?

When I started high school, I joined a youth group. We would go to places, do fun things, and generally hang out. I am not totally sure of the purpose was; it may have been outreach, but the group tended to be very cliquish; no one really knew anyone outside of the group (but for me, the outsider). It was mostly a chance for Christians to get together and do fun things. Sometimes our youth pastor would give a short sermon; sometimes we would have a lesson, or do a “project,” but not much beyond that.
The above is a good description of a youth group. The problem is when this becomes a church. Get together on Sunday, do some “fun” stuff, hang out mostly with others who go to the same church. We really like the way those songs make us feel; they are “fun,” so we sing them. After the lesson (sermon), we can go back to our lives, enjoying at most the possible intellectual learning that occurred. No! Church has to be something deeper, or else The Beer Church (www.beerchurch.com) is what it is all about. (And if you disagree, go read James’ (http://paradosis.blogspot.com) thoughts on it.)
I also speak more to the social aspect of Church versus youth group this post from the beginning of October.
This is one of my soapboxes; I think this is in part from going to a public school my whole life, then coming to a Christian college. Youth group held appeal to as a public-schooler, since it was the only time to hang out with Christians. But, at the same time, I wanted Church to look like youth-group; just a place to hang out with Christians, maybe learn a little. Now that I can have all of the fellowship I so desire with other Christians (and it is really, really wonderful!), I am looking for a church that is more than just a youth group. I want something more real at church; this has driven me to the sacramental aspects of Christianity. Maybe I am being too harsh on them; youth groups can be good, but just don’t confuse them with real churches!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 2:38 PM on Friday, November 21, 2003 [+] ::

I meditated on thy words…

Last night I went to OCF at St Andrew, where there was a guest speaker from San Juan Capistrano, Fr. Andrew. Right off, he admitted to being a Protestant-convert, having been a pastor (teaching elder) at a Protestant church before becoming a priest. I could tell that before he even said it; he talked like a Protestant, using Scripture and Scriptural allusions, for the most part unconsciously, in his speech. As the 9 or so present dialogued on the meaning of Advent, I made an allusion to all of creation groaning and travailing until the fullness of time, per St. Paul. Fr. Andrew cut me off mid-sentence, and with a grin pointed at me and said, “You were a Protestant, weren’t you?” I smiled and corrected the verb tense of the sentence. “I can tell.” He continued, “You quote Scripture. When I was a Protestant pastor, I could tell you at least the book and chapter, if not the verse itself, of nearly every New Testament quote you could give. But I doubt I could anymore.”
He could tell my background from my use of Scripture, and I am a particularly bad scriptorian. There is a man in my chum group who is a living concordance; we play games with him, giving him words and snippets of quotes, and seeing how many places they appear in the Bible. (He is scary about it: literally, he can tell you almost to a “T” how many times concepts and phrases appear in scripture, both Old and New Testaments.) This would be unheard of in Orthodox circles. Yes, they read the Bible, and have it, but they do not study it and know it like Protestants. Outside of the small groups of converts/zealots we all know, I would bet anything that the “average” Protestant (Sunday morning only) knows significantly more scripture than the “average” Orthodox (Sunday morning only). Why is this? The only place this may not be true is where Scripture appears in common prayers and hymnography, but if we are talking about the Sunday-morning-only types, then this is not a problem. Is the view of Scripture lower in the Orthodox Church? Is it that there are other things to study, like the Fathers, so Scripture isn’t as well-known? It is a true phenomenon, but it is a bad one. Why don’t Orthodox know the Bible as well as Protestants?

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 3:13 PM on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 [+] ::

Hymnography and Theology

Recently, I was playing through a hymnal (I play piano and sing), when I came across an old Wesley hymn, O the Depth of Love Divine . Upon reading the words, it occurred to me the theology of Wesleyan substantiationary nature was succinctly taught in the second verse: “Let the wisest mortal show / How we the grace receive; / Feeble elements bestow / A power not their to give. / Who explains the wondrous way, / How through these the virtue came? / These the virtue did convey, / Yet still remain the same.” I was also humming thorough the words of the Troparion of the Presentation: “Today is the prelude of the good will of God, of the preaching of the salvation of mankind. The Virgin appears in the temple of God, in anticipation proclaiming Christ to all. Let us rejoice and sing to her: ‘Rejoice, O Fulfillment of the Creator's dispensation.’” After reflecting on this theology, I thought back to one of the modern P&W (praise and worship) songs I (didn’t) sing in chapel on Friday, “The simplest of all love songs, I want to bring to you. So I’ll let my words be few. Jesus, I am so in love with you (x5). Jesus, I am so in love with you (x5).”
Music, specifically the words to hymns, is an integral part of theology, since it is the “theology” we are likely to be meditating on as we hum and sing it throughout our day. As I was thinking of how hymnography shaped theology, I half-jokingly asked my roommate what would happen when we started living out the theology in our modern P&W Protestant songs. She looked seriously at me: “We already do, Erica.”
I hadn’t realized it, but she’s right. The P&W songs don’t say anything, but at the same time, they don’t divide anyone; I don’t know anyone who can claim to be any type of Christian and theologically object to the song “Jesus I am so in love with you.” They are all embracing, but they only have emotion and pathos rather than theology. You feel good while saying it, but wake up in the morning and realize there is nothing substantial left over. It is just a passing emotional high, which leaves you with nothing when you cannot feel “happy.” We are all about feeling good and holding hands and singing together, but we are no longer saying what we believe. You could make the argument that we all believe different things, and just hide them for manner’s sake when we are together. But the problem is that these doctrinally vapid songs are not only sung at chapel, but at churches (where people are supposedly doctrinally unified).
So, we are creating a religion without theology. Now…this sounds like something I have heard of before…Oh, yes, the 1800’s in New York. The Second Great Awakening was occurring, and many people were “coming to Christ.” Large, emotional crowds would accept Christ at evening revivals. But the revivalists left town the next morning. The “feel-good” emotions weren’t enough to sustain the people who had no theology to back up their pious feelings. So, they found a theology to go with their new religion; Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientism were effectually started within 20 years and 20 miles of each other. That is the result of religion without theology.
What are the cults springing up now to fill in the void left by lack of theology? I don’t know; I have some ideas, but not much proof. But this will happen, unless something changes. Will it ever be more important to believe something than to be friends with everyone? Hopefully soon.everyone? Hopefully soon.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:16 PM on Sunday, November 16, 2003 [+] ::

A Church I went to…

So, my best friend and I have been planning for about 3 weeks to go to Vespers at this one local church (actually, I think it is one of the closest Orthodox churches to us); last night, we finally went. We got lost three times getting there, which made us about 20 minutes late, and there was a beautiful lightening storm and rain happening, but we eventually made it. When we got there, we managed to sneak in relatively unnoticed and stand near the back.
The music was excellent. The chanters were really, really good. There were three of them, two men and a woman; the woman had a very nice soprano voice. They stayed in tune and hit all of the right notes, and no one was straining near the top or bottom. They are one of the best group of chanters I have heard in a long time.
There were about 20 or so people there. No one came and introduced himself, even after the service, but I think that’s because my friend and I must have “looked” Orthodox and like we knew what we were doing. Well, I must make an exceptiong; one little boy of about 6 years old who came up to us right away when we were standing in the back and said, ‘hi,’ but his mom called him back. After service, the priest also came up and said hi. We were being shy, but it still would have been nice to meet some people…
After the service, there was about 15 minutes of saying the Jesus Prayer, which was really neat. Although my friend had said it in a group before, I never had, and enjoyed it. It forced my otherwise distractible mind to focus on the here and now of the prayers; it was good.
The inside of the church was beautiful, although it was located in an office complex. My all-time favorite ikon was at the back of the altar; it is the one of Mary with Christ in her womb. There was one beautiful ikon of the Theotokos in the middle of the room, but I didn’t really get to study it; I was afraid everyone would stare at me if I spent too long contemplating one ikon. The church was well done and pretty, considering the room they had to work with.
It was a very nice church; my friend and I hope to get there some Sunday soon. The priest was saying they had a catechumen who went to Biola, and I’d like to know who…Well, kudos to the first person who can tell me in the comments what church I went to last night… :-)

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:11 AM on Thursday, November 13, 2003 [+] ::

The War of Sin

This morning, James talks about the war against sin, quoting St. Nectarios and discussing the struggle between the intellectual and spiritual side of a man in his quest for his salvation. I am feeling very Protestant in this response; this is what I have learned and believe about the issue.
Perhaps this is cynical, but it seems as though the fight against sin is a perpetual part of Christianity. The two options for sin are victory, or loss and repentance. Since we will not be beating sin personally any time in this life, we must then resign ourselves to a life of continual struggle and repentance. This is not an encouraging point to bring up to a seeker in Christianity: “Join our religion, and struggle for the rest of your life against something you can’t beat!” This would be the end of all evangelism if it were not for the power of God giving us victory over sin.
Thankfully, God gives us power over sin. To use James’ words, I spend time “on my Protestant knees begging God to miraculously change my desires and make me holy.” I pray this over and over again; every day, in fact. Do I see change? No. Should I expect to? Probably not. But I have to trust that the change is still there. Although I cannot perceive it, I trust I am becoming a more holy person, better at praying, more humble, able to commune with God at a deeper level. But I don’t see the change. It is like the man who boasts in his humility; if you are truly being changed, you will not perceive it. James is right when he says, “All my life was simply a grueling and perpetual rerun of sin and then begging for forgiveness.” Yes, we will constantly sin and need to ask for forgiveness, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with your beliefs if you do not see a change. As the struggle is that of a life-time, our patience must be as long. I would say to James that there is nothing wrong with your beliefs; persevere, and you will be rewarded.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 12:07 PM on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 [+] ::

Praise & Worship, Chapel & Me

Three times a week, the whole undergraduate population of Biola meets together in the gym for chapel. There is about 20 minutes of praise & worship at the beginning, then a 30 minute sermon. This was designed to be a time to bring the community together and unify us in our common Christian faith. So why am I complaining?
The praise and worship in chapel is despicable. I am not complaining about the sheer volume of electric guitars and keyboards, booming across us sitting on the floor of the basketball courts, but rather the words of the songs. The writers mistakenly wrote their songs content-free! They don’t say anything. And, they say this nothing loudly and repetitively. Now, this is not my rant on modern praise & worship music (that will come later), but rather I am unsure of what my reaction should be to it.
I, along with a good number of my friends, do not sing the songs in chapel because of their theological vapidity and repetitiveness. I usually pray around my choctis, go through some morning/evening prayers I know, or recite a few Psalms. This may seem good, but I have the distinct feeling I am cut off from the community, which is the point of chapel. I feel as though I am doing something wrong in being non-participatory, but also would be doing something wrong in being fully participatory. Also, there are those rare occasions where they sing an old hymn, or something with real substance; then I usually phase back in and join. Of course, then I am personally judging what is “good” to sing, and what is not; I don’t feel as though this is something which I should judge.
So, I purposefully cut myself off from the community; this is bad. But I think that while the community may be theologically sound, this particular exercise is not; therefore, I should be justified in not participating.
So, which is the better of two evils? Of course, there is always the option of “mistakenly” coming late and missing praise & worship, but if you don’t time it to within 35 seconds, you don’t get credit for the chapel, and that is not good…

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:46 AM on Thursday, November 06, 2003 [+] ::

Meals and Praying

Why do we pray before, but not after meals? I mean, not only Protestants or Orthodox or anything, but just people in general? Every time I sit down in the caf to eat, I ask Christ bless the food. Why not thank Him for blessing it after we eat? Why thank God before the meal, if you haven’t eaten it yet? If one is only to pray once at a meal, it should be after rather than before. We should bless it first, then thank God when we have eaten. Just a thought. We thank Thee, O Christ our God, that Thou hast satisfied us with Thine earthly blessings. Deprive us not of Thy heavenly kingdom, but as Thou camest among Thy disciples to grant them peace, so also come to us and save our souls.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:10 PM on Monday, November 03, 2003 [+] ::

Changing Majors

I have spent the last few weeks stressing about my major. I am a theoretical math major, and I think I want to change to humanities-history. I have a list of pros and cons for each of them, but I still cannot decide. My only consolation is that I know God will guide me in the way wherein I should walk. My stress is then that I would like to know this way now rather than later. Ah, the stresses of college.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:09 PM on [+] ::

Halloween

What are your thoughts on Halloween? Here at a Protestant campus, there is a sharp split over today’s celebrations. Some say that it is Satanic and we should stop our kids from going out; others say that it is Satanic, and so hand out tracts rather than candy; some say that it is for kids to have fun dressing up to be princesses and knights. I tend to think that while it may have originated as an occult thing, we should stop kids from dressing up in their make-believe costumes and having fun. I don’t know; what’s your opinion?

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 5:27 PM on Friday, October 31, 2003 [+] ::

Vespers!

We had a readers vespers out here at Biola last night. Well, it wasn’t at the school, since we deemed that disrespectful, but it was at someone’s house that lives right near school. It was wonderful! It actually worked. We had 7 students, one prof, and three readers. For the actual service, we only had two readers, since the third arrived right as we were finishing. The readers, one student, and the prof were the only Orthodox Christians there. The rest of us were Protestants, some who had recently converted to Anglicanism, and one High-church Lutheran. We all had a good time; everyone who came was very into church and the theology of non-Protestant churches, so we sat around at dinner and talked until almost 10. It was really good. Glory to God!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 5:24 PM on [+] ::

Orthodoxy and Women

I was recently asked why it seems that women are slower to accept Orthodoxy than men are. In fact, I have noticed that more men are likely to convert than women in general (I know quite a few converts/potential converts). I do not know why this is with any certainty, and I certainly don’t claim to represent anyone but myself, but here are my ideas.
To be sure, more men convert than women. I don’t think this is an Orthodox phenomenon alone, however, since there was a significantly more male converts than female converts at the Anglican church I attended last year. I spoke with the fiancés/wives of some Anglican converts I know, and although they were initially slower in accepting the faith of their boyfriends/husbands, they all consider their conversions to be simultaneous with that of their man. While they tended to be slower about initially accepting the faith, they moved as fast or faster than the guys once they did accept it.
First, lets be negative. Although men often exhibit a more “logical” side than women, I do not think this is necessarily the reason that women are slower to convert, at least in my own case. I major in theoretical mathematics, program in C++ and Java, and built myself a computer; I am more “logically” minded than most guys I know, including the converts.
It seems to have more to do with philosophy than logic. Women are concerned about the practical aspects of life. Men are more likely to explore the philosophy of the idea, and once they are convinced of that, they will change the practical aspects of their lives to fit with that philosophy. Women would like something to show them how to practically improve their lives, catching up on the philosophy only once it has affected their real life. Orthodoxy seems to offer so much philosophy and theology, while offering little in the way of practical day-to-day life (at least in my experience; I could be wrong!).
The biggest point, at least with the groups I know, seems to be a phenomenon particular to Evangelical Protestants; at least at Biola, this is probably the main reason men are more likely to convert than women. Protestant, especially Evangelical Protestant, church services are often engineered to create an emotionally charged atmosphere; unfortunately, this atmosphere is like tumultuous water: always changing, unpredictable, and ultimately shallow. The women seem to relate to this more than the men; simply looking around chapel during praise-and-worship confirms this observation. The men do occasionally participate, but the ratio of men to women showing explicit emotion is about 1:10. When men find the Liturgy, they find a firm base where emotion is not the only determining factor of the success of a service. Men are unable to participate as fully in the emotion-driven Evangelical service (wonder why Evangelicals are loosing men quickly?) as women are, but still seek to worship God. The Liturgy gives them this opportunity. The women, who don’t feel the emotion of the Liturgy as strongly as the Evangelical service, are less likely to realize they need to more firmly based service, and thus will be slower to convert than their men-folk.
These are my opinions; they may be completely false, judgmental, stereotypical, and all of that other bad stuff. If I offended anyone, please forgive me.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 9:56 PM on Monday, October 27, 2003 [+] ::

Hey all,
Please pray for those who are caught in the Southern California wildfires. I am safe, but many of my friends (including my roommate) have to evacuate their homes. The air is thick with smoke and uncertainty down here. The faith of many is being tested this weekend, and will be tested further this week. Some have already lost homes, and emotions are running high. Thanks for your prayers.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 8:50 PM on Sunday, October 26, 2003 [+] ::

Making it New

Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ on the third day? “Of course!” You say, “Every Christian believes it, and has for as long as he has been a Christian!” Really? I don’t think I really believe in the resurrection. I am a church-kid; I was raised in the church, and attending a Bible school. But I don’t think I really believe. Or, I didn’t really believe until I discovered Orthodoxy.
Before you go getting all excited, this isn’t a plug for the Orthodox Church, but rather for the discovery of Church for oneself, and the resultant conversion. At Torrey (my college), a very high percentage of the students will convert to the “High” Church during their four-year stay. While 100% of us enter Evangelical Protestants, only about 50% will graduate that way. Mostly, we go Anglican and Lutheran, but there is a growing group of Orthodox converts also (although all of these to the Western Rite, since there is a local Church).
So, why do students convert? I asked a friend who will be confirmed this Sunday as an Anglican (along with 16 other students at my college!) His answer is simple: He hears what is said on Sunday. It is the same message he grew up with, but he hears it for the first time. He believes it for himself, not by the coercion of his parents. It is as if he is discovering Christianity for the first time; it is something he never knew before, and now he sees it. The converts, those who have had to fight for the faith of their own, are the ones who “get” it and cherish it. Converting, even if to another Christian denomination, re-opens the eyes of those of us who have been so raised in the Church that we fail to see it for its familiarity.
But back to the resurrection. Converts believe it because it is new to them; it is the same material in a new form. But what about everyone else? I looked around the room while the speaker was talking. Most of the 2000 person student-body was there, along with a number of visitors. How many of them believe? I wanted to tell them. I wanted to stand up and say, “Christ is risen! Don’t you people know this?!” But, of course they did. They knew it all too well; that’s why they don’t believe it anymore. It is casual. So, how do I make it new? As I see myself and my convert/converting friends, I see the newness of the resurrection, the incarnation, the Trinity, and such things in them. They have seen it with their own eyes, not the eyes of their parents and family. On their own at school, they have re-discovered God.
So what can we do? It would not be good for the whole school to convert; it is a Protestant school, and thus it should remain. But what can I do? Torrey will sponsor and support students with good ideas to do real things, but I have to have a real thing to do. I so greatly desire people to believe, to see it afresh. I despise the word “revival,” but I guess it accurately describes what I want to see happen. At one time in their lives, before they could exegete in Greek and explain the Christological heresies of the 4th century, these people had faith in the resurrection. How can I help them to find it again? How can we make it new?
Maybe this is the wrong approach. As I read this, I keep seeing the word “new.” As my Orthodox friends would remind me, the Faith is not new; rather, it is the most ancient faith of Christendom. This has been the approach of the Evangelicals for years; modernize Christianity, [forgive the language, but it is accurate] whoring the Church after the culture. This style of making Christianity “new” is completely wrong, and backfires greatly. How then do we make it new, without making it “modern?”

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:50 AM on Saturday, October 25, 2003 [+] ::

On the Act of Being Repentant

I know I sin a lot. Intellectually, I am fairly certain I could list, on any given day, which of my actions are sinful, and which are not. I can probably even give Biblical examples of the various sins I commit. I can tell you why they are wrong using philosophically. I can tell you that God hates sin, that it damns people, and that Christ died on the cross to save me from the punishment of this sin (put your Orthodox soteriology on hold for a sec, OK?).
I can tell you a lot about sin from a detached, scientific view. But I can’t feel sorry for it. I mean, I don’t feel repentant for most of the sins I have committed; if anything, I selfishly feel sorry for how my sins have hurt me. I do not respond properly to sin; I know intellectually sin is wrong, but how can this knowledge affect my heart?
On one of its many levels, Plato’s Republic is his sketch of a purely intellectual man; but the Republic ends in failure. Remember Book X? It ends in a muthos (myth), written as an appeal to the appetitive and “chested” (to use C.S. Lewis) sides of men; it fails to succeed in its purpose, which was to solve the problem using pure intellect. While intellect is the highest of Plato’s three-tiered man, it still fails without the other two. [Lest you think I am just playing the side of anti-intellectual, by writing this, let me remind you that I have in fact read a good number of Plato’s works. I am closer to a hyper-intellectual, tending to push feeling off to one side as unimportant.]
I just finished reading a short book entitled “Confession” by Metropolitan Anthony _____ (I can’t remember his last name). It was an instruction manual written in the early part of this century to Russian priests about the mystery of Confession; I recommend reading it if only for the fatherly tone in which Met. Anthony writes to the priests. In writing it, it seems as though the Metropolitan expected people who came to Confession to be contrite about their sins. He seems to assume that people can genuinely, and naturally, feel sorry for the wrongs they have committed. Is this something most people can do? Am I the only one who cannot feel sorry for my sins? In the prayers we pray, “Grant me torrents of tears, O most pure one, to cleanse my soul of impurity,” and “grant me tears, and remembrance of death, and compunction.” We read of the great saints who wept for their sins, some even to the point of blindness. Why can’t we cry for our sins? (OK, I am extrapolating here, but I don’t think I am the only one…)
Why don’t we feel sorry? I heard an anecdote recently about a writing assignment given to a college psych class. They were to write a one paragraph about a time someone else hurt them, and another one about a time they hurt someone else. When the papers were collected, there was an interesting pattern: each time they hurt someone, there was some justification for the action; the person deserved it. Each time someone hurt them, it was completely unfair; the offending party was in the wrong. We justify ourselves all too often. We don’t weep over our sins because, although we intellectually acknowledge them to be wrong, we justify them to ourselves.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 5:50 PM on Thursday, October 23, 2003 [+] ::

You gotta gotta gotta go read this.
Especially all of you Protestants (that's 7 of you I can think of right now! Go read it!).
It'll take about 30 minutes, but it is well worth it.

http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/under_the_heaventree.html

The first third is just "huh?"
The second third is "OK, I kinda get this."
The last third...Wow. The singular best explaination I have ever read explaining the incarnation and death of Christ explained to a Protestant. Really, really good. All of you "judicial theologists" really need to read this.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 8:34 PM on Saturday, October 18, 2003 [+] ::

Prayer Rope Tying Instructions

Just happened to find this page on my internet perusings…

http://www.wattfamily.org/prayerope.html

I haven't tried it, but it sounds like it would be fun to learn.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:28 AM on [+] ::

Mary is cool

Some things of the Church grate against the nerves more than others. Protestants can accepts many things in the Church more easily than they can accept Mary. Some of the phrases and hymns, “O, Holy Theotokos, save us,” and other such ideas sound blasphemous and idolatrous. It can be a great mouthful to swallow, and one I have barely begun to study.

But I like Mary.

I don’t like the theology behind her, the explanations, the “Theotokos” vs. “Christotokos,” and all the other points about which I feel obliged to care. I just like her. She is really cool. I mean, I pray to her the prayers in the prayer book, and that’s all good. But I just like her; I like singing the Suplicatory Canon, or the Megalynaria, and other such things. It seems like I should know reasons, theology, Mariology, and all that other academia stuff before making such a statement. Once I know all of that, I can say some nonsensical, technical jargon about why she is cool. But for now, she is just cool.

O, Holy Theotokos, save us!

**Forgive me if I offend you by referring to the Theotokos as “cool,” but I don’t know enough about her to say much else. I mean offence or flippancy.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 6:13 PM on Friday, October 17, 2003 [+] ::

To Know God

This was a formal answer to a question: "How can we know God?", written immediately reading multiple works of the early Franciscan monk , St Bonaventure.

We have to be able to know God. The first and greatest commandment tells us to love God, and we would be irrational for us to love something that we did not know, at least to a limited extent. Although we cannot know God in His infinity, we can know Him in His fleshly body, but even without this fleshly knowledge, it is possible to know God partially through other sources.
We can’t know God infinitely in His infinity, since we are finite people. God understood our limitations, but made a way for us to know Him by becoming like us. Jesus came down and became man so we can know God. For the word to mean something, there has to be a way in which one man can “know” another. Because Jesus was a man, we can know Him; because He was also fully God, we can therefore know God. God stepped out of infinity into time, and thus made Himself accessible to man. Although the flesh of Jesus was crucified to a tree, it is still accessible to his disciples through the Eucharist. This is the best way to know God; to know Him in the flesh. Since it is possible to know Jesus as fully as we can know any man, in this way it is possible to fully know God.
Without the Eucharist, we can still know God partially. We can know him through the stories recorded in the Gospels, but through these we can know Him only as we know men such as Odysseus, Socrates, and Dracula. We can partially participate in His Being, in that He is, and is theological virtues as love. Through our very existence, we are participating in the Being of God. When we practice His virtues, such as love, we are participating in God, and therefore can know Him to an extent. The limitation to this is that we do not know Him directly, but rather only parts of His being; in our sinful world, we can never see pure things, and therefore cannot see what is closest to God. We can contemplate God through His scripture, and this is good, but contemplation of a person does not mean knowledge.
While the Eucharist, made possible by the incarnation, is the best and fullest way man can know God, it is still possible to know Him partially through other means.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:40 PM on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 [+] ::

Judgment

Why do we judge so much? I see it in myself so much; I barely have to even meet a person, and I already think he is too scraggly, she is too loud, he is too rude, they are too stupid. What is up with this? I don’t know these people, and I have no right to judge them.
I find myself doing the same thing with churches and even (sadly) priests. I see them, and I do not know the history, the background, the reasons, but I still jump to snap conclusions about them. At St Andrew’s, where I went yesterday, the priest is out of the country finishing his doctorate. While he is gone, there is another priest who is taking responsibility for the parish. I was grumbling and complaining to myself that the homily’s boring, class is too long, he doesn’t look like a priest (clean-shaven, like some bloggers I’ve heard of…). What gives me the right to do this? I don’t know. I watched him as he processed around the Church with the Eucharist, and all of the people coming up and kissing the corners of his robe; the air with which he went showed he understood the profundity of what I can’t being to grasp (the Eucharist). I shouldn’t even be in the building for this, much less with an attitude of judgment for the priest.
We judge churches also. I had a friend who is looking for a new parish write to me this morning, enumerating the reasons he didn’t like the local parishes. I was fine reading the email, until I got to the part about my own parish (St Seraphims). Then it hit me; I was judging again. I didn’t like the way he described the church and people I have come to love. Then I realized that we shouldn’t even be comparing and bringing out the weak points of the churches. Yes, they have their weak points; so do I. But judging is not good.
It is not my place to judge. That’s God’s place, not mine. Yesterday, I asked my Reformed Baptist friend if he thought I was going to heaven, “Yes, I think you are saved,” was his quick response. “And me? Do you think I will go to heaven?” I was so tempted to judge, to answer that his theology was…weird, that his God was mean, and all this other stuff. But no, instead I said, “Well, I don’t think God placed the keys to heaven in my hands. He’s the judge, not me. Your salvation is between you and God. I can’t know.” He thought over this for a second, then smiled, nodding his head slowly. I like that response of the Church to heterodoxy; it won’t judge. Now if only I could learn to do the same…

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 12:48 PM on Monday, October 13, 2003 [+] ::

Reformed Baptist

I just came from an evening service at a Reformed Baptist church. I promised a good friend (a Reformed Baptist PK) that I would go to his church. He is one of the few I have met who is as passionate about church as I am, and I was interested in what his church was like. Well, it was…
Calvinistic. I picked up a bunch of brochures with titles like “The Myth of Freewill,” and “A Critical Evaluation of Infant Baptism” [very against it]. These people are so reformed that they have an absolutely whitewashed sanctuary, and don’t even have stained glass windows. The only thing that is not pure white are the pews, rug, and big, dark cross at the front of the church, otherwise, it was Spartan. God made beauty, right? Did beauty become bad all of a sudden? I am starting to wonder if Calvin thought so…
Scary. We got there early for a 45 minute prayer service before church started, and I sat with my friend behind a two families with 4 boys between them, all aged 4-6y/o. I was watching these boys playing, as boys their age do, when I heard their father rise and pray aloud for the salvation of his sons. I stopped for a minute; Why was he praying for their salvation [at this point, if you are not a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, you will not understand the sense of the word “salvation” that Calvinists use]? Here was their father, a devout, pious deacon of the church, praying for the salvation of his sons. That means they would have (might have) gone to Hell if they had died then…little kids, playing with their toys in service. At that moment of their little lives, damned to Hell, or so their pious parents’ believe. How could that happen? How could a loving God damn these little kids? It was weird; these pious people were praying for the salvation of their children…I couldn’t get over how “cruel” that made God seem…
Enlightening. As I have been looking into the Orthodox Church, one of my complaints has been that there is such an emphasis on sources other than the Bible (sola scriptura). But tonight, from a very “sola scriptura” pulpit, I heard many men quoted, everyone from Augustine and Dante, to Calvin and Luther, to Mark Twain; even one quote from St John Chrysostom! It was weird to think that, while the people were sure they were getting the unadulterated Bible, they were actually getting just as much interpretation put into it as any of the High Churches. Well, at least the High Churches admit it, while they were saying that it is “opinion” that they don’t have to believe. I would like someone to stand up in that church and denounce Calvin, if he thinks it is just “opinion”! It was very revelatory for me to see…

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:50 PM on Sunday, October 12, 2003 [+] ::

College Kids & Church

This is a blog I have been working on for about 4 weeks. I write it as a student who cares passionately about church, and therefore encourages everyone she knows to attend church, no matter where they go. I talk with a lot of college students who, like me, are away from their home church for the first time; we all have a hard time finding a church at college.
We go to a Christian college; we go to chapel at least three times a week, some of us more often; internationally recognized speakers come and speak regularly on our campus. So, when we go to your church, we are not going to hear the preacher or sing the worship songs. We get this at school; we seek something different from church.
At school, we live in a tight community with people 18-22 years old. We all live here, either on campus, or close by. Our lives revolve around school. We go to church partly to get away from school. We also go to be part of your community. Think about it: on campus, there are no older people, no babies, no little kids. We then seek these out at church. We are seeking a family style of life. Going to a Christian school, especially among chums who intellectualize their faith so much, we seek to know faith through means other than the intellect. Yes, we may want to talk about intellectual faith, but we also want to see faith in the lives of the people around us. We want to watch older Christians live out their faith.
By their senior year, most students still don’t consider themselves to have a church home at school. We go to one church for a few months, but we never become part of it, so we leave. [By the statistics I have collected], We will go to 6-8 church in the four years we spend here, only spending 4-5 months at each one. Remember, we have been raised in the church; many of us are PK’s and MK’s [pastor’s kids, missionary kids]. Most of us go to a church each Sunday; we have our whole lives, and enjoy it. But we can’t find a church home, and it’s not for lack of trying. We are the ones who go to your church for 8 months of the year, and aren’t there in January or in the summer. Not only do we often not find a church home at school, but we often are too disconnected with the church we grew up at to ever attend, even when we are at home.
So, what can you do? Well, come up and say hi to us at church, especially if you yourself are not a college student yourself; we won’t laugh at you. We’re the awkward looking ones standing there, trying to fit in. There is probably a group of us, but that doesn’t mean we are being social. It just means we are remaining our own little bubble and not being part of the church. Once you get to know us, take us home for a meal. It’s not really about the food (although anything that is not caf food is fabulous!), but rather about the “home-ishness” of a home. We want to pet the cats, play with the kids, chase the dogs, sit in real chairs, walk around outside, listen to the silence, and do all of the other things we don’t get at school. Let us be part of your community; let us be part of the church family.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:36 AM on Saturday, October 04, 2003 [+] ::

The “Joys” of Finding a Church

Too much has been going on for me to actually blog; I really do write blogs, but then I decide they are too stupid to be published…;-)
So, I still have very much not found a home church yet. It is one of those not very cool things, especially since I like church so much. HVM would be cool, but I don’t know anyone; St Andrews is cool, ’cause I know a few people, but it is so far.
Yesterday, I got an email from the priest at the Anglican Church I attended last year. At Torrey, there is a very tight community, and the priest is part of this community (many chums attend his church, and everyone knows him); I am not exactly sure who told Fr David, but somehow he found out I was going to an Orthodox church. So, he wrote and asked why. I tried to give my standard, brief explanation, “In good conscience, I cannot declare communion with any ecclesiastical body which is morally corrupt; Blessed Sacrament is a good church, but the Episcopal Communion is bad.” Well, that flew about as well as a ton of bricks. He sent me a personal invitation to attend Mass this Sunday, and suggested I meet with him.
That’s not at all bad…I do not have a church home yet, and this bugs me greatly. If I so choose, I can have a church home at Blessed Sacrament quite easily; I know most of the people there (they are my chums), I have a ride, and it is close. The style is rather close to Liturgy; sure, they cross themselves the other way, but otherwise…Also, the theology is more of what I have grown up with. I know if I meet with Fr David, it will be easy to convince me to start going there again. Is this bad? No, probably not. I need somewhere where I can go to church, and be a part of the church. It seems like a good place to go to church while I am down in this area, although it would mean that I cannot become Orthodox. But an Anglican church down here, and an Orthodox church back at home…more of an ecclesiastical mutt than I care to be. And…this blog was started when I became a catechumen at Blessed Sacrament, not some Orthodox church. But, yeah, the joys of finding a church (or, more generally, a religion)…:-)

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:08 AM on [+] ::

Grace...kinda

Each day after class, we are required to write 300 words on what we discussed that day. This was written after we had a discussion on St Thomas Aquinas' sections on Nature and Grace from the Summa. This is what this ex-Protestant, non-Orthodox student thinks after she reads the defining doctrine of Roman Catholicism.

Thanks to Adam’s fall, I have a corrupted form of my once-perfect human nature. But thanks to Christ’s death and atonement, I can be forgiven of my sins by the grace of God. This forgiveness changes my soul through operative and cooperative grace, or my original reception and later reciprocation of God’s grace.
Out of His love for mankind, God condescended and poured out grace on me for the first time. He then saw this grace that He had placed in me; this grace was beautiful, since it is of God, and God must then love it. This was placed there by no act or ability of mine, but only through God’s good will toward mankind. God loves me (now and forever) because He first loved me (by placing His grace in me to love). This is the first grace, and the greatest change in the soul.
Once God had bestowed this grace upon my soul, I was thankful for this gift. Therefore, I return the love as best as my nature knows how. God sees this love reciprocated toward Himself, and loving me both because of the grace He originally placed in me and because of the love I now reciprocate, He loves me more. Now, both the original benevolent love of God and the reciprocated complacent love multiply, and through this process, I continue to love God, and He me.
This is not an earned grace in any way. The only reason God loves me is because He first loved me; he is the actus purus of the love. God’s grace, His good will toward man, is the reason He can first love us. This is in no way based on our meritorious works. Because of the difference between the cooperative and operative grace, we participate in our salvation, not by earning the first grace, but by being partly responsible for its completion.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 9:27 PM on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 [+] ::

Bonaventure

Taken from “The Soul’s Journey Into God,” written by St Bonaventure, c. 1250; this exerpt is from the 6th book, 5th paragraph; this is a truly beautiful work of poetry, and recommended reading for all!


For if you are the Cherub
contemplating God’s essential attributes,
and if you are amazed
because the divine Being is both
first and last,
eternal and most present,
utterly simple and the greatest or boundless,
totally present everywhere and nowhere contained,
most actual and never moved,
most perfect and having nothing superfluous or lacking,
and yet immense and infinite without bounds,
supremely one and yet all-inclusive,
containing all tings in himself,
being all power, all truth, all goodness –
if you are this Cherub,
look at the Mercy Seat and wonder
that in him there is joined
the First Principle with the last,
God with man, who was formed on the sixth day;
the eternal is joined with temporal man,
born of the Virgin in the fulness of time,
the most simple with the most composite,
the most actual with the one who suffered supremely and died,
the most perfect and immense with the lowly,
the supreme and all-inclusive one
with a composite individual distinct from others,
that is, the man Jesus Christ

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:01 AM on Saturday, September 27, 2003 [+] ::

Weirdness

Whoa. Hit the brakes. Back the truck up, and lets try again. Uh…How come other people can get it, and not me?
I talk about religion and theology almost constantly (much like I blog about it almost constantly). About 15 minutes ago, I asked my roommate to borrow her headphones to listen to a new song I had downloaded (the Kerygma one). She asked if she could hear it, and so we listened together. She asked what the second-to-last line of the chorus meant, “Does the kingdom of God surround me?” So, I briefly explained about how we don’t see “reality,” but rather that there are angels, demons, and other things we don’t see that are nonetheless real and existing all around us. Then I was saying how cynical I was because I didn’t really believe in good or holy people. I was describing the first time I met Fr Lawrence, and how I was struck by his holiness; I was saying that there really are good and holy people in the world, but that I am too cynical to believe this. I was being my usual loud, insensitive self, rambling about religion, when I glanced up at my roommate.
Tears were coming down both cheeks. I stopped mid-sentence. “What’s wrong, Lisa?” I asked, and without waiting for an answer, I stood and hugged her. “I just sense that it is so…real.” She said slowly, “I don’t want to sound cheesy, but…it’s so full and beautiful; the way it excites you…I want to meet holy people, people who have become close to God…” It was really weird. I pulled my choktis into my hand (what else was I to do?), and said, “Come sometime to church with me. It is good. It is full; it is beautiful.”
It just struck me as odd; here is a born-and-raised Protestant, very active in her church, leading her worship band, never having been to an Orthodox Church, and yet still being able to sense that Protestantism is not “full.” Those were her exact words. Sure, she’s listened to me ramble about Orthodoxy, but she is not too into theology, so I usually don’t ramble about it in front of her. It was eerie; even she, as good as a good Protestant can get, realized that Protestantism is not “full.” Weird. Well, Glory to God.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:41 PM on Sunday, September 21, 2003 [+] ::

A Weary Catechumen

This isn’t a post on theology, eschatology, soteriology, or any of those wonderful ten-dollar words that I so love to throw about. This is the post of a weary catechumen.
People keep asking me, “When are you going to become Orthodox?” At first, I was offended; I didn’t think that was a requirement for going to an Orthodox church. Then it occurred to me how stupid I was being; I go to an Orthodox Church! One usually goes to a church because one is either of that specific religious persuasion, or one is planning to convert to the same. In the last 3 weeks, the fight between what I believe and what I want to believe has become too much for me. Wait: don’t say it! Really, really, if it were “that easy,” I would have done it. It is not “that easy.” Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 9:22 PM on [+] ::

Response to James' Elevation Posts

We doubt everything that seems too good to be true. But foolishness is as bad as gulibility. I will be the first Protestant to admit: I have a hard time believing in the incarnation. A God who condescended to become man; not only this, but He voluntarily died for the very men who killed Him. I do have a hard time believing this, but it can't be any other way. I have studied apologetics, read up on the issue; if it didn't happen, so much of everything else falls apart. Look at Plato, arguably the smartest guy ever to live. In Timeaus, he shows himself to be a pre-Christ Christian. He describes everything (metaphorically), from creation to theodisy, from angels to sanctification. The only thing he misses is the incarnation. If he had this, Timeaus would be a bible. So, the incarnation is the missing piece. It makes things work.
Reason must triumph over revelation. Anselm is the "fide ut intelligum," but Abelard is more right with "intellige ut fidum;" I know so that I may believe. We cannot abandon scientific methods, and the truth of them; the senses are from God, and sensible knowledge is good. Do these "lesser" sciences contain "lesser" truths? The seperation of revelation and reason, and the subsequent ability to believe opposite truths...sound familiar? The 11th century Moslims, originally from Spain, then in Paris, believed this; the modern Donatists do also. This is a heretical idea; it was the Christians who combined both revelation and reason; we cannot separate it.
If revelation is to be accepted at all, it must have some basis. This is where the debate begins; I say the Bible, you say the Church. As you unalteringly believe in your Church, I will believe in the Bible. I have gone through, and read various proofs for its authenticity, but that is another post. The Bible agrees with the sensible world, as far as I can tell. Therefore, I believe it. Some things the Church (what ever that means) teaches do not agree with the sensible world. For example, the likelihood that a splinter from two boards on which my Lord died is still in existance in a California church 2000 years later does not seem likely or sensible.
As far as that splinter mattering much, I cannot say it does. Oh, I would like to live in a world where that would have power, but unfortuantely that takes us from the realm of Christianity to the realm of Gnosticism. If things, incantations, rituals, &c matter that much, then we are only magicians who believe in Jesus. We cannot be Pharisees, stuck in the physical, sacral nature of things.
As far as "Protestantism" still existing in converts, this is so very true! Since I don't think I can ever loose the very Protestant ideas I have always know, even if I became Orthodox, I think I would still be a Protestant. But, we can't give them too much of a hard time. They are trying, and that gets my respect.
Your faith in the church is so...deep. I do not know if this is good or not, but it is true.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:51 AM on Thursday, September 18, 2003 [+] ::

On Nephroids and Orthodoxy

Picture a nephroid.

"Wait!" You say, "I have no idea what a nephroid is!" All right. It is like a mathematical cartiod. Oh, and a cartiod is like a heart turned on its side. You are very familiar with what a heart looks like, and you can picture it lying on its side. You have just interpreted and understood one interpretation of "nephroid," a completely unknown word, by comparing it to something you know.
To me, Orthodoxy is like the nephroid. I have NO CLUE what it is. But, I am very familiar with Protestantism. Without the comparison of Orthodoxy to Protestantism, I have no basis with which to understand Orthodoxy. Therefore, I say, "Well, it is a little like this, only different," and I can sketch myself a rough picture of it.
Filling in the details is harder. It takes a fairly in-depth understanding of polar geometry to get much further with the nephroid than "sideways heart." Similarly, it takes more understanding of religion to get much further with Orthodoxy than, "Semi-Pelegian Protestants who believe pagan magic." I admit, because of my very limited experience (I am only a teenager!), I am having a difficult time comprehending the details of both nephroids and Orthodoxy. With the nephroid, which is difficult because it is graphed in a system of no straight lines (only circles), I have to trust that normal, straight-line (Cartesian) graphing still works. I use the nephroid, and interpret its results, but I still prefer to graph on nice, straight-lined paper. When I look at Orthodoxy, it is as bizarre as graphing in circles (to me who am used to straight lines). I have to trust that my own, straight-line Protestantism is still true, while still looking at the results of Orthodoxy in the world of religions.
So, as Huw justly accuses me, I am interpreting Orthodoxy through my Protestant view; it is the only thing I can do.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:08 AM on [+] ::

Extended Comment
The responses to comments from the last post became too long to respond to in the comment box…so, here are the responses.
I am glad we all agree that Pelagius was a heretic, but even my Orthodox friends will conceed they are semi-Pelagianists; they believe in an introverted idea of “original sin,” and so seem to remove guilt from the individual…(but that is a soon-coming separate post.) A good friend of mine here is a Pelagist; here are his writings defending his point. But anyway, I didn’t think monergism and synergism have anything to do with Pelagianism, since it is not necessarily a soteriological view, where as the other two are. Also, the idea of synergism sounds like we are saved by works; this grates at my Protestant mind.
The West sees salvation as a type of monetary transaction; we sinned, Jesus paid, we gain salvation. Salvation is primarily about forgiveness, in this sense. So, once you are forgiven, you can continue to be sanctified (you would say “theosis”). Although forgiveness is an ongoing process, there is this idea that once you are forgiven, all sins past and present are gone (Reformed theology); therefore, you cannot loose this salvation.
Karl reminds us that even the great holy fathers did not claim to have reached the end of the race. This is the scary part. One of the things Huw recently wrote about was something being “more salvific.” How can something be “more” or “less” salvific? The idea doesn’t even make sense…I have no clue what that means. How can the Fathers not be saved? I know we should trust in God’s Mercy, yes; but why should that mercy save ME?
Huw comments on the sinner’s prayer. For those of you who do not know, it is a prayer that someone who wants to become a Christian (all of this in the Protestant tradition) would pray to become saved; it goes something like this: “Jesus Christ, I have sinned. I believe in you, and your death on the cross as payment for my sins. I accept this payment, and want you to come live in my heart and change my life. Amen.” I do not see why this is in anyway a bad prayer; how can this not get someone saved? It says all of the essential things. What else is there?
The other thing Huw writes is “What is hell? What is heaven? What is the Church? What is salvation? What is ‘to be saved’?” Uh…I don’t know? Hell is that bad place unrepentant sinners go on the Day of Judgment; fire, gnashing of teeth, all that bad stuff: forever. Heaven is where the saved go to worship God for all eternity; I don’t know about angels and harps, but we will get crowns, and it should be good. The Church…well, that’s an entire book! I have no clue what the Church is. Salvation is forgiveness. “To be saved” is to have asked Jesus to live in your heart. I know these are facile answers, but they are true nonetheless.
The idea of salvation making someone whole…that is a new concept; I will have to think about that for a while. But the idea of jumping into a fire to be saved?!? Hello? Isn’t the point of salvation to avoid that fire? No, thank you. No fire for me.
This blog is really an extended comment on the last one…so, sorry for the format.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 4:56 PM on Monday, September 15, 2003 [+] ::

What if it’s not true?

Here’s a scary thought: What if you’re not going to Heaven? Not in that “you-are-a-damned-sinner” sense of not going to Heaven, but rather in that “enter-ye-in-at-the-narrow-gate” sense.
I have been reading St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa recently, and have come to the startling conclusion that he believes in predestination and election as staunchly as the most ardent Calvinist I know. (Predestination and election are just fancy theological terms to say that when we are born, God knows if we are going to Heaven or Hell.) No matter what we do, what we believe, &c, our eternal destination is already determined. And there is nothing we can do to change it.
With this new information, it seems as though Roman Catholics (at least traditionalists) are predestinationalists, as would most Protestants. It is only the Armenians (Wesley’s Methodists being the biggest example) who believe that man has free will to choose his own destiny. Oh, yeah, and the Orthodox believe this, too.
If the majority of Christendom holds to predestination, there is no problem dealing with who will get to heaven: in fact, we shouldn’t even really worry about it. I as an individual will either get there, or I won’t, regardless. But, as I explore Orthodoxy, I start to worry. If the security of my eternal destination is based on my actions, I may not go to heaven, especially with no concept of security of salvation. “Perseverance of the saints” is one of the five major doctrinal statements of Calvin, and it means that once a person is saved (salvation is a one-time event), there is nothing , absolutely nothing, he can do to loose his salvation. In Orthodoxy, salvation and its gain and loss seems to be a constant concern for everyone. The other day, I told a friend that Orthodox pray for salvation every day; she looked at me shocked, “You mean, not even your pastor is saved! Wow, you go to a really heretical church!” Yes, this idea of Orthodox soteriology is interesting, but it is not the main point of this post
The main idea is not going to heaven. Christ says in the Matthew, “13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” I don’t know about you, but this scares me greatly, especially in view of the lack of security Orthodox soteriology (<= the science of salvation). I am certainly not one of “the few;” it is conceit to think that somehow I am one of the “special” ones who get to go to heaven. Even if Christ was referring to “few” being only slightly less than “many,” I still don’t think I would make it. I am not that religious, not that pious, not that holy. In this last week, it has really hit me; who is going to heaven? In the whole of the world, why would I ever think I am one of the few? That is arrogance. But, if I am not, then I will eternally burn in Hell. I follow the wide way; I usually do the easy thing. So, I will go to Hell. This is not a pretty concept. How sure are you that you are right? Are you arrogant enough to say that you are on the narrow path? Ah, but the question is: Can we ever know for sure?

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:02 PM on Sunday, September 14, 2003 [+] ::

Bilingual Roommate
So, the only problem with having a completely bilingual roommate is that I get phone calls in her other language:
Me: “Hello. This is Erica.”
Her: “Lisa?”
Me: “No, this is Erica. Lisa’s not here. Can I take a message?”
Her: “Lisa?”
Me: “Um…Lisa’s out. Can I tell her who called?”
Her: “Lisa? No?”
Me: “No, Lisa’s not here.”
Her: “OK Lisa. Bye.”
I’m not sure if I ever communicated the fact that indeed, Lisa is not in the room right now. I love my roommate a ton, and I think most of her friends are really cool. But they are a lot easier to understand in person (hand-motions help). And they always smile and nod a lot. That helps too. And I never really see them unless they are over here with Lisa, and then they talk Japanese most of the time anyway. I love my roommate; she’s really cute.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 5:33 PM on Friday, September 12, 2003 [+] ::

Sacraments and Saints
Having nothing better to do after spending the last 6 hours doing Calculus, I sat down to read the webpage of a church I have heard about. It is in Felton, California (near Santa Cruz). I have a friend who attended the academy there, and had heard about it.
The articles raise some interesting questions, specifically about sacraments and the Theotokos. One of the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is the enumeration of sacraments. While Roman Catholics claim there are absolutely seven, the Orthodox tend to be flexible about this number, instead claiming many things as sacramental, with varying degrees. But, then sacraments are reserved for those who have received the grace of baptism; how does the rest of the world live? It would seem as though the purpose of venerating an ikon, eating blessed bread, blessed wine, blessed oil, or any of the other “lesser sacraments” is lost on us non-baptized. Since it is sacraments that confer grace, it would then seem as though the rest of the world is completely devoid of grace. Since Orthodox believe in a remaining (lingering) grace, even in such things as heterodoxical sacraments, how do these two views get meshed? Is there any point in us heterodox doing any of these “lesser sacraments,” or is it just mockery of the holy? It would almost seem wrong to participate in any of the lesser sacraments…
I read in the Bible, “5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (Tim 2:15), and the entire 8th chapter of Hebrews discusses the New Covenant and the Mediator (Jesus) who stands as the High Priest between man and God. This seems all good, right? So, why is the Theotokos also a mediator? We don’t need two. This page I was reading took the lesser-taken view that Mary is not the mediator: good. What about the Troparion (I forget which) that calls the Theotokos, “…mediation unto the Creator most constant…”?
As I look over these questions, they seem stupid. But you have to keep thinking! Even if you are Orthodox, be careful that you think hard about your faith. This Protestant was the top apologist of her county, led Bible study, thought she had it all good as a Protestant…and now I am look at Orthodoxy, a heretic in the eyes of many. So, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:23 PM on Thursday, September 11, 2003 [+] ::

Cur Deus Homo
I have not blogged for a week…whew, I have been busy! (Actually, I have written 4 different blogs, but did not post them…maybe later…)
The Orthodox world-view is different from the Protestant world-view (for that matter, I am sure they are both different from the Roman Catholic view, but since I start the Summa next week, I’ll save that discussion). Yesterday in class, the question of the motivation incarnation was raised, especially over reading St Maximos’ “4 Centuries on Love” and St Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo.” Why did God become man?
Had I been asked a year ago, the answer would have been easy. “God became man to die for our sins, so we can live with Him in heaven forever.” Yesterday, however, I didn’t even think of this answer. Instead I blurted out what seemed obvious, “God became as man, so that man might be as God.” (St Athanasius). Upon hearing myself, and looking at the sea of blank stares, I realized I had absorbed what I had been hearing this summer. So, now the whole class (17 of us) have been wrestling with the idea of divinization (deification, theosis) as the telos of mankind. We played a little game today: we had to find Bible verses that supported the idea of divinization. Although we all failed miserably, the point was made. St Maximos was considered a good hermanutist; what he was saying was (little ‘o’) orthodox, and he was respected. Therefore, he had to be agreeing with some authority. As if a light had dawned, we realized that our own hermanutical training had been to the slant of one tradition. Although Protestants deny any tradition, and like to think that they all interpret the Bible “without any other man’s input,” today my group realized we were relying on our own tradition as much as St Maximos was relying on his. It was a very startling realization for us…
Anyway, in other news, I went to the E.R. last night; I have sand in my eardrum. It is not really pleasant, since it is infected, I am dizzy, have a fever, and am generally ornery. So, I hope I don’t mistakenly kill anyone tonight. Pray for me, a sinner.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 7:48 PM on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 [+] ::

Reader’s Vespers at a Protestant Campus

I go to a Protestant Bible College, where student-led prayer groups are encouraged. Some of these groups invite adults (usually pastors, but also small-group leaders) to join them for prayer, or even to lead it. They are allowed to use whatever conference rooms or lobbies are open at the time, provided they reserve them in advance.
I plan to reserve a room today for such a ‘prayer meeting,’ scheduled to take on October 30th. It will be a meeting, and it will be very devoted to prayer. Bree and I plan to ask for some outside help from some people at her church (or maybe another church). In other words, we plan to have Reader’s Vespers here next month.
As we checked into the history of non-Protestant groups meeting to pray on campus, there were some discouraging results. There was a group of RC students who tried this 7 years ago, and the Reformers group (yes, it is a real group name!) came and stopped them. They outnumbered them, and would not leave; I am not sure how it all ended, but the Catholics ended up getting in trouble. The accusation was that they were praying to Mary, something that isn’t allowed here. I know the organizers were brought into the Chaplin’s office, but I am not sure the final outcome.
Nevertheless, Bree and I are very excited about getting this together. It is something we talked about last year, but never did. We face some logistical problems, such as having ikons on campus, how to invite people, the wearing of a cassock by the reader who we hope to invite, &c. There are all sorts of problems as to how to let people know it will be happening; if we use the public, school intranet, no matter where we post, it will be seen by people who will object to it. I personally can think of about 15 students who would attend, and I have contacted them already, inviting them. But I fear that if too many people find out about it, it will not be a good thing.
As we are debating which type of music to use (Arab or Russian, from our respective churches), and who to ask as a reader, we face more logistical problems. The only room we could use (and we have been looking) is one with a huge window; it has beautiful acoustics, but I don’t want everyone staring at us. Also, if we invite the reader whom we hope will come, he will want to wear his blacks; riassas on a Protestant campus don’t work. It should be interesting.
I think the best part is that, although I am organizing it, I can’t get in too much trouble for it. I am not Orthodox, but rather just a Protestant who goes to an Orthodox Church. This may sound like an excuse, but it is also very true, and I very much plan to use it if I am brought into the Chaplin’s or Dean of Student’s office. I just wish I could convince Bree to not let her involvement be too known; she is Orthodox, and could potentially get in trouble for organizing this. I figure if I’m caught, they will just look at me kind of funny, ask why I go to a ‘heretical’ church, and escort me to the closest Baptist church for a few weeks (which would not be fun, but not the end of the world). I don’t hold beliefs particular to either direction, at least not ‘officially’ (although, I am probably more Orthodox than Protestant at this point), but Bree does, so I wish she would let me deal with this and any trouble we may get into.
Well, I am very excited, and have lots of planning to do. Pray for me, a sinner.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 11:32 AM on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 [+] ::

Coptic Church (and rant on church politics)

I am not Orthodox.
I spent part of last semester and all of this summer going to Orthodox Churches; I would like to continue this as I am now down here this school year. Because I don’t have a car, I rely on other people and the bus system for most of my transportation needs, including going to church (as often as I can).
My best friend, Bree, has promised me a ride each week to her church, which is in Riverside. This is good, but it is a long distance. Within walking distance of campus, there is a Coptic church. I think it is a Jacobite Coptic church, but I am not sure. I am considering attending.
Bree is very adamantly opposed to me attending a Coptic church; she claims their heresy is corrupting. Yes, they are heretics, but since I am not Orthodox, I don’t see how that matters. I can’t (nor would I want to) receive sacraments from any church, Orthodox, Coptic, or otherwise. Since I don’t think I will start becoming a monophysite or monothilysite any time soon, I don’t see myself in much danger. What I do see is the opportunity to attend church more often, something I had gotten used to when I was at home. I see the opportunity to be plugged into a community where I can actually be part of the community, not just come once a week or so. They may be heretics, but since they are the best choice available that is close by, I think they will work. I mean, they are significantly more “Orthodox” then say, Grace EV Free, the other church within walking distance of campus. I don’t see why Copts would be such a bad idea for a church.
Slightly randomly, and not having anything to do with the Copts, I HATE POLITICS! The politics of a diocese should never, ever, not at all affect the average parishioner, especially when that ‘average parishioner’ is not even Orthodox! As by a number of odd circumstances, I find myself deeply entwined in pathetic in-fighting between diocese. It comes down to a simple fact: someone is lying. This really, really makes me mad. I have written many letters in the last week, trying to make sure that this is simply not a miscommunication. At this point, I am certain it is not. To add to this, I have too different conflicting messages from two different priests, both of whom I respect; they are literally saying exact opposite things. Boy, I really, really hate politics. It gets in the way of Church, and now it has the possibility of dividing my best friend and I on religion. Why can’t churches (any church, including respective Protestant, Orthodox, Roman) leave petty bickering aside and cooperatively seek to help those who earnestly wish to discover the treasures contained therein?

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:32 PM on Monday, September 01, 2003 [+] ::

Boring Description of my Long Weekend
Whew! I survived this weekend. It was one of those impossibly busy weekends, which at the end, I sit back and say, “Wow. That was blessed.”
After missing ride to the Beheading of St John Liturgy, which my best friend (Bree) went to at Holy Virgin Mary Cathedral in LA (I had calculus instead), I was not in the best of moods (which the fast didn’t help), so I spent the rest of the day reading St Anselm.
Bree and I decided that Saturday we didn’t want to wait until noon to eat (when the caf opens), so we were going to meet at 7AM to walk up to Starbucks. Well, as I turn my computer on at around 6:30 to check e-mail, I am greeted with a lewd message. As soon as I get the repulsive image off of my screen, my computer crashes, giving me one of those completely non-descript Win ME error messages. With a sinking feeling, I realize I have a virus. Anyway, I have to meet my friend, so I turn my system off, and go spend the next three hours eating breakfast/coffee, and discussing the Coptic church and obedience to one’s Spiritual Father. I spend the rest of the day re-formatting my system, and scrubbing all of my files, which I did end up salvaging (I love networks!) after a good two hours of conniptions.
Saturday, Maximos, a friend from home called, and said he’d be in the LA area; he asked if we wanted a ride to Holy Virgin Mary. I pounced on the offer. So, Sunday at 6:30AM he calls, having just arrived in LA. Anyway, Bree and I, along with two of my other friends (who had NEVER been to an Eastern rite Orthodox Church) end up going to HVM. Both of my friends thought it was great; they are both very into church (like me), and will probably be going back. I spent the rest of the day/evening at Bree’s house, hanging out with her family and her godsister (who goes to my church at home).
Today, I got up early to go to a sale at a thrift store with Bree and three other good friends. After dropping Bree off at work, I went over to her parent’s house for a memorial akathist; that was good, but a little awkward. After saying I wouldn’t stay for lunch (I eat at their house too much!), I ended up staying for BBQ chicken and mashed potatoes. As soon as I got home from that (2:00), my roommate called and asked if I wanted a ride to a Labor Day party for my school. It was at a tutor’s house, about 45 minutes away. It was good; I met many of the new freshman, and hung out with my group. Finally, I got home and got to sleep.
Funny, I can sleep in more on the weekdays than on the weekends. Oh, well. So is life.

Forgive me,

Seraphima

Glory to God!

:: 10:12 PM on [+] ::