Take a right at Canterbury and straight on to Rome

It has been suggested to me by several individuals that the solution to my present dilemma is to join the Episcopal Church and become a priest because they allow for a married priesthood. After about 5 years or so I could request a "pastoral provision" to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a married priest.

I have never really considered this path before. I might be more personally comfortable within an Episcopal Church, but there is a great deal of controversy within that tradition which I am decidedly uncomfortable with.

Beside that, this path is very sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest. I cannot use the church to achieve a particular ends.

From the Roman Catholic perspective this would mean that the path to the priesthood is through receiving an invalid sacrament and serving in an unrecognized ministry for sometime in order to be considered a candidate for the priesthood. That is inherently contradictory.

The trouble is in the timing. If God had allowed me to fully recognize this call earlier in life, before I was married, there would be no problem. If God called me later in life, after I was ordained, it would still be a challenge, but at least the road to priesthood would be open to me.

But it is precisely because God, in his providence, choose to give me this knowledge (that the fullness of faith is found in the catholic church) at this particular station in life that presents the problem. That I am a married man, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, not ordained but undergoing theological training. The end result of a earlier call or a later call is the same (priesthood), but not so for a "middle call."

I wonder if there is greater meaning to God's particular timing here.

My visit to an Eastern Catholic Church

A few people have informed me that Eastern Catholic Churches allow for a married priesthood. I had never considered looking at any of these churches, but I am at least open to any path which God may be calling me on. So, I visited an Eastern Catholic Church yesterday.

It was my local Melkite Greek Catholic Church. A brief history of the church can be found on their website:

The Melkites, or Byzantine rite Catholics of Middle Eastern origin, are the descendants of the early Christians of Antioch (Syria). Christianity was established in this area of the Middle East by St. Peter before he traveled on to the imperial city of Rome. In the 5th century, there arose some teachers who said that Christ was not truly God and truly man as well. They would not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as defined by the Council of Chalcedon (451A.D.) Those in the Middle East who did accept the decision of Chalcedon followed the lead of the Byzantine emperor and were dubbed Melkites or King's Men from the Aramaic word "melek" meaning King. (link)

It was foreign to me, and yet very beautiful. The church building was covered from floor to ceiling with icons. They were primarily tile mosaics which surrounded hand-drawn paintings. Each set of icons illustrated a piece of scripture or history. The words of scripture themselves were as important as the images in the display.

The priest walked around the sanctuary carrying incense with him as he went. This actually happened several times and the icons were also "incensed."

Nearly the entire liturgy was chanted, and there was a high degree of participation required of the laity present. The faithful were not merely spectators at this celebration.

I am not sure if they use the same calendar as the Western Churches. The Easter declaration was proclaimed within the service: "he is risen," which suggests they too are in the season of Easter. The lectionary is certainly different however. They used Jn 9:1-38 which is typically a Lenten scripture in the West. (USCCB)

It was simply nothing like anything I had seen before. It certainly was not Roman Catholic. And yet, they are a church which is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. There is a great deal of diversity which can be found within the realm of the Catholic Church, both in practice and theology (to some extent). These Eastern Catholic Churches are self governing, have their own liturgy, practices, and canon law.

Unity is not the same as uniformity.

Ever since that experience I have wondered if the Eastern Catholic Churches might serve as a model for the unity of the Protestant Christian Churches with Rome. Could the Protestant denominations one day be in communion with Rome and yet be self governed with their own liturgy, practices, and law?

Why is a return to the Roman Rite necessary for Christian unity (in the Protestant/Catholic question)? There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches which while different remain in communion with Rome. Maybe this type of unity could some day be offered to Protestant churches.

Someday we might see church marquees that read Lutheran Catholic Church, Episcopal Catholic Church, Disciples of Christ Catholic Church, Pentecostal Catholic Church, and so on. I understand the high degree of simplicity I express here, but I am still young enough to be an optimist.

I am called

I continue to struggle with this dual call I have discovered: To enter into full communion with Christ's Church, and also to enter into the ordained ministry.

Normally this would not be a problem, but married men are not normally considered as candidates for the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

My pastor has shared with me many other, quite worthy, ministries which are open to the laity. I could be a pastoral assistant, youth minister, cathecetical instructor, and some day a deacon. As I discern each of these calls I feel a certain hole in my being. That I would be falling short somehow of the call God has placed on my life.

My specific call is realized in the Army National Guard where I currently serve as a chaplain candidate. The chaplain candidate program is for seminary students who are preparing for the ordained ministry in their respective faith traditions. Chaplains must be ordained ministers within their own tradition. I would not be able to serve my brothers and sisters in uniform unless I am on a track that leads to ordination.

I shutter as I contemplate the thought of abandoning this call, especially as I see the great need for ministry in the armed forces. The workers are few as it is.

I believe my call to the ministry is stronger than my call to any particular church. I am seeking a path which will allow me to do both: to lay down the "protest" (i.e. enter into full communion with the Church) and to be God's priest. I do not know if any such path exists.

God is above the brokenness of his visible Church on Earth. I will serve him, and submit to his call for me.

I have resolved to cling to my call to the ordained ministry. If I must choose between the two (ministry or communion), I will choose to serve the Lord - even within a separated ecclesial community.

It's not about me.

Someone gave me a very humbling comment to my last post. You can read it here.

In the Protestant Church, worship often feels very much like a show which is preformed for the congregation. Church members feel justified to complain to the preacher if a sermon was not to their liking, or to the music director if they didn't choose enough hymns/praise choruses.

In the Protestant Church, we often judge the quality of worship based on our emotions following the service. Did the music speak to me? Did the sermon inspire me? Did I get a good feeling out of the worship?

This is so backward. Worship is all about God, focused on him and his word. By secondary benefit we are fulfilled by our worship of him. Worshiping God completes us, but this is not our primary concern.

That is one more thing I love about the Catholic Church - is her proper focus in worship. Even as I have been contemplating entering into full communion I still need to constantly refocus. I am not entering the church for any comfort I might find. I enter because I believe it is what God desires of me.

So, I need to rethink my previous post. So long as I am concerned with my own feelings during the mass, my focus is not where it should be. I will worship God on his terms, not mine.

My faith tradition

I grew up in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), DOC for short. I thought it might be helpful to attempt to explain the main tenets of this tradition.

In short

• Unity is of primary importance.
• Christians can disagree on matters of faith and remain unified.
• Creeds are not to be used as a test for fellowship.
• Strangely enough, it would be possible to hold Roman Catholic faith about many matters and yet find a welcoming home in a DOC congregation.
  
• Personal interpretation of scripture is encouraged if not required.
• Celebration of the Lord's Supper is central to worship and practiced every Sunday.
• We practice believer's baptism (as opposed to infant baptism).
  
• The church government is focused on the congregation. Individual congregations own their own property and call their own pastors. The diocese (we call them regions) exercises little authoritative control over churches. The bishop (we call them regional ministers) serves needs that cannot be covered by a local church and provides counsel to local pastors.
  

One of the catch-phrases of this tradition is "unity is our polar star." Our founder, Alexander Campbell sought to bring all Christians together in line with Jesus' prayer "that they might be one."

Campbell sought to boil faith down to what he called essentials. I have labored to find a definition (i.e. a list) of these essentials to faith, but any such list does not appear to exist. I believe this is intentional so that the broadest possible definition of Christian can be held.

Another favorite DOC quote is "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." This basically means that we will agree upon the essentials of faith but allow personal freedom in other beliefs. My best guess at the essentials is the affirmation that "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" because this is all that is required for a believer to be baptized.

Campbell believed that disagreement among fellow Christians was not grounds for division. That we could disagree with one another and yet call each other Christians and maintain our communion.

Today the DOC church is a mainline Protestant denomination. While many congregations, and the general church, are involved in ecumenical ministries I wouldn't define it as a "movement" anymore.

Because decisions are made at the congregational level, there may be huge differences from church to church in the DOC tradition. Anything from architecture and worship style to teaching and theology can differ greatly.

The DOC church has been a safe and affirming place for me to wrestle with my faith. And while I have some concern about the lose theological structure which exists, I'm certain that I wouldn't have been able to explore my faith as deeply anywhere else.

2nd Class Christian

Externally there are no tell-tale signs that I am not in full communion with the Church - Except that I stay behind in the pew during the service of the Eucharist. Only sinners, nonbelievers, and Protestants stay in the pews.

I am very hurt to be lumped into this group. Granted, I am a sinner for sure. But my sins have been forgiven through the sacrament of baptism. Granted, I have sinned since then and I believe I need to confess. see, 1 John 1:9.

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church by virtue of our baptism. I am in communion with the Catholic church, imperfect though it may be. Apparently our communion is broken enough to declare that this Christian brother is in the same class as sinners and nonbelievers.

I often see 1 Cor. 11:29 cited as justification for barring Protestants from the communion table. Quote: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (NIV)

Catholics will point to this scripture and say something like "if you don't believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ you eat judgment on yourself. Protestants don't believe this, therefore we are just looking out for your own good by keeping you from it."

The problem is that there are many Protestants that do affirm this belief. Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. and me for example.

Lets put that matter aside for a moment and look at the text at hand. We need to take a step back and look at the larger context of this passage, 1 Cor 11:17-34, in its entirety.

Paul is condemning the the Corinthians' practices concerning the Lord's Supper (aka Eucharist).

"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!"(NIV, vv. 17-22)

Paul condemns the Corinthian Church for not sharing the Lord's Supper with all of the Christian faithful who are present.

Next we find the words of institution for the Lord's Supper. vv. 23-26

Following the words of institution we find the text normally used to justify closed communion within the Catholic church:

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world." (NIV, vv 27-32)

But, what does Paul mean by "recognizing the body of the Lord?" I will agree that he is speaking of the elements themselves, but it is clear from the context that Paul is also speaking about the Body of Christ as the community of Christians.

Let us understand the condemnation in this way: Whoever fails to recognize his brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Paul concludes this passage with one final plead: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other." (NIV, v. 33)

"Paul criticizes Christians who use sacramental acts like the Eucharist to distinguish themselves from other Christians." (Communion with Non-Catholic Christians Jeffrey VanderWilt, p.154)

I fear that when large parts of the Body of Christ (i.e. baptized, non-Catholic Christians, aka Protestants) are denied access to the Eucharist, "it is not the Lord's Supper [we] eat."

I can discern the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Body of Christ, can you discern me as a part of the Body as well?

Paths to unity?

Roman Catholics call it "full communion." Protestants call it "Christian unity." Whatever it is, what does this look like? How will we know when we have achieved a truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?

I wonder about some of the possibilities that a united Church might look like:

1) A return to Rome.
Catholics: We are right and you (Protestants) are wrong. The brokenness of the Church is solely your fault. Repent and submit to the authority of the Church. Abandon your belief in x, y and z and start believing a, b and c (just like we do.)

2) A change in Rome.
Protestants: We are right and you (Catholics) are wrong. The brokenness of the Church is solely your fault. Repent and recognize that our reformations were necessary. Abandon your belief in x, y and z and start believing a, b and c (just like we do.)

3) Unity in words alone.
Protestants and Catholics (to each other): We will believe what we want to believe and you believe what you want to believe. There is no need for us to agree because I am comfortable where I am. Let's just agree to disagree. If we just say we are united, that is good enough for me.

4) Reconciliation.
Protestants and Catholics (to each other): I am sorry for the brokenness of our relationship, it is not acceptable. You were wrong and I was wrong. The division was really no one's fault. I can recognize you as part of the Body of Christ. Let's sit together and grieve about what we have lost. We need to define what our relationship looks like together. I am willing to work hard at this if you are. It is going to be a long and difficult path, with many small steps. Only with Christ's help can we truly, visibly be one.

Protestant Worship Revisited

For the first time in a very long time, I sat in the congregation of a Protestant church (of my own tradition). I began to ponder several things during my time in worship.

First, I want to spell out some of my presuppositions concerning worship. Not in any particular order:

• We (the congregation) are the actors; God is the audience.
• It is the duty of the Christian assembly to worship God. Participation is required. This is not an "spectator sport."
• Music is worship.
• The liturgy should be built upon scripture.
• All churches have a liturgy. It is possible that it is not written out, or that it changes from week to week, but the liturgy does exist.
  

Here are some of my observations as I revisited Protestant worship. These are made in light of my long acquaintance with the Roman Catholic liturgy.

1) Audience/Performer. There was no silence to begin the worship. Nearly all members of the assembly were talking with one another, catching up on one another's lives. The music began to signal that worship was about to begin. The members of the congregation continued to converse until a minister rose to give a statement of welcome.

I found myself a bit uncomfortable with the level of informality given to the act of worship. It felt very much more like a lodge meeting rather than a performance for the pleasure of our Lord.

Suppose you were a member in an orchestra just prior to a performance. The orchestra doesn't spend this time socializing. They are ensuring that their instruments are in tune. They wouldn't dream of disrupting the audience as they prepare for the show.

In line with my presuppositions I believe that we need to prepare for worship. Get our "instruments in tune" as it were - examine our conscience, focus on God, pray for his help, and give thanks for his intercession.

We must not lose our focus in worship, and we certainly don't want God to feel left out at a performance meant for him in the first place!

1b) Special music. The congregation clapped following the special music. For those of you who might not be familiar with the term "special music," it refers to music that is performed by an individual, small group, or choir during the worship service. Generally the congregation is not invited to participate.

This can be done very well - as a gift given by the individual, group, or choir to God on behalf of the congregation. Unfortunately this distinction is sometimes lost and the congregation treats the act as if it were for a performance to be enjoyed by the congregation. Let us be careful to point out that we can clap along with God in thanksgiving to the performer - much like a choir might clap for a soloist in a performance.

1c) This distinction appeared to be completely lost in the congregation I was attending. A speaker, making an announcement about an upcoming event referred to the congregation as "the audience."

Language plays a very important role in everything we do. The words we use in conjunction with the physical actions we use during worship says a lot about who we are as the people of God. It also says a great deal about our view of God, Christ and the Church.

2) Communion. The children's message was quite good. The teacher mentioned all of the good things given to children in church, snacks as one example. But, she said, we must also give at church. The main message was that God expects us to use our gifts to build his church. A nice and neat message.

Later in the service another member of the church stood to give a prayer prior to communion. She was attempting to be relevant to the service, and recalled the children's message in her introduction to communion. She referred to the bread and wine of communion as God's snack for us!

The intimate meal shared with Jesus and his closest companions, the night before his death was a mere snack? The bread and wine which Jesus calls "my body" and "my blood" is just a casual snack to be enjoyed?

Again, language is powerful. I imagine the statement was simply not very carefully thought out. But why not? Why is it so difficult for many congregational Protestants to seriously consider the words they use to describe what is going on as we worship?

2b) The process of communion. Communion came from a common loaf and was offered to everyone in the congregation. It was divided among several plates, along with a separate plate with tiny cups of grape juice (the wine). These plates were passed through the congregation. I imagine the rationale behind this is "the priesthood of all believers" found in 1 peter 2:9. Understanding that all Christians are priests, all Christians necessarily are able to offer communion to one another in the congregation.

What if there are non-believers in congregation, however? Then that non-believer must handle the elements, and a believer would receive the body of Christ from a non-Christian. There is something unsettling about that.

Also, it does not really provide the option not to receive. There are reasons even for baptized Christians not to receive the Eucharist - for reasons I will address in another post. Going about communion in this way makes the act expected, and without an examination of conscience.


There was a lot of good which I saw in the worship. There was a great concern for the community, members were encouraged to share their personal prayer requests with one another in the context of worship. No one left after the communion service, and there was plenty of food and fellowship after the service.

Perhaps I may be called to help Protestant churches realize the importance of language and actions within the context of worship.

Imperfect Communion

Kevin wrote, in a comment on my post about intercommunion:

I will pray for you and that God will guide you in discerning where he is calling you to be! Just a reminder too-only Catholics who are in a state of grace can receive our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Until/unless you enter the Church, please refrain from physically receiving our Lord. Instead, you can do like I do when I am not in a state of grace, and gaze upon our Lord in the Eucharist, praying that He comes to you in a spiritual communion.

Peace, and God bless!

First, I want to say thank you Kevin for your comment and for reading my post. That is very useful guidance - to pray for a spiritual communion during the Service of the Eucharist. I pray quite fervently both for the unity of the broken visible Church and for my the possibility of my individual reception of the Lord in the Eucharist.

I do need to make one point of clarification however. Particularly the view "Until/unless you enter the Church." This is not a question of all or nothing. One is not either in the Church or against the church. The Church recognizes the fact that Protestants are in an imperfect communion with her; not completely outside.

"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."(unitatis redintegratio, 3)

And in the Catechism, "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church." (1271)

So, Protestants like myself are necessarily already members of the Church, though not as full as we could be. It is our job to increase our communion so that one day we might be one.

Wherever my path takes me, my individual decision about which Church to call home will not solve the larger fundamental problem of the (partial) brokenness of the Church.

Intercommunion

My wife and I attend our local Catholic Church exclusively. I do not attend a Protestant church of my own tradition. We have been worshiping there since we got married, so for about 9 months. For those 9 months I have received communion exactly twice.

Twice! In 9 months! Now, some protestants who are reading this might be saying "so?"

I come from a Christian tradition which celebrates The Lord's Supper every Sunday. It is hard for me to consider a typical Protestant "service" worship, unless communion is part of it.

I believe that as baptized Christians we are commanded to The Lord's Supper, and called to it regularly. The words of institution simply say "Do this..." And in the Gospel according to John, Jesus explains that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53 NIV)

The Catholic Church articulates it quite well when they say that the Eucharist "is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life." (Lumen Gentium, 11) The Catechism translates this as "the source and summit" (Catechism, 1324) To put it another way, the Eucharist is as essential for our spiritual lives as food is for our physical health.

Not receiving the Eucharist for me is tantamount to starvation.

Being hungry for Christ, I approached our (Catholic) pastor and asked to receive the Eucharist when I attend mass. We scheduled a meeting and discussed the possibility.

He suggested that I was perhaps being called by God to join the Roman Catholic Church, and for that reason the Eucharist would be withheld from me until I am able to make that decision. He was interested in my journey and offered to continue our meeting at another time and discuss the possibility of joining the Church.

I went into the meeting from a different perspective. I understand myself to be called to the ordained ministry. I am not prepared to abandon God's calling. (the priesthood is not an option for me because I am married) I was hoping to be admitted to the Eucharist, while recognizing our imperfect communion. That Jesus commanded celebration of his Eucharist not within one particular manifestation of his Church but simply as his Body of believers.

Protestants and Catholics hold quite a paradoxical view of how the Eucharist can be shared. Protestants believe that we will not be united until we are able to share the Eucharist together. Catholics believe we cannot share the Eucharist together until we are united.

And so I stand in this paradox, praying for God's intercession to bring his broken Church on Earth into a visible unity.

God's Choosen People

I have always found it difficult to think of God as playing favorites. He loves everyone equally after all doesn't he? I grew up with this presupposition largely due to the Protestant church's ignorance of the Old Testament. It was a rare Sunday for me to hear the Word of God from the law and the prophets, much less hear anyone preach on it.

I took my first Old Testament class this past quarter - on the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)

Primarily it is the story of God's chosen people, the Israelites. God picks them, by grace, to be his people. The relationship between God and Israel is sealed in the Covenant. God promises that "out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Ex. 19:5-6 NIV) This promise was not unconditional, it required the strict obedience of Israel under the leadership of Moses.

God's holy people make the habit of getting into trouble and not trusting God nor his appointed leader. In Numbers 12 Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses because he had a Cushite wife. God is furious that anyone would dare "speak against [his] servant" (Num. 12:8 NIV) God struck Miriam with leprosy and sent her to sit outside of the camp for a week.

Apparently God does have favorites and apparently God does care about our actions. Perhaps I ought to be careful about questioning the authorities which God puts in place.

This Biblical insight has challenged me to consider the possibility that perhaps God has a chosen manifestation of his Church in the modern day. That perhaps it does matter how and what we do within our churches. Perhaps God has a chosen leader (the Pope?) set in place to guide and lead his chosen people today.

Roman Catholics often point to Mt 16:18-20 as a rationale for the office of the Pope. It basically says that Jesus gave the "keys to heaven" to Peter. That whatever he decided would be bound both on Earth and in heaven.

Now many Protestant leaders will challenge this verse for a number of reasons, but I at least must consider the possibility that God's character has not been altered; That he may have a chosen people, and he may have an appointed leader. What if all of that is found in the Roman Catholic Church? Who am I to question the great authority of God?

The Cost of Conversion

For me this decision it not simply one of which church I will attend on Sunday mornings.

This decision will change my life.

For the past 5 years I have not even entertained the notion that I was called to be anything other than an ordained minister. However, if I were to decide to today to join the Roman Catholic Church, I would have to give up my vocation.

I have also be called to family life and I am married. For this reason the priesthood is not an option for me, because the Roman Catholic Church practices priestly celibacy. This is probably the biggest deterrent to my decision to join the Catholic Church. I cannot see doing anything other than preaching, counseling, administering the sacraments, and leading a congregation when I imagine my future self. The possibility that I may not be called to the clergy has just recently creep into my head.

I would be facing a serious career change. I suppose with my seminary education I would be qualified to teach, be a youth minister, or pastoral assistant of some kind, and one day be able to enter the diaconate. The latter option would not be available to me for about 10 years do to age requirements.

I currently serve as in the Army National Guard as a chaplain candidate. (Chaplain candidates are soldiers who are preparing for the ordained minister. The expectation is that they will become "real" chaplains following completion of their education/church requirements) Chaplains are ordained members of the clergy. Again, this not being an option for me in the Roman Catholic Church I would have a choice to make. I would have to select another army job and attend O.C.S. because my direct commission would no long be recognized; or I would have to resign.

Beyond the career change I would be facing many financial costs if I were to join the Catholic Church. Many of my scholarships were given with the assumption that I would become an ordained member of the protestant clergy. All of which automatically become loans if I do not fulfill this obligation

• Scholarship #1 $6,000
  
• Scholarship #2 $9,000
  
• Home Congregation Support $7,200
• Regional Church Support $4,000
• Total scholarships needing to be paid back: $26,200

I also imagine my home congregation, family (who are all protestant), my school, friends, etc. would all be less than understanding in this matter; especially those who have invested a great deal of time into my development for Christian ministry.

So, this is not just a simple choosing of which church best suits me. This is a decision which would cause a great deal of turmoil in my life. But again, I feel a bit like the rich young ruler who turned from Jesus because of his worldly affairs.

In my next post I will share some of the reflections that lead me to this turning point.

Thanks for reading.

Intro and background

At this point I feel quite overwhelmed with all of the deep theological thinkings going on in my little head. For fear that I may explode someday in the not too distant future, I need to get these thoughts out into words.

My story:

I grew up in a small "main-line" (protestant) Christian church. I was called to the ministry early in my life. At some point in high school a pastor drew me aside during summer church camp and suggested I consider God's calling for me. With some guidance I went off to college, and find myself presently in seminary with one year to go.

At about the same time as I was encouraged to consider my calling I was introduced to the Roman Catholic Church by a classmate. She invited me to mass, and I remember feeling dreadfully uncomfortable and out of place. That's not the way we do it at my church after all.

As some time passed and the initial culture shock wore off I began to examine Roman Catholic theology a bit deeper. I certainly hadn't even scratched the surface yet, but I was at least intrigued. My interest grew until one arbitrary day I called the priest at the local Catholic church and asked to speak with him about conversion. I didn't know where I stood to be honest, but what is the harm in gathering some information?

I met with the priest and he gave me a catechism, and some other reading material. I gave him my phone number so that he could follow up on my study. Without fail, a few days later the priest called my house. My father was the first to pick up the phone, and he did not share my same curiosities.

It was my senior year and I had some solid scholarships at one of our denominationally affiliated colleges. My father warned that I would lose these scholarships if I even thought about conversion. I was considerably discouraged and decided not to met with the priest for a follow up meeting. I felt a bit like the rich young ruler who chose his wealth rather than become a disciple.

My college was situated in the smallest town I could ever imagine. There were no traffic lights, only 3 or 4 businesses including the college, and a mere 2 churches. One was protestant (of my particular tradition) and the other Roman Catholic.

I, of course, attended my denomination's church because I was preparing for ministry after all. I found the church to be someone lacking for various reasons. Having no other alternative (but honestly looking forward to opportunity) I tried out the Roman Catholic Church. I was at least familiar enough to follow along in the Sunday missal. I have found some very true long-lasting friends from that church. In fact of the few people I stay in contact with from college, they all attended that church. I even began a one-on-one impromptu class with the pastoral assistant to explore the Catholic faith deeper than I had before.

My preparation for ministry again seemed to get in the way of my exploration of the Catholic Church. I accepted an internship at a church, which would of course mean I needed to go to worship services there. Luckily, however, I met my wife through this internship in a round-about way.

Through that internship I was offered a summer job from one of the parishioners. At this summer job I met my wife, who (wouldn't you know it) just so happens to be Roman Catholic.

We married about three years after we met, and the role that religion plays in our lives has been a constant struggle.

Currently I remain committed to my calling to become a minister (in the protestant tradition). But I feel a calling to the Catholic Church as well.

Why I began this blog:

I began writing this blog partly to aid my own spiritual journey. At the same time however, I hope to find others that may be (or have been) on a similar journey as myself. I hope to share my struggles, discoveries, epiphanies, and questions here.

Thanks for taking the time to read my story. I am uncertain where this journey will lead.