A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[The Liturgist]

Wow! This statement is certainly uncharacteristic of your usual posts. And I read your usual posts and glean value from them.....but this is going a tad to far. Frustration?

No, I’ve always been opposed to churches without visible crosses or icons. One of my major complaints about the SDAs is their churches lack crosses, which I find baffling.

Now as it happens, one of those Catholic churches in the photo actually had such, but they were not visible from the photo. And compared to many Catholic abbeys and parish churches, those were … not good. Not as bad as some of the modernist places though, such as the horrifying Roman Catholic cathedrals in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which while technically not iconoclastic in a literal sense, embrace a kind of stylistic iconoclasm.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No, I’ve always been opposed to churches without visible crosses or icons. One of my major complaints about the SDAs is their churches lack crosses, which I find baffling.

Now as it happens, one of those Catholic churches in the photo actually had such, but they were not visible from the photo. And compared to many Catholic abbeys and parish churches, those were … not good. Not as bad as some of the modernist places though, such as the horrifying Roman Catholic cathedrals in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which while technically not iconoclastic in a literal sense, embrace a kind of stylistic iconoclasm.

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Too much for me!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This simple chapel still is full of symbolism and beauty.

Beauty in simplicity. All I need is a cross, Sacrament and candle.

Kind of off subject but I like to see natural stone and wood in a chapel.

 

[FireDragon76]

Beauty in simplicity. All I need is a cross, Sacrament and candle.

That's one thing I appreciate about the Latin West, the tradition of the Low Mass. I came to appreciate it more after spending time in Orthodox circles, often times I just didn't see the deep spirituality, despite the rich theological tradition and lengthy prayers and chanting. I saw enough functional spiritual bypassing and overwrought religiosity.

The most spiritually meaningful moments in my life have never happened in such settings. People that worry about icons in churches- have they considered the icon present in their neighbor? Like the Dukhobors and Molokans have been known to say, "We don't need icons. We believe in the Holy Spirit".

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

No, I’ve always been opposed to churches without visible crosses or icons. One of my major complaints about the SDAs is their churches lack crosses, which I find baffling.

Now as it happens, one of those Catholic churches in the photo actually had such, but they were not visible from the photo. And compared to many Catholic abbeys and parish churches, those were … not good. Not as bad as some of the modernist places though, such as the horrifying Roman Catholic cathedrals in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which while technically not iconoclastic in a literal sense, embrace a kind of stylistic iconoclasm.

Who could pay for all of this? State Church funding outside of US....I can see, but one must then contend of secular oversight.

My congregation is only 124 members and two thirds Hispanic. We only have a Pastor, Admin, and Organist on paid staff....no janitor. Those churches in the preceding pictures are exceeding expensive to build let alone up keep.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know the history of the RCC and EO but from your post are you saying that historically, there have been attempts at union between them, but these efforts have been unsuccessful due to aspects of tradition and hierarchy? Or are you saying that one group desires to convert the other to their views of Christ? Or both?

The point is not the specifics of the examples (though I didn't write anything about the EO; they have their own history with regard to Florence, which is theirs to recount, as who would know it better), but that they are examples of the two phenomena I mentioned, so I'm going to decline going into further detail in response to this, as the question itself is malformed and expounding upon it wouldn't change the example itself anyway.

Meaningful dialogue is impossible when the other person disregards your dignity, dismisses your experiences, and lacks the humility and patience to seek understanding through open-minded inquiry. Instead, they often make unfounded assumptions, demonstrating a limited perspective that hinders constructive conversation.

Okay. I don't disagree with that, but again, my post was more about the potential pitfalls of an approach centered around respect and sensitivity. Please note that I went out of my way to specify that it's not that respect and sensitivity are bad things (of course they are not), only that eventually some hard truths need to be explicitly affirmed. We can't just leave things at the level of "I respect you", or "I am sensitive to the complexity of your religion" or whatever, even though those are good things to affirm. In practice "respect and sensitivity" often leads to exactly the unfavorable outcomes I mentioned, due to a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective emphasis on them as though they are themselves the goal (i.e., as though you're not there to convert people, but rather affirm whatever they're already believing and doing).

Through interfaith dialogue, we may not always achieve agreement, but we create a sacred space for exchange and understanding.

Ah, here we go. Here I believe may be 'the rub': In Orthodox or even just any kind of traditional Christianity, the goal never is to "create a sacred space for exchange and understanding." Like I would agree that the monastery of St. Bishoy in Wadi Al-Natrun (Egypt) is most definitely a sacred space, and our representatives did indeed meet with the Nestorians there for an exchange, but when it was found that there was no understanding to be had that would be fruitful to both parties' satisfaction, the dialogue was ended. The Nestorian response to the Coptic insistence that they stop venerating Nestorius was an example of situation (1) that I referred to, wherein the Nestorians were apparently quite scandalized by the Coptic demand, while the Coptic response to the breakdown was an example of an avoidance of situation (2), as it is certainly not going to be allowed that the Nestorians or anyone use the fact of the dialogue occurring to essentially bolster their own church, because look at how they came together and were so open to their historical enemies and blahblahblah (and conversely, look at how stubborn and mean and bad the evil Copts were for not treating everything as six of one, half a dozen of the other). No. They can put out that messaging if they want to (note: I don't know that they ever did; it doesn't matter either way), but we're not going to help them do that, unlike the kumbaya approach to dialogue with others whereby Islam, Hinduism, Native African Religions, etc. get a nice photo op next to a clergyman or whoever and Christianity gets further weakened by being presented as ineffectual but 'nice', and thereby safely and securely ignored because it challenges nothing, but merely wants to get along and be 'loving'. That is, frankly, an abuse of everything that love actually is. St. Paul was being loving when he warned that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice are sacrificed to demons, and again when he argued before the men of Athens that the "Unknown God" that they worshipped can be known, and is indeed being preached to them right now in this very moment. Two different approaches, you might say, but most importantly neither compromised on anything for the sake of appearing 'understanding' or 'open' to things that are in fact evil, and even more to the point, while some assembled at Athens scoffed at him, others said "We shall hear from you again."

And even if consensus eludes us, we trust that God may have sown a seed, which we can nurture and water. Recognizing that true growth and transformation are divine works, we humbly serve as messengers, relying on God's grace and wisdom.

Indeed. "We shall hear from you again" is exactly that. This does not differ according to our own approach, as it is always God Who gives light to us all, but that doesn't mean that some approaches aren't more sound than others, or at least lacking in the particular pitfalls I've written about. It can certainly be argued that the approach I would prefer instead has its own challenges or problems; I wouldn't deny that -- evangelism by any means is never going to be easy, as the world is not in favor of Christianity, and the let's say 'less accommodating' types of Christianity such as Orthodoxy tend to offend both other Christians and non-believers, albeit often for wildly differing reasons. So be it. If we were here to make friends in a social sense, that'd be one thing, but my church has not survived and thrived under 14 centuries and counting of harsh Islamic rule (and Chalcedonian, etc. rule before that) by simply going along to get along, so we're not about to start doing so now. It would be an impediment to adopt the ways of others, not a strength, since our social and political context is very particular and cannot be easily mapped onto the experiences of westerners travelling to Africa to convert people. ("We", though not I, actually live there full time, after all, as we have since there were ever people in that particular part of Africa in the first place. The Copts are the native people of Egypt -- native African Christians.)

I agree with you. Interfaith dialogue with non Christians isn't about yielding to others' beliefs, but rather about respectfully acknowledging their perspectives while remaining steadfast in our own convictions. With sensitivity and tact, we can identify opportunities to thoughtfully share the message of Christ, as exemplified by Paul's approach in Acts 17. By doing so, we can engage in meaningful discussions that foster greater understanding and mutual respect. This requires an open door for dialogue.

I don't want to deny that this is as you may see it or have experienced it. I guess I just question if the distinction between maintaining an open door to people and maintaining an open door to their theologies and practices is always maintained by those who claim this approach. As HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory has said "Our fight is against ideas, not people", and also "I may be kind and gentle with the poor, but if it touches the doctrine, I become another person." (Read: Kindness and gentleness stops at those things which are soul-destroying.)

By closing the door on opportunities to share the gospel due to a lack of respect, we not only hinder the potential for others to hear the message, but also damage the reputation of Christianity as a whole. By being respectful, we create an environment where others are more likely to listen and receive the message with an open heart.

I agree, and would only add that it is possible also to damage the reputation of Christianity, to use your phrase, by presenting it in an ineffectual manner, and there is no reason we can not be on guard against both errors simultaneously.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no such implication.
The simplicity, free of distractions, can be refreshing and promote a more pure devotion. One is not there for the smells and bells and gold.
View attachment 351322View attachment 351323

It is insulting that you would imply by this (even without meaning to) that those who would not go to churches that look like part of a hipster brewery somewhere are therefore wherever they are instead for the "smells and bells and gold", and not, y'know, God.

This whole approach seems very at odds with your own church. Seems more like a Buddhist mindset, where the goal is in some sense emptiness. I can't think of anything more anti-Christian than that, given that the God we worship and strive to give our best to is described in our sacred scriptures as filling all in all.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I prefer the elegant Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, such as the Frauenkirche in Dresden, which has been gloriously rebuilt:

View attachment 351325

Imagine hearing a Bach mass such as his Mass in F minor in there.

Indeed, yet this is the state Church, which is woke and in fellowship with the ELCA/ELCIC and is anything but confessional. In my opinion, beautiful Church building; ugly theology and praxis.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In my opinion, beautiful Church building; ugly theology and praxis.

Gives meaning to "white washed tombs."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is insulting that you would imply by this (even without meaning to) that those who would not go to churches that look like part of a hipster brewery

I am implying no such thing,

somewhere are therefore wherever they are instead for the "smells and bells and gold", and not, y'know, God.

I don't understand this at all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This whole approach seems very at odds with your own church. Seems more like a Buddhist mindset, where the goal is in some sense emptiness. I can't think of anything more anti-Christian than that, given that the God we worship and strive to give our best to is described in our sacred scriptures as filling all in all.

Certainly you must be aware of apophatic spirituality.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Gives meaning to "white washed tombs."

I was going to post that, you beat me to it!!

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed, yet this is the state Church, which is woke and in fellowship with the ELCA/ELCIC and is anything but confessional. In my opinion, beautiful Church building; ugly theology and praxis.

That is often the case, although some individual German churches are less “progressive” than others. Particularly in the former DDR. Osties in general tend to be more socially conservative, contrary to what one might expect given their background.

Of the state churches in Europe, the Lutheran churches in Latvia and Lithuania are in fellowship with the LCC/LCMS if I recall, but unfortunately this is not the case in Ethiopia, which also sadly aside from having a schism wherein half of its Orthodox churches have broken away from the canonical Estonian Orthodox Church and joined what is, by Orthodox standards, one of the two most liberal jurisdictions (the other being the Finnish Orthodox Church, but at least it is canonical), both of which are autonomous churches under the aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (although the EP has Mount Athos which is extremely traditional, and in the US the monasteries founded by Elder Ephraim, an Athonite monk who had previously revitalized the Philotheou monastery on the Holy Mountain, but alas they have a tendency to ignore the advice of the Athonite monks), Estonia suffers from the worst ratio of irreligious people to Christians in Europe.

 

[The Liturgist]

Gives meaning to "white washed tombs."

Indeed, but some of the German churches in the East are still traditional. But it is a real tragedy.

In the Church of England there are multiple confessional movements among Evangelical, High Church, and Anglo Catholic groups, the result of which is a number of very traditional parishes which for the present time at least are not being interfered with.

In Norway and Sweden, confessional Lutheranism has reappeared and availed itself of, among other things, disused state church buildings, for example, the Mission Province of the Church of Sweden, which is actually despite the name functionally a different denomination altogether at this point, but they have made their long term goal quite ambitiously a revival of Lutheran orthodoxy in the entire Church of Sweden. But in the interim their goal is to provide a confessional Lutheran presence.

Norway in addition to a confessional Lutheran group also has the conservative Old Catholic Church of Norway, which along with the Polish National Catholic Church is one of only two which resisted the takeover of the Union of Utrecht by extreme left wing elements.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is insulting that you would imply by this (even without meaning to) that those who would not go to churches that look like part of a hipster brewery somewhere are therefore wherever they are instead for the "smells and bells and gold", and not, y'know, God.

This whole approach seems very at odds with your own church. Seems more like a Buddhist mindset, where the goal is in some sense emptiness.

Emptiness is about the lack of individual essences of things, in that way it's more about that concept of fullness than it might be immediately obvious. Alot of Buddhist temples are elaborately decorated, similar to Orthodox churches.

The minimalist aesthetic is more of a western Christian thing. Perhaps due to movements like the Cistercians and Franciscans, and later Reformed Protestants and various Dissenter sects.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That is often the case, although some individual German churches are less “progressive” than others. Particularly in the former DDR. Osties in general tend to be more socially conservative, contrary to what one might expect given their background.

Of the state churches in Europe, the Lutheran churches in Latvia and Lithuania are in fellowship with the LCC/LCMS if I recall, but unfortunately this is not the case in Ethiopia, which also sadly aside from having a schism wherein half of its Orthodox churches have broken away from the canonical Estonian Orthodox Church and joined what is, by Orthodox standards, one of the two most liberal jurisdictions (the other being the Finnish Orthodox Church, but at least it is canonical), both of which are autonomous churches under the aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (although the EP has Mount Athos which is extremely traditional, and in the US the monasteries founded by Elder Ephraim, an Athonite monk who had previously revitalized the Philotheou monastery on the Holy Mountain, but alas they have a tendency to ignore the advice of the Athonite monks), Estonia suffers from the worst ratio of irreligious people to Christians in Europe.

Almost Correct; we are in fellowship with SELK Selbständige Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche | SELK - Home, Latvia and Lithuania are part of the ILC Home - International Lutheran Council but no fellowship agreements have been formalized that I know of. There are other small independent synods with which we are in fellowship with or with whom we are exploring possible partner ships. The mission diocese of Finland and Iceland recently joined LCC in a full fellowship agreement. Other discussions continue. Polity of these synods and their structure are of no concern to us; purity of doctrine and practice is paramount. The Lutheran Churches in Turkey and Bulgaria are the most recent too join the ILC; African membership is huge! Members - International Lutheran Council

 

[Rose_bud]

The point is not the specifics of the examples (though I didn't write anything about the EO; they have their own history with regard to Florence, which is theirs to recount, as who would know it better), but that they are examples of the two phenomena I mentioned, so I'm going to decline going into further detail in response to this, as the question itself is malformed and expounding upon it wouldn't change the example itself anyway.

Noted.

Okay. I don't disagree with that, but again, my post was more about the potential pitfalls of an approach centered around respect and sensitivity. Please note that I went out of my way to specify that it's not that respect and sensitivity are bad things (of course they are not), only that eventually some hard truths need to be explicitly affirmed. We can't just leave things at the level of "I respect you", or "I am sensitive to the complexity of your religion" or whatever, even though those are good things to affirm. In practice "respect and sensitivity" often leads to exactly the unfavorable outcomes I mentioned, due to a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective emphasis on them as though they are themselves the goal (i.e., as though you're not there to convert people, but rather affirm whatever they're already believing and doing).

I concurred and said that respecting someone and being sensitive to their beliefs and practices doesn't mean compromising your own faith and values. Boundaries are essential, and it's important to maintain them while still being loving and respectful. It's possible to disagree with someone's beliefs or practices without being disrespectful, calling them derogatory names or being unkind. By maintaining our boundaries and being clear about our own beliefs, we can have a more authentic and meaningful dialogue.

Ah, here we go. Here I believe may be 'the rub': In Orthodox or even just any kind of traditional Christianity, the goal never is to "create a sacred space for exchange and understanding."

In the context of interfaith dialogue, the sacred space we create is not a physical or mystical environment, but rather the spiritual ground we stand on as ambassadors of the Gospel. As we engage with individuals from diverse belief systems, our intention is to humbly serve as vessels for God's work, which is holy work. With the character becoming of a Christian as Paul rightly says how we should conduct ourselves with those outside the faith.

As we navigate these conversations, we stand on the foundation of Scripture, echoing Stephen's confession: "God doesn't dwell in temples crafted by human hands" (Acts 7:48). And with the gospels, particularly Matthew's emphasis on Emmanuel, "God with us," and the continuation of that nearness in Acts, highlighting the Holy Spirit's presence within us. Our conversations become a sacred space where God's presence is revered, not in physical structures, but in the spiritual realm, as we represent Him through the Holy Spirit's indwelling.

As much as His presence is not limited to physical structures, it is also not limited to our visible outcomes. Though our conversations may not yield immediate visible results or declarations of acknowledging Christ, we trust that God is actively working in ways both seen and unseen. Patience is a necessity, His purposes unfold in His timing, as we may not always witness the fruit of our conversations. Yet, we persevere in hope, fixing our eyes on the unseen eternal realities, knowing that our efforts are not in vain in the Lord. His work will prevail.

I have never indicated in any of my post that we should not stand firm in our Christian beliefs or compromise. Whilst doing the above we should maintain a posture of respect and kindness, never indulging in rudeness or disrespect, which is contrary to the character of Christ and the teachings of our faith.

I'm assuming that your posts (not requoted) contains both intra and inter faith dialogues. Where you referring to the Coptics and Nestorian it would be intrafaith, when you speak of engagement with Hinduism, Buddhist etc it is interfaith.

Regarding the latter part of the same post, this is presenting a superficial approach to interfaith dialogue, where the focus is on appearances rather than genuine understanding and respect.

This superficial approach to interfaith dialogue risks diluting the transformative power of the Gospel, and should never be the aim of a Christian sincerely seeking to share the glad tidings of Jesus. That's why I stressed the need for wisdom and discernment in our endeavors, recognising that we cannot fulfill God's work without His guidance and empowerment. Our role is to discern where God is already at work and humbly join Him in His mission, rather than relying on our own understanding or efforts.

Christian love and respect in interfaith dialogue requires a willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion, listen actively, and explore differences while maintaining one's convictions. This approach fosters a deeper understanding and mutual respect, even if agreement isn't reached.

Authentic interfaith dialogue, where love and respect are demonstrated through courageous conversation, is not photo opportunities.

St. Paul was being loving when he warned that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice are sacrificed to demons, and again when he argued before the men of Athens that the "Unknown God" that they worshipped can be known, and is indeed being preached to them right now in this very moment. Two different approaches, you might say, but most importantly neither compromised on anything for the sake of appearing 'understanding' or 'open' to things that are in fact evil, and even more to the point, while some assembled at Athens scoffed at him, others said "We shall hear from you again."

You're referring to Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians, where he emphasizes how we are to be considerate towards weaker brothers and sisters in Christ. He encourages believers to be mindful of their freedom in Christ, avoiding eating foods that might cause others to stumble. Paul also affirms that all things belong to God and are permissible, but stresses the importance of love and consideration for others, even if it means sacrificing our own freedoms for their sake.

And again I have never said the gospel should be compromised, I said be respectful, listen actively, don't assume.

The reason I mentioned Paul's approach was because he never watered down his message to appease his audience, but instead, he spoke the truth in love, he respected them, acknowledged their religious curiosity while also tactfully and respectfully confronting their idolatry.

The fact that some Athenians were receptive to his message and wanted to hear more is a testament to the power of the gospel, which Paul presented courageously and respectfully.

Indeed. "We shall hear from you again" is exactly that. This does not differ according to our own approach, as it is always God Who gives light to us all, but that doesn't mean that some approaches aren't more sound than others, or at least lacking in the particular pitfalls I've written about. It can certainly be argued that the approach I would prefer instead has its own challenges or problems; I wouldn't deny that -- evangelism by any means is never going to be easy, as the world is not in favor of Christianity, and the let's say 'less accommodating' types of Christianity such as Orthodoxy tend to offend both other Christians and non-believers, albeit often for wildly differing reasons. So be it.

I respect your preference.

If we were here to make friends in a social sense, that'd be one thing, but my church has not survived and thrived under 14 centuries and counting of harsh Islamic rule (and Chalcedonian, etc. rule before that) by simply going along to get along, so we're not about to start doing so now. It would be an impediment to adopt the ways of others, not a strength, since our social and political context is very particular and cannot be easily mapped onto the experiences of westerners travelling to Africa to convert people. ("We", though not I, actually live there full time, after all, as we have since there were ever people in that particular part of Africa in the first place. The Copts are the native people of Egypt -- native African Christians.)

I think I understand your perspective and appreciate the passion you have for the history of your Christian community. I believe we both agree and recognize that your context is unique and cannot be superficially compared or superimposed on others without fully understanding their context.

I don't want to deny that this is as you may see it or have experienced it. I guess I just question if the distinction between maintaining an open door to people and maintaining an open door to their theologies and practices is always maintained by those who claim this approach. As HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory has said "Our fight is against ideas, not people", and also "I may be kind and gentle with the poor, but if it touches the doctrine, I become another person." (Read: Kindness and gentleness stops at those things which are soul-destroying.)

I've come to understand, that we naturally relate to others experiences through our own perspectives and biases. Which many times lead to initial judgments or assumptions based on our own experiences and understanding. Hence, why I believe it us important to make an effort to listen actively, ask questions, and seek to understand others experiences and viewpoints in their own right, rather than solely through the lens of our own.

I can understand the desire to protect the truth. Your second quote suggests a dichotomy between kindness and standing firm on doctrine, implying that we must choose between being gentle and being strong in our convictions. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that kindness and firmness are mutually exclusive.

I believe we can learn to strive for a balance between being compassionate and gentle in our interactions with others, while also being unwavering in our commitment to truth and doctrine. This is the balance I prefer. It is possible to maintain a welcoming and loving attitude towards individuals while still being discerning and faithful to our own beliefs and values.

I agree, and would only add that it is possible also to damage the reputation of Christianity, to use your phrase, by presenting it in an ineffectual manner, and there is no reason we can not be on guard against both errors simultaneously.

I agree, we should always be prayerfully watchful.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I’ve always been opposed to churches without visible crosses or icons.

I like a church with a pipe organ....preferable with 32' Contra Bass to play Tocatta in F Major by Bach...BVM 540.

 

[The Liturgist]

Gives meaning to "white washed tombs."

Fortunately, we have the exact opposite. I had previously mentioned St. Anthony’s Monastery in Florence, Arizona, which is a place that is both theologically and architecturally exquisite, and which is overflowing with life, both spiritual life and the life of God’s children in Christ and the plants and animals He has given us, with the monks there being among the most loving Christians I have ever met:

This monastery is an oasis in the desert. Its gardens are more beautiful than Disneyland. And the theology, which represents the ancient liturgical Christian tradition, is exquisitely beautiful. Indeed @MarkRohfrietsch I have seen real theology in terms of knowledge of God with respect to the radiant light of Christ at this monastery of the sort I have only encountered at other traditional liturgical churches, whether Anglo-Catholic, Assyrian, Confessional Lutheran, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, traditional Roman Catholic (such as those churches with the beautiful Tridentine liturgy), and other traditional Liturgical Protestants such as conservative liturgical Methodists and liturgical Congregationalist churches (including the Park Street Church in Boston and those missions I founded.

What I particularly like about St. Anthony’s Monastery is that it pursues an aesthetic approach of liturgical maximalism, which is motivated by a desire to make the church an icon of the life of the World to Come, so that, to as the emissaries of St. Vladimir the Great said upon visiting the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople*, and their report convinced St. Vladimir, who was seeking a new religion for the people of Kiev, to embrace Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism.

I would also note that while by now the total amount spent on the nine churches at St. Anthony’s in Florence is substantial, the individual churches did not cost that much to build, and Orthodox parishes are increasingly developing similarly beautiful parishes with remarkably small budgets. We also see some acticity on these lines in the traditional Western churches - the Roman Catholic liturgical blog New Liturgical Movement for instance is sponsored by several architects who specialize in building and restoring churches with traditional Western architecture such as Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neo-Classical and Beaux Arts styles. And there are other church architects who specialize in Byzantine architecture. So I would not say that beautiful new church buildings are unobtainable, although in the case of the LCMS/LCC/AALC, my hope is that your churches will, along with the Continuing Anglicans and the ACNA, try to pick up where possible those beautiful churches being vacated by the Roman Catholics and the mainline Protestants, which are already optimized for Western Orthodox worship. That has been the real estate strategy of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate (the ROCOR WRV on the other hand is much smaller, and has tended to acquire or build small chapels based on traditional Western European models).

*As a depressing aside, rather horrifically Erdogan has treverted to a mosque, after a century of being a museum under a policy instituted by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, when the church should have been given to the Pontic Greek Christians and the Phanariot Greek Christians as a reparation for the 1915 genocide and the pogrom in the 1950s (and likewise, Mount Ararat, which due to its involvement in the evangelism of the Armenians and the manner in which it forms the glorious backdrop for those visiting Yerevan, has a spiritual importance for the Armenian people and should be given as reparations to them, while the area of Tur Abdin, historically the center of the Syriac Orthodox community in Turkey, with numerous monasteries, and prior to the genocide of 1915 which in Syriac is called the Sayfo, meaning “sword”, should be given to them as reparations, but no one seems interested in holding Turkey to account and they continue to engage in genocide denial, which is particularly horrific considering their genocide was viewed by the Nazis as a case study that demonstrated the technical achievability of the Holocaust, so all that was left for Reinhard Heydrich and his co-conspirators was the chilling business of clinically devising the most efficient means of conducting such mass murder.

 

[The Liturgist]

I like a church with a pipe organ....preferable with 32' Contra Bass to play Tocatta in F Major by Bach...BVM 540.

I love BWV 540 and am listening to it now.

I have a special love for BWV 542, 565, and 582, because these three pieces were favorites of my grandfather, and were played by the noted organist Dr. David Rothe at my grandfather’s funeral (memory eternal) as he like me loved organ music and gave me my first CDs of it in my youth, and those three pieces were our shared favorites, along with BWV 639, BWV 208, BWV 147 and a series of traditional Protestant chorales which I would prefer not to enumerate as this was a sacred event in my life and I would fear someone who dislikes traditional church music might make an uncharitable remark concerning my grandfather’s favorite hymns, although I have no doubt you and @MarkRohfrietsch would love them greatly, for I have heard at least one of them being sung at Mark’s parish. Indeed were it not for the catalog numbers not exposing the organ music choices to immediate scrutiny I wouldn’t have mentioned them at all for so personal an event, but I doubt anyone who would criticize us for the traditional music of Western orthodoxy would bother to look up them up or even know what they stand for.

Indeed the funeral opened with BWV 565, which was our favorite. Some people dislike that fugue because they think it is “spooky”, to which I say, nonsense - it is in minor key but it clearly describes, like all of Bach’s organ music, the beauty and majesty of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And Bach was just 21 when he wrote it - in his youth Bach studied the work of Dietrich Buxtehude and we see how the brilliant work of the Swedish-German composer was further refined by Bach to produce a new generation of German Baroque music which also included the work of Handel (who then moved to the newly formed United Kingdom of Great Britain as the Hannoverians inherited the throne, and was naturalized by a special act of Parliament), and which rivaled and indeed I should say surpassed the work being done in Italy by Vivaldi and Scarlatti, and formed the basis for the later emergence of the Classical period with the masses of Haydn and Mozart, which in turn gave rise to the early Romantic music of Beethoven and Schubert (whose Deutsche Messe and also his six Latin mass settings are particularly exquisite specimens of Lutheran liturgical music).