Ship of Fools: Interfaith Worship

Thread: Interfaith Worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026614

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

That it's a bit daft to think that the God revealed in the New Testament isn't the same one who the Qu'ran and the Torah attempt to reveal. In other words, it rather depends on the faith. If we're talking about participating in rituals to appease Zeus, then you might have a point. If Christians, Muslims and Jews come together to pray and to worship God, that seems entirely in keeping with the first commandment. Otherwise the fact that we do not have a full understanding of God would mean all our worship would violate the first commandment.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

To be honest I've never participated in interfaith worship, although I've often been present at non-Christian religious events. I don't feel a strong need for this either, I guess I'm more of an ecumenicalist than a panecumenicalist.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That it's a bit daft to think that the God revealed in the New Testament isn't the same one who the Qu'ran and the Torah attempt to reveal.

I'm not so sure you can reconcile the trinitarian, incarnate God of the Christians with the unitary, non-incarnate deity worshiped by Jews and Muslims. Those are some pretty big differences to overlook if you're going to claim they're the same entity.

On the larger point, it's pretty clear that the Bible is opposed to things like religious tolerance or religious pluralism. These are (relatively) modern concepts.

[ 13. December 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Within the British Commonwealth there are many faiths represented.Occasional Commonwealth religious events have taken place at Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth who is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England .
This week's memorial service for Nelson Mandela included prayers said by representatives of Jewish,Muslim.Christian faith and one other which I did not recognise.
Just as many Christians in the last 50 years have begun to recognise and value the religious insights of other Christian communities,we have now to start to learn about the religious insights and values of other faiths.We can still be true to our own while recognising the essential brotherhood and sisterhood of all who ,at least from the Christian POV, are children of the one loving God.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Extremely common in western Canada, where the traditions imported from (mostly) Europe have died with the generation that was brought up by those who settled here between about 1880 and 1920. Their children are the carriers of the dying, more rigid traditions. The grandchildren are far, far more flexible. And they could care less about rightness the sort of rightness you suggest.

Thus, for example, at Remembrance Day, there are clergy from: RC, Anglican, Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, First Nations.

Interfaith dialogue takes some doing. You have to be comfortable with what you hold, you must be open to listening, and you mustn't be ready to focus on details. Rather, you must be prepared to focus on values, such as respect, family, behaving in accord with what you believe, kindness. It is not watered down, not everything into the pot. More like everyone being authentic to themselves and their faith, but listening to everyone else. In my experience First Nations and Hindus often have the easiest time of it for reasons of how faith is structured and practiced.

I have felt that Christians often feel interfaith events are places to find converts. Which they are definitely not. You have to be willing to conduct yourself and your thought processes willingly differently. It is not okay to be judgemental, and you must suspend that. You must even suspend your distaste if that's what you are experiencing because sensitive people will see it, and consider your level of respect and openness. If you cannot do these things, don't participate or perhaps don't attend. I'm good friends with a Anglican chaplain who is an excellent model to follow with this sort of thing. Many mansions in the house....

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

There is no doubt in my mind that, in a world wracked by violence and enmity, with no blameless 'sides' and religion reduced to tribalism by it's own adherents, that it is more Christlike to seek peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation - and that can only be done by coming together with these communities for the purpose of exchanging love, not hatred. As much as they are not part of the body of Christ, they are God's children as are we, and in that they are aware of God and love Him, there is an opportunity to explore ways to share in that love together, and that can be a pathway to healing and hope.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

no prophet wrote

quote:
Interfaith dialogue takes some doing. You have to be comfortable with what you hold, you must be open to listening, and you mustn't be ready to focus on details. Rather, you must be prepared to focus on values, such as respect, family, behaving in accord with what you believe, kindness. It is not watered down, not everything into the pot. More like everyone being authentic to themselves and their faith, but listening to everyone else. In my experience First Nations and Hindus often have the easiest time of it for reasons of how faith is structured and practiced.

I have no problems with any of that. But the question was about interfaith worship, not dialogue, which most people seem to have interpreted it as. That's a different thing entirely.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Within the British Commonwealth there are many faiths represented.Occasional Commonwealth religious events have taken place at Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth who is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England .
This week's memorial service for Nelson Mandela included prayers said by representatives of Jewish,Muslim.Christian faith and one other which I did not recognise.

Yes those would both be serious violations of the First Commandment

quote:
essential brotherhood and sisterhood of all who ,at least from the Christian POV, are children of the one loving God.

Are you suggesting that saying that all people are children of God is the Christian point of view? Surely the Bible says whilst all people are creatures of God not all people are children of God, for example John 8:42-44.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
essential brotherhood and sisterhood of all who ,at least from the Christian POV, are children of the one loving God.
Are you suggesting that saying that all people are children of God is the Christian point of view? Surely the Bible says whilst all people are creatures of God not all people are children of God, for example John 8:42-44.

From your posts I'm guessing you're a literalist, so I'll put this in front of you. This was the covenant God made with the children of Abraham.

Genesis 17:13:
"both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant."

That's a pretty clear statement IMHO, and establishes a basis for at least two covenants - with the Jews and Christians to persist in perpetuation. To what extent there might be other covenants, and how legitimate they might be as a part of God's purpose, it is beyond my comprehension, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone who loves God in a spiritual sense - whatever they understand that to mean - and seeks peace - has something in common with me. Probably more in common than those who look for division and strife.

[code]

[ 14. December 2013, 07:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Within the British Commonwealth there are many faiths represented.Occasional Commonwealth religious events have taken place at Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth who is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England .
This week's memorial service for Nelson Mandela included prayers said by representatives of Jewish,Muslim.Christian faith and one other which I did not recognise.
Yes those would both be serious violations of the First Commandment

How? If I am not praying to another god, nor practising another faith, but simply being present while members of other faiths pray to their god, how am I, personally, violating the first commandment?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

On the larger point, it's pretty clear that the Bible is opposed to things like religious tolerance or religious pluralism. These are (relatively) modern concepts.

Except I believe that Jesus' treatment of the Samaritans and the practice of the Early Church of worshipping with the Jews promotes religious tolerance in a way that the OT did not.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Within the British Commonwealth there are many faiths represented.Occasional Commonwealth religious events have taken place at Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth who is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England .
This week's memorial service for Nelson Mandela included prayers said by representatives of Jewish,Muslim.Christian faith and one other which I did not recognise.
Yes those would both be serious violations of the First Commandment
How? If I am not praying to another god, nor practising another faith, but simply being present while members of other faiths pray to their god, how am I, personally, violating the first commandment?

Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Extremely common in western Canada ... The grandchildren are far, far more flexible. And they could care less about rightness the sort of rightness you suggest.

Indeed Matthew 7:13-14

quote:
Thus, for example, at Remembrance Day, there are clergy from: RC, Anglican, Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, First Nations.

Again that would be a serious violation of the First Commandment

quote:
You have to be willing to conduct yourself and your thought processes willingly differently. It is not okay to be judgemental, and you must suspend that. You must even suspend your distaste if that's what you are experiencing because sensitive people will see it, and consider your level of respect and openness.

So not believing in God, the Bible, The Christian Faith, that's all fine, the really important thing is that people don't judge or even show distaste for false religions.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.

A violation of what, though?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

The first commandment tells the Jews that the giver is the God that brought them out of Egypt and they should have no other gods before him. Given that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (and a few other small groups) all think they are worshiping that God, the one that brought the Jews out of Egypt , I would assume on plain reading that an interfaith service involving only those groups is not a violation.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
So not believing in God, the Bible, The Christian Faith, that's all fine, the really important thing is that people don't judge or even show distaste for false religions.

And we find what your beef really is - you find other religions 'distasteful'.

No (or few) Christians who goes to those events will say that the other religions are right in any of the contentious points of doctrine. But there is no violation of the first commandment going on on their part - they are quite capable of separating out the worship of God in manners that are according to their faith, from manners that aren't.

What's happening here is that you don't like the fact that we're talking to other cultural groups and finding ways to work together for good purposes - and you're trying to twist the word of God to suit your own prejudices.

I can fully appreciate that interfaith services aren't for everyone, and I have no problem with that. But don't try to tell everyone else (who approves of those services) that they're wrong. The first commandment isn't "And thou shalt always seek conflict with those who do not believe in Me as you do." If it were, and Jesus endorsed it in those terms, then I would say you have a point, but you don't.

[ 14. December 2013, 01:42: Message edited by: hugorune ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The first commandment tells the Jews that the giver is the God that brought them out of Egypt and they should have no other gods before him. Given that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (and a few other small groups) all think they are worshiping that God, the one that brought the Jews out of Egypt, I would assume on plain reading that an interfaith service involving only those groups is not a violation.

I think the main point of contention is that Christians hold that the God the brought Israel out of Egypt is also Jesus. This is not something held by either Jews or Muslims, and not something most Christians consider a trivial viewpoint.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.

Again - how? What, precisely, is the action in which I start worshipping another God? Is the mere fact that I'm NOT storming out in a huff the moment someone else starts praying enough? Or is it something else?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.

2 Kings 5:18-19:

quote:
But may the Lord forgive your servant [Naaman] for this one thing: when my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also – when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.’ ‘Go in peace,’ Elisha said.

To my mind Naaman is 'taking part in a service of non-Christian worship or prayer', one that's thoroughly pagan, and being expressly allowed to do so by Elisha. I don't expect Croesos will find this embodies religious tolerance or pluralism, nonetheless I think it's an indication that the nature of God, even as we see it in the Old Testament, is more nuanced than simply yelling out violations of the Ten Commandments.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the debate about interfaith worship is a healthy and important aspect of interfaith dialogue and is not helped at all by characterising the positions of folks who disagree as idolatrous on the one hand or prejudiced on the other.

My mind is not made up on this. I can see that interfaith worship has its confusing elements. But so far as sequenced individual prayers are concerned, I really don't see the problem. If a member of another faith community says a prayer to the God he believes in, say in a service of remembrance, but I find the wording he uses is one that I find helpful, or agree with, as a petition to the God I believe in, why should I not say Amen? I am affirming what has been said, not affirming the perception of God held by the person who has said it. To assert that I am doing something wrong at that point seems to be a judgment of my intentions.

I see nothing idolatrous in believing that someone has spoken truth in a prayer, even if he is, in my terms, confused about Who he has spoken the truth to. What is wrong with that?

I'm a Companion in the Northumbria Community as well as a forty-year member of a nonconformist evangelical church. The Northumbria Community has strong ecumenical intentions. It is orthodox in its understanding of God, emphasising Trinitarian belief, as can be seen from its liturgy. But it is highly eclectic over differences. It does not have policies re issues over which Christians from different parts of the Christian rainbow disagree. Like participation in interfaith services. It is more interested in the creative aspects of folks journeying together and agreeing to disagree while doing so.

Tommy1, hugorune, welcome to this unrestful cybercommunity. I'm one of the community Hosts, with some responsibility for moderating discussions and debates in Purgatory. There isn't a single problem about you airing your strongly held views here, and there is no problem about criticising the posts of others. But be careful not to imply faults in the characters of your Shipmates. One of the Ship's Commandments (Commandment 3) allows you to post to another Shipmate "your post is stupid", but not "you are stupid". That's an important difference when discussing contentious issues.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I think we need to remember that Israel was created after the Exodus and by Mosaic covenant. The Muslims do not believe that Isaac was the son of promise and they have changed the story of Abraham to say that it was Ishmael whom God ordered to be sacrificed and then rescued by the provision of a substitute.

Islam rejects the Mosaic covenant and the name of YHWH, the covenantal name of God.

I do not think that the god that Mohammed forced upon the people is the same god that Abraham worshipped.

Finally, we cannot put Jews and Muslims into the same interfaith boat. The simplew reason is that Christians and Jews worship YHWH. Muslims do not. YHWH, according to Christian belief, was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, died for our sions and rose again.

The Jews do not believe this - yet. But when Christ returns they will see that he was their Messiah all along and all Israel will be saved.
They are still in receipt of the covenantal promises. Ishmael was excluded from the Abrahamic covenant by his replacement by Isaac who became the firstborn, the Son of the Promise. Islam is therefore outside the Old Testament Covenants, they reject the death of Jesus, they reject (obviously) the resurrection and the fact that he was YHWH incarnate.

According to the Apostle John that makes Islam antichrist. That would, incidentally, also apply to Judaism were it not for the fact that they are still God's Elect and they are only blinded temporarily until the time of the Gentiles is complete.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The first commandment tells the Jews that the giver is the God that brought them out of Egypt and they should have no other gods before him. Given that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (and a few other small groups) all think they are worshiping that God, the one that brought the Jews out of Egypt , I would assume on plain reading that an interfaith service involving only those groups is not a violation.

The important word that you missed out is YHWH. It was YHWH who brought them out and the commandment is that we must have no other god but YHWH.

Islam denies that God is called YHWH.

[ 14. December 2013, 08:00: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tommy1, hugorune, welcome to this unrestful cybercommunity.

Thanks

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.

Why would it be a violation?

There is a huge variation among Christians as to how they see God (for example, here on the Ship, there are Christians whose God I simply do not recognise) - yet we are happy to worship with other Christians.

So why not other faiths?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?

I agree. It also spreads confusion among the minds of the faithful, putting the Christian faith on the same level as worshippers of idols and demons.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?
I agree. It also spreads confusion among the minds of the faithful, putting the Christian faith on the same level as worshippers of idols and demons.

And as for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity....!

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That it's a bit daft to think that the God revealed in the New Testament isn't the same one who the Qu'ran and the Torah attempt to reveal. In other words, it rather depends on the faith. If we're talking about participating in rituals to appease Zeus, then you might have a point. If Christians, Muslims and Jews come together to pray and to worship God, that seems entirely in keeping with the first commandment. Otherwise the fact that we do not have a full understanding of God would mean all our worship would violate the first commandment.

This, the very first response on the thread, makes a lot of sense to me...except the first commandment is from the Old Testament; as has been said below, the God of the first commandment is He who brought the Jews out of Egypt, the same God Christians, Jews and Muslims worship...all heirs of Abraham.

The question for Christians is, what about Christ? What difference does our allegiance to him make? As I see it, he revealed more about God, yes; and the same God as revealed in the OT (though sometimes, puzzlingly, seeming a bit different!).
But our understanding about God is still vague, imperfect, and surely far too narrow.

Jesus's major directive was to love God and love our neighbour.
I feel that there's is nothing wrong at all with praying alongside other believers and seekers. As has been said, in so doing, I'm not endorsing their view of God, necessarily (so for me it's fine to pray with Hindus and First Nations as well). I am turning towards God, with them--we are all turning towards the same God, who is far greater than our definitions of "him" --she/it--a being about whom we are still in the dark. Just glimmerings of light...

Jesus "is" God, for Christians--but in a way we still can't put into understandable concepts very well, for our poor human brains. Non-Christians don't see Jesus the same way. But throughout his ministry, Jesus pointed towards God; if we turn to God alongside other seekers, all of us with a slightly different conception of God, all of us probably wrong or seeing only a glimmer of what really Is,
are we really doing anything wrong?

I cannot feel it so. Aren't we all just turning towards "the Divine" ?But this is of course a modern viewpoint.

How things have changed! When I was a very small Catholic, one of the nuns said it was a sin even to step inside a "Protestant" church, far less worship alongside those heretics....

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On the larger point, it's pretty clear that the Bible is opposed to things like religious tolerance or religious pluralism. These are (relatively) modern concepts.

Indeed.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:

Jesus pointed towards God; if we turn to God alongside other seekers, all of us with a slightly different conception of God, all of us probably wrong or seeing only a glimmer of what really Is,
are we really doing anything wrong?

Except he did more than just point to God - as if he were some kind of prophet - he pointed to himself. There is no knowledge of God outside his revelation to us - whether that's through all the OT covenants (not just the Abrahamic one) and ultimately Jesus. Without the sum of these things there is no way to God.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?
I agree. It also spreads confusion among the minds of the faithful, putting the Christian faith on the same level as worshippers of idols and demons.
And as for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity....!

Well, I've never been an ecumenist, at least not in the modern sense.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.
2 Kings 5:18-19:
quote:
But may the Lord forgive your servant [Naaman] for this one thing: when my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also – when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.’ ‘Go in peace,’ Elisha said.
To my mind Naaman is 'taking part in a service of non-Christian worship or prayer', one that's thoroughly pagan, and being expressly allowed to do so by Elisha. I don't expect Croesos will find this embodies religious tolerance or pluralism, nonetheless I think it's an indication that the nature of God, even as we see it in the Old Testament, is more nuanced than simply yelling out violations of the Ten Commandments.

I don't think that passage supports interfaith services at all. In 2 Kings 5:17 he promises not to worship any other gods. In 2 Kings 5:18 he then explains the situation in the temple Rimmon as one where he physically compelled to bow down and even for this he asks for forgiveness.

What Elisha did not say is 'well there's really nothing to forgive, maybe you should try to initiate an interfaith dialogue and try not to be so judgemental'. I don't see how this verse, even when taken out of context can support interfaith worship or prayer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I don't think that passage supports interfaith services at all.

I didn't say it did. I was pointing out that the OT itself is not as binary as you appear to be suggesting - and that the right response might not be either.

quote:
In 2 Kings 5:18 he then explains the situation in the temple Rimmon as one where he physically compelled to bow down and even for this he asks for forgiveness.

My take is that if most of the people I run across who espouse views similar to yours on this were to be confronted with the same situation as Elisha faced with Naaman, they would not have told him to "go in peace" but rather to take a principled stand and quit his job, even at the risk of his life. What would you have advised, and why? After all, is he not supping at the cup of demons or some such?

quote:
What Elisha did not say is 'well there's really nothing to forgive, maybe you should try to initiate an interfaith dialogue and try not to be so judgemental'.

Oh, so you are talking about interfaith dialogue (and not worship) now? Is there a case for one and not for the other?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As some people have pointed out,we already have Christians with varying points of view and beliefs.As mortal humans we do not have the fullness of knowledge of Almighty God.It is indeed our mortal imperfections which have caused us to separate ourselves from others.
There is much we can learn from other Christians and their understandings and much we can learn from followers of other faiths.We can see for example that they have usually the same divisions that Christianity has.
Yes ,indeed Christians recognise Jesus as the Messiah who told us that the essence of his message is that we should love God and our neighbour as ourselves.Jesus was asked once 'Who is my neighbour ?' We must try to see our neighbour in all the other' creatures' who inhabit this planet with us.It is difficult,I know.The Nicene creed teaches us that God is the
maker of heaven and earth ,of all things visible and invisible.We are showing respect to God by showing respect to all of his creatures and their ways of looking at the Universe.Why should we have anything to fear from others if our own faith is strong ?

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.
A violation of what, though?

The First Commandment.

quote:
And we find what your beef really is - you find other religions 'distasteful'.

The reference to distaste was in reply to no prophet's post where he said that 'its not OK to be judgemental' in interfaith dialogue and he extended the point so far that participant should actively suppress not just judgement but even mere distaste.

That doesn't mean that Christians should 'always seek conflict' with followers of other religions but there's a difference between that and nonjudgementalism.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?

A simplistic question that only deserves an simplistic answer.

The answer is no.

The important question is the motivation and purpose of ecumenicism: both between Christians and between Christians and others.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.
Again - how? What, precisely, is the action in which I start worshipping another God? Is the mere fact that I'm NOT storming out in a huff the moment someone else starts praying enough? Or is it something else?

If I may ask is there anything that would cause you to storm out in a huff or at least protest? Let me suggest a possible example. Supposing (and I realise this is unlikely but as a hypothetical situation) there was someone from a fundumentalist Morman sect taking part and he started speaking about the superiority of white people over black people. Would you be OK with that?

If I can ask a similar question to no prophet and hugorune. If you were taking part in a interfaith dialogue and one of the participants started to extol what he saw as the virtues of white supremacy would you still think that 'its not OK to be judgemental'? Would you 'suspend even your distaste'?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the debate about interfaith worship is a healthy and important aspect of interfaith dialogue and is not helped at all by characterising the positions of folks who disagree as idolatrous on the one hand or prejudiced on the other. ...

That's helpful.

I share the same unease as I think Tommy1 is expressing. I also draw the distinction Arethosemyfeet makes between sharing with those who seem to be addressing their worship to the same God as we do - even if we don't agree with their understanding - and those who are addressing their prayers to some other god or idol, be it Zeus, Shiva, Wodin, Lug, 'the Goddess' or whoever.

Even with the other monotheistic faiths that worship the same God as we do, I think it's reasonable to say either that we can share even though we don't share the same revelation of him, or that because we believe in a much greater revelation, that is so incompatible that we can't share.

I don't agree with those who argue that Allah is a different God rather than a revelation of God which as Christians we don't accept and think is misguided.

I would also say three other things:-

1 'Whatever others may do, if you have doubts or are uncomfortable, don't'.

2. 'Don't let yourself be pressurised into doing something you're not happy with just because you're being made to feel it's good for community, social harmony, tolerance or politeness'.

3. 'Be ready to explain yourself but do so politely' (St Peter says something similar at 1 Pet 3:15).

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?
I agree. It also spreads confusion among the minds of the faithful, putting the Christian faith on the same level as worshippers of idols and demons.
And as for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity....!
Well, I've never been an ecumenist, at least not in the modern sense.

So all non-Orthodox (Eastern or Other btw?) Christians worship different gods?

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.
Again - how? What, precisely, is the action in which I start worshipping another God? Is the mere fact that I'm NOT storming out in a huff the moment someone else starts praying enough? Or is it something else?
If I may ask is there anything that would cause you to storm out in a huff or at least protest? Let me suggest a possible example. Supposing (and I realise this is unlikely but as a hypothetical situation) there was someone from a fundumentalist Morman sect taking part and he started speaking about the superiority of white people over black people. Would you be OK with that?

If I can ask a similar question to no prophet and hugorune. If you were taking part in a interfaith dialogue and one of the participants started to extol what he saw as the virtues of white supremacy would you still think that 'its not OK to be judgemental'? Would you 'suspend even your distaste'?

You are missing my point, somewhat. I'm not arguing about whether interfaith services are a good thing, or whether one should attend them. I am simply disputing whether attending an interfaith service, in and of itself, is a violation of the first commandment. You have yet to demonstrate how it could be.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I don't think that passage supports interfaith services at all.
I didn't say it did. I was pointing out that the OT itself is not as binary as you appear to be suggesting - and that the right response might not be either.
quote:
In 2 Kings 5:18 he then explains the situation in the temple Rimmon as one where he physically compelled to bow down and even for this he asks for forgiveness.
My take is that if most of the people I run across who espouse views similar to yours on this were to be confronted with the same situation as Elisha faced with Naaman, they would not have told him to "go in peace" but rather to take a principled stand and quit his job, even at the risk of his life. What would you have advised, and why? After all, is he not supping at the cup of demons or some such?

And did Elisha say that it was OK for Naaman to take part in such services? He did not. He leaves it up to Naaman's conscience. That fact that Naaman asks for forgiveness shows that he knows it is wrong to take part in such services even under compulsion, never mind voluntarily.

quote:

quote:
What Elisha did not say is 'well there's really nothing to forgive, maybe you should try to initiate an interfaith dialogue and try not to be so judgemental'.
Oh, so you are talking about interfaith dialogue (and not worship) now? Is there a case for one and not for the other?

No I was talking about interfaith worship. As for 'interfaith dialogue' the kind of dialogue been advocated here involves non judgementalism about other religions which is not something I could accept.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Did Elisha say that it was OK for Naaman to take part in such services? He did not. He leaves it up to Naaman's conscience.

Precisely. He doesn't say "oi, you're violating the First Commandment". Seems like a great example to follow to me.

We may have our reservations about interfaith worship, but calling people on the basis of the First Commandment doesn't seem like such a good idea. Letting people make a decision on the basis of their conscience sounds a lot better. All the more so in that to my mind, conscience is even more of an important part of the equation under the New Convenant than it was under the Old.

For what it's worth, I personally would probably struggle with playing an active role in an interfaith act of worship. If invited to attend one, I would think carefully about what my motivations were and how my participation (given that I have a recognised ministry position) might be perceived.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I certainly agree that we should not do anything which we feel simply pressurised into doing.
Most Christians feel comfortable worshipping within their own community and their own tradition and there is nothing wrong with that.
Many,but certainly not all Christians have begun to realise that Christians of other traditions can sometimes have something valuable to say to us which enhances,not detracts from our own traditions.In the next 50 years Western Christians will come into closer contact with people of other faiths and have to think about their reactions.Will it be distaste and an increased sense of their own good fortune in possessing the 'Truth',such as WAS the case of the nun,whom Cara mentions ? Or will it be respect,
a willingness to listen and learn and hope that our beliefs will also be respected ?
In my family there were/are Christians with differing points of view with backgrounds from Scotland,England,Ireland and Austria,with use of English and German language.Though it does make me feel less connected with one particular group,religious,nationalistic or linguistic I value the insights which I have from so many sources which make me the committed Catholic Christian which I am.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
You are missing my point, somewhat. I'm not arguing about whether interfaith services are a good thing, or whether one should attend them. I am simply disputing whether attending an interfaith service, in and of itself, is a violation of the first commandment. You have yet to demonstrate how it could be.

Because it is not simple being there observing the service but it is in fact actively taking part in a service that involves the worship of other gods.

I would be interested to here what your answer would be to the question of if you were taking part in such a service and one of the speakers started to advocate white supremacy would you 'storm out in a huff' or at least protest?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Personally I reckon interfaith worship is mostly and eventually a waste of time.

Interfaith co-operation for the common good (charity) is where God is at.

You can even work with atheists on such ground.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

How is white supremacy against the First Commandment (specifically)?

As it happens I was, incognito, in what turned out to be quite a syncretist meeting earlier this week, a lecture on "solidarity and spirituality". The speaker made a number of (to my mind) good and interesting points, but when he got on to explaining how an Amazonian shaman was unequivocally channelling spirits of flowers while painting, I decided it was time to go. However I did not leave in a huff, it was as much that I had other places to be and that I decided I was no longer being edified. If I had been on the same platform I might have voiced my dissent in some form; I would probably have made sure beforehand that the introductory remarks made it clear not all speakers shared the same views. That doesn't stop me engaging with them, much as here.

[ 14. December 2013, 10:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its not a question of simply happening to be in the same area. Its taking part in a service where non Christian worship or prayer is a part of that service. That's the violation.
Again - how? What, precisely, is the action in which I start worshipping another God? Is the mere fact that I'm NOT storming out in a huff the moment someone else starts praying enough? Or is it something else?
If I may ask is there anything that would cause you to storm out in a huff or at least protest? Let me suggest a possible example. Supposing (and I realise this is unlikely but as a hypothetical situation) there was someone from a fundumentalist Morman sect taking part and he started speaking about the superiority of white people over black people. Would you be OK with that?

If I can ask a similar question to no prophet and hugorune. If you were taking part in a interfaith dialogue and one of the participants started to extol what he saw as the virtues of white supremacy would you still think that 'its not OK to be judgemental'? Would you 'suspend even your distaste'?

People that formulate and lead interfaith services would stay well clear of things that would quite obviously cause offense to whatever party.

The whole damn idea is to find common ground.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Did Elisha say that it was OK for Naaman to take part in such services? He did not. He leaves it up to Naaman's conscience.
Precisely. He doesn't say "oi, you're violating the First Commandment". Seems like a great example to follow to me.

I don't think that that argument from silence is a particularly strong one. Naaman already knows that it is wrong to take part in the services. Importantly Elisha does not say that God would forgive Naaman if he did that. Elisha cannot force him to do the right thing and so he leaves the decision up to him.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eutychus: The speaker made a number of (to my mind) good and interesting points, but when he got on to explaining how an Amazonian shaman was unequivocally channelling spirits of flowers while painting, I decided it was time to go.

For a start, this speaker doesn't understand a whole lot about Amazonian indigenous people.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
I would assume on plain reading that an interfaith service involving only those groups is not a violation.
I think the main point of contention is that Christians hold that the God the brought Israel out of Egypt is also Jesus. This is not something held by either Jews or Muslims, and not something most Christians consider a trivial viewpoint.

Most Christians think Jesus was also the God who brought Israel out of Egypt. All Jews and Muslims think Jesus wasn't. Does that mean that when Jews and Christians talk to each other about Jesus they are referring to different people? It doesn't.

Lois Lane knows(*) that Clark Kent is an alien from a different planet who can leap tall buildings at a single bound. Perry Mason thinks Clark Kent is a human being from Smallville. Are they talking about different people?

If someone talks about a socialist Muslim from Kenya is that sufficient to establish that they're not intending to refer to a centrist Christian from Hawaii?

Meaning is established in two ways. There are referential conventions that fix what we're talking about and descriptive conventions that fix what we're saying about it. It is the referential conventions that decide whether two people are talking about the same entity or not. In a sentence like 'Christians believe God is three persons, or God became incarnate as Jesus, whereas Jews and Muslims do not', 'God' is doing the referential work and 'three persons' and 'incarnate as Jesus' are doing descriptive work.

(*) Or does she? Are they still married? Or did they do a deal with the devil to bring Ma Kent back to life? No, that was Spiderman. I lose track. I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

[ 14. December 2013, 10:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How is white supremacy against the First Commandment (specifically)?

It isn't. I just want to see how far this spirit of 'its not OK to be judgemental' extends.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Again - how? What, precisely, is the action in which I start worshipping another God? Is the mere fact that I'm NOT storming out in a huff the moment someone else starts praying enough? Or is it something else?
If I may ask is there anything that would cause you to storm out in a huff or at least protest? Let me suggest a possible example. Supposing (and I realise this is unlikely but as a hypothetical situation) there was someone from a fundumentalist Morman sect taking part and he started speaking about the superiority of white people over black people. Would you be OK with that?

If I can ask a similar question to no prophet and hugorune. If you were taking part in a interfaith dialogue and one of the participants started to extol what he saw as the virtues of white supremacy would you still think that 'its not OK to be judgemental'? Would you 'suspend even your distaste'?
People that formulate and lead interfaith services would stay well clear of things that would quite obviously cause offense to whatever party.

The whole damn idea is to find common ground.

So whilst white supremacism would cause offence worshipping other gods causes no offence. Is that right?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I feel like I've been around the theological and religious houses so much that I don't even recognise myself any more, never mind able to think clearly about what I think about religion.

My bottom line (I think) is that if worship exists, what goes on in churches, synogogues and mosques (etc) isn't it. So interfaith worship might be a lot of things, but worship isn't one of those.

And I suppose I'm concerned that in an effort to be polite, people who actually believe entirely different things will sit and tacitly accept a whole bunch of things that they couldn't or wouldn't normally. That seems to me to be contradictory, if not immoral.

But then I also essentially think the same thing about ecumenical services - I'm thinking to myself 'these people don't all believe in the same stuff, so why are they trying to push themselves into the same box?'

An interfaith (or ecumencial) discussion seems to me to be a completely different thing to (as far as I see it) mashing together a bunch of different religious rites and creating something which is unpalatable to everyone.

The only people who can surely think it is acceptable are those, like me, who think it doesn't mean anything anyway!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with Eutychus.

If you look at the example of Elisha and Namaan the Leper ... Namaan goes on to do all sorts of things that wouldn't necessarily 'fit' with the Jewish way of doing things ... he even wanted to take some Israelite soil back home with him because he assumed it had some intrinsically spiritual quality ...

Did Elisha stop him and say, 'No, you've got it all wrong?'

Now, it seems to me that the God of Israel Isaac and Jacob was secure enough to meet the Syrian general where he was 'at' - although the bathing in the Jordan was clearly an object lesson.

The same applies with the Apostle Paul with the Athenians. He sees the statue to an Unknown God yet he doesn't denounce their idolatory or tell them that they're worshipping demons and so on ... no, far from it - rather he says, 'What you worship as Unknown, I now declare to you ...'

Now, that doesn't mean for a moment that he was tolerating paganism or saying that it was ok for pagans to remain the way they were.

But he, Elisha and, it would seem, YHWH himself was not as binary and literalist about these matters as some of the posters here. They know who they are.

For myself, I wouldn't want to engage in multi-faith/interfaith worship but I'd have no problem engaging in interfaith dialogue with Jews, Muslims, anyone else.

When it comes to worship services, though, I would prefer to restrict myself to Trinitarian worship contexts. That doesn't mean I wouldn't attend a service of some religion other than Christianity but I wouldn't participate in the way that I would if, say, I were visiting a church of any Trinitarian denomination.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Naaman already knows that it is wrong to take part in the services. Importantly Elisha does not say that God would forgive Naaman if he did that. Elisha cannot force him to do the right thing and so he leaves the decision up to him.

My point in quoting that passage was that it is evidence of room, even in the OT, for tolerance with regard to other religions. 'Go in peace' might not be clear forgiveness, but it's certainly not the outright condemnation you might expect, and I don't think this example is a lone one.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How is white supremacy against the First Commandment (specifically)?
It isn't. I just want to see how far this spirit of 'its not OK to be judgemental' extends.

By and large, in the NT it seems to me that the people attempting to wield the Ten Commandments in judgement are the Pharisees, and I think Jesus thinks they are "not OK".

The NT also indicates that disagreeing with others' beliefs or practices is not always grounds for confrontation. Paul didn't berate the Athenians for violating the First Commandment, he commended them (perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but still) for being very religious.

[x-post with Gamaliel]

[ 14. December 2013, 11:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"In yer face".

Sometimes it is necessary to take a stand against attitudes and behaviour with which we fundamentally disagree.

With beliefs, I think the position is different. I heard a Muslim academic talk with very great sense this morning about meetings involving folks of different faiths. (Radio 4). However I might disagree with his beliefs, he demonstrated a good deal of wisdom and charity in discussing a difficult issue. His beliefs, whatever they were, did not seem to have poisoned his attitudes and behaviour towards folks who were different.

Personally, I tend to avoid "in yer face" assertions. I learned a long time ago that the best form of confrontation is to ask a question which confronts the issue head on. Questions do not judge, rather they confront others with the prospect of judging themselves. That works pretty well over racism, for example. " Do you think MLK was right to look forward to a world where his children were judged by the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin?" That sort of thing works pretty well IME.

There is a brilliant example in "Twelve Angry Men" of the power of that kind of questioning.

[ 14. December 2013, 12:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Twelve Angry Men is one of my favourite films! I can never decide, though, whether that was an example of justice or a failure. In the end the main character succeeds by wearing down his opposition rather than by having a better argument.

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

Like Socrates - did he really not know anything, or was he just saying that so he could get away with cleverly tying others in philosophical knots?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

If you look at the example of Elisha and Namaan the Leper ... Namaan goes on to do all sorts of things that wouldn't necessarily 'fit' with the Jewish way of doing things ...

So did Jesus - he taught the spirit of the law, not the letter.

He even broke the fourth commandment to the dismay of the Pharisees.

I doubt he'd have seen Interfaith worship/dialogue/co-operation as breaking the first!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

I have lots of gumption to say what I think - far too much. So, when the subject is very sensitive and important, like racist attitudes, I use the questioning approach - in order to have more chance of making them think and winning them over.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That it's a bit daft to think that the God revealed in the New Testament isn't the same one who the Qu'ran and the Torah attempt to reveal.
I'm not so sure you can reconcile the trinitarian, incarnate God of the Christians with the unitary, non-incarnate deity worshiped by Jews and Muslims. Those are some pretty big differences to overlook if you're going to claim they're the same entity.

On the larger point, it's pretty clear that the Bible is opposed to things like religious tolerance or religious pluralism. These are (relatively) modern concepts.

Oh, I don't know. The books of Daniel and Jonah certainly paint a picture of Hebrew monotheism being part of a much wider religious (and sometimes even missionary) dialogue with the surrounding Pagan nations.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

And I can only think of one interfaith act of worship in the OT and that one was rather... tense.

However, I do't think Elijah broke any commandments simply by being with the blast radius of a Pagan prayer.

[ 14. December 2013, 12:31: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Naaman already knows that it is wrong to take part in the services. Importantly Elisha does not say that God would forgive Naaman if he did that. Elisha cannot force him to do the right thing and so he leaves the decision up to him.
My point in quoting that passage was that it is evidence of room, even in the OT, for tolerance with regard to other religions. 'Go in peace' might not be clear forgiveness, but it's certainly not the outright condemnation you might expect, and I don't think this example is a lone one.

I think that's stretching the argument from silence to read far more into the passage than is actually there.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus: How is white supremacy against the First Commandment (specifically)?
It isn't. I just want to see how far this spirit of 'its not OK to be judgemental' extends.
By and large, in the NT it seems to me that the people attempting to wield the Ten Commandments in judgement are the Pharisees, and I think Jesus thinks they are "not OK". The NT also indicates that disagreeing with others' beliefs or practices is not always grounds for confrontation. Paul didn't berate the Athenians for violating the First Commandment, he commended them (perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but still) for being very religious.

He didn't 'commend' them for being very religious. He noted that they were. There's nothing there to suggest he meant that as a commendation. He also bereated them for violating the Second Commandment. There's no reason to suppose that he didn't also berate them for them for breaking the First. To assert that he didn't simply because Acts doesn't mention it is I'm afraid stretching the argument from silence.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

I have lots of gumption to say what I think - far too much. So, when the subject is very sensitive and important, like racist attitudes, I use the questioning approach - in order to have more chance of making them think and winning them over.

And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

I have lots of gumption to say what I think - far too much. So, when the subject is very sensitive and important, like racist attitudes, I use the questioning approach - in order to have more chance of making them think and winning them over.

I hope you'll not mind me saying that this seems a little.. dishonest. I wish I could think of a milder term.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

I have lots of gumption to say what I think - far too much. So, when the subject is very sensitive and important, like racist attitudes, I use the questioning approach - in order to have more chance of making them think and winning them over.
I hope you'll not mind me saying that this seems a little.. dishonest. I wish I could think of a milder term.

You don't need to think of a milder term. But why dishonest?

I curb my natural tendencies (to steamroller in/say my piece) when the subject is important to me, simply so as not to put people off the message by the messenger being over confident.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I suppose I feel a bit uncomfortable to be in a situation where someone feels strongly about something but isn't able to articulate directly about it. Questioning in this way seems indirect, as if you really are not sure either and are exploring with the person you are questioning about the right approach to take.

If you actually know the right answer, then you are just testing the questionee to see if they can ever arrive at your predetermined conclusion. Like Socrates (perhaps).

Which, as I say, seems a little dishonest. I don't quite know how else to explain it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think questioning can be a clever device where one tries to assert one's own position without having the gumption to actually accept that is what you really think.

I have lots of gumption to say what I think - far too much. So, when the subject is very sensitive and important, like racist attitudes, I use the questioning approach - in order to have more chance of making them think and winning them over.
And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?

I'd walk out. In fact, I've done that. It's a different situation because there is no immediate prospect of dialogue.

In "Twelve Angry Men" there is also a scene where a juror is expressing racist attitudes. One by one, the other jurors get up from the table and turn their backs on him. There are ways and means.

pydseybare, welcome to you, too. Confrontational questioning isn't ducking issues. Assertion very often is. The issue being ducked is whether the other person will bother to listen to the assertion in the first place. Peoples' minds are rarely changed by a simple assertion of a contrary viewpoint. There has to be some groundwork in the relationship or the dialogue.

If you are really lucky, a confrontational question may provoke another question. "Well, what do you think?" A willingness to listen opens many doors which shouting closes. That's not cowardly or crafty, that's wise.

[ 14. December 2013, 13:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I'm much more comfortable with people who are direct rather than those who are using Socratic questioning. But y'know, we're all different.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
It seems obvious to me that interfaith services, interfaith worship and interfaith prayer are all violations of the First Commandment. What do other people think?
I agree. It also spreads confusion among the minds of the faithful, putting the Christian faith on the same level as worshippers of idols and demons.
And as for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity....!
Well, I've never been an ecumenist, at least not in the modern sense.
So all non-Orthodox (Eastern or Other btw?) Christians worship different gods?

I never said that. I thought this thread was about non-Christian religions? We do pray for unity, but for us it would mean all Christians confessing the orthodox faith.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?

I know exactly how I'd react - because it has happened!

A long time ago at our Church (Methodist) a Local Preacher included two racist comments in his sermon. I talked to him about it afterwards, and our Church complained to his supervisor.

I assume that your point is that even liberals draw the line somewhere. But you are not comparing like with like. Our beliefs about God are in a different category from the way we treat other people.

Racist attitudes lead to racist actions.

Differing beliefs about God are just that - differing beliefs about God. Like I said earlier, few Christians agree on God's Character, never mind other faiths. It doesn't mean we can't worship her together or speak about what we believe about her together.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Another thought: I don't think I'm talking about assertion (I might have said that, but maybe not what I meant on reflection).

An assertion might be: that, my friend, was racist.
The Socratic questioning might be: woa there, my friend, isn't that a racist thing to say?

I guess I'm just saying I'd be more comfortable if people said it straight: I think that is racist and bad and wrong - for these reasons..

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I suppose I feel a bit uncomfortable to be in a situation where someone feels strongly about something but isn't able to articulate directly about it. Questioning in this way seems indirect, as if you really are not sure either and are exploring with the person you are questioning about the right approach to take.

If you actually know the right answer, then you are just testing the questionee to see if they can ever arrive at your predetermined conclusion. Like Socrates (perhaps).

Which, as I say, seems a little dishonest. I don't quite know how else to explain it.

I don't believe there are any 'right' answers when it comes to faith.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

How then can you determine the racist? You must have some way you are using to measure/weigh the things you hear. If it was entirely subjective, you'd not be able to complain about it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
How then can you determine the racist? You must have some way you are using to measure/weigh the things you hear. If it was entirely subjective, you'd not be able to complain about it.

Sorry - I'm getting mixed up here!

Racism certainly isn't about faith as far as I can see.

But this often happened to me in the staff room at school in the 1970s. I found that dialogue was a much better way to change minds than saying 'you are wrong'. I would question them and chat about my upbringing and often discovered their racism grew out of fear and ignorance. They came round, but it took time - years in some cases. I didn't fall out with them over it.

(I was brought up in the 1960s in apartheid South Africa, my Dad worked in Soweto. He often broke the laws.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm much more comfortable with people who are direct rather than those who are using Socratic questioning. But y'know, we're all different.

Fine. Because we're not all the same, because some folks are more sensitive to criticism than others, it's a good idea to bear that in mind when discussing hot button issues. Go carefully is a decent strategy. Not suggesting anything about you, in fact I appreciate directness and straightforwardness, but there is a saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Best to know folks better.

Boogie, you raise another issue. The church I walked out of was one I was visiting, not the one I belong to. In the latter case you have means other than simple protest by action. I liked your solution.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I don't think there are 'faith' issues and a different category for everything else.

Hence I'd say racism was as much a 'faith' issue as any other belief. I also think that the type of 'faith' that most people have (and here I'm talking generally rather than particularly and exclusively religious) cannot be interrogated by logic.

Hence it doesn't much help to try to argue someone out of racism. Or any other faith.

And, I think the converse is also true: you cannot argue someone into an absurd, alogical (as it were) faith position using the methods of logic. Square peg, round hole.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I think that's stretching the argument from silence to read far more into the passage than is actually there.

You are having to read quite a lot into the passage yourself in order to get around the "go in peace".

The fact remains that Naaman was not smitten for taking this line, and that there are plenty of other examples of at least tolerance of other faiths in the OT, as Gamaliel has hinted. That doesn't make Naaman's position wholly justified, but to my mind it means we should be hesitant before becoming too judgemental ourselves.

quote:
There's no reason to suppose that he didn't also berate them for them for breaking the First. To assert that he didn't simply because Acts doesn't mention it is I'm afraid stretching the argument from silence.

Similarly, to assert that he did even though Acts doesn't mention it is an argument from silence!

The fact is that Paul was willing to engage with the Athenians on their own terms.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I can only think of one interfaith act of worship in the OT and that one was rather... tense.
...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Heh heh ...

Surely, as with much else, it's both/and not either/or ...

My two penn'orth would be that Tommy1 has probably read far more into Eutychus's posts than Eutychus may have intended ... but then I've been around longer here and 'know' Eutychus (at least online ...)

I don't think that either Eutychus or myself are reading too much into the story about Naaman. In fact, the more I've read it recently, the more nuanced I've realised the story actually is ... but it's not a direct analogy to contemporary interfaith worship and so on any more than daronmedway's more explosive example of Elijah and the prophets of Baal is ...

I'd fight shy of interfaith worship ... it wouldn't be my bag at all.

Nor is anyone suggesting - at least neither Eutychus nor myself are - that it would have been the apostle Paul's bag nor Elisha's.

This has got nothing to do with arguing from the silences of scripture but everything to do with a good, close reading of the text.

And there's more nuance in the text than some people allow.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I've always wondered if Samaritans were considered co-religious with the Jews or another blasphemous belief.

If the latter, then don't we have a model of interfaith relations in the gospels? I'd think that is rather more relevant than pointing to Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I've always wondered if Samaritans were considered co-religious with the Jews or another blasphemous belief.

If the latter, then don't we have a model of interfaith relations in the gospels? I'd think that is rather more relevant than pointing to Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

No, Jesus put that one to bed when he told the samaritan woman that the samaritans were wromng about their religion and that 'salvation is of the Jews' - i.e. there is no salvation in Samaritanism (sic)

I have also been considering the interfaith dialogue of Elijah. That great interfaith gathering atop the mountain seems to be the clincher - 'Choose ye this day whom ye will serve - if YHWH is God serve him, if Ba'al is God, serve him.'

It could never be both together.
I love the word picture that Elijah gives - why halt ye between two opinions? It's the picture of a bird trying to balance on two independently moving branches at once. You have to stand with both feet on one branch - and inevitably, one of them is the wrong branch!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, we don't have examples of interfaith worship in the Gospels, but we do have Gentiles being 'rewarded' as it were for their faith ...

'Truly I say to you, I have not seen such faith in Israel ...' Matt: 8:5-13.

Then you've got Cornelius in Acts 10 - he's not 'saved by works' but it's interesting that his acts on behalf of the Jewish community do get a mention ... a bit like the Jewish 'righteous Gentile' concept I suppose.

In the OT there's the example of Ruth ... and in Jeremiah, I think it is, we have the Rechabites commended for their actions and behaviour even though they're not strictly kosher ...

Then there's the whole 'wider hope' thing we find hinted at in Romans 2 - those who have, as it were, 'the law unto themselves.'

Sure, there are the Commandments as Tommy1 reminds us - and there is the witness of both Testaments to there being only one true God ... but we are dealing with a just and gracious God who does not treat us as our sins deserve but according to his great grace and mercy.

I'm happy to leave blurred edges and not to make the kind of rigid distinctions between common grace and saving grace that daronmedway appears to ... and I won't rehearse the reasons for that here save to suggest that it's all very medieval and Scholastic to do so ...

[Razz]

There are plenty of hints in both the OT and NT that God's interest in humanity is wider than particular groups nor restricted simply to the household of faith.

That doesn't mean that all options and choices are equally valid, of course.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So if the Good Samaritan was a real person then, Mudfrog and not an example used in a parable, then he would have gone to hell because he was not Jewish?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I was thinking of the occasion when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4: 21-24 to be exact.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, we don't have examples of interfaith worship in the Gospels, but we do have Gentiles being 'rewarded' as it were for their faith ...

'Truly I say to you, I have not seen such faith in Israel ...' Matt: 8:5-13.

Oh Mr Gamaliel - look at the context and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. The centurion who displayed faith not seen in Israel, was, according to Luke, someone who loved Israel, built the synagogue and in all likelihood was a God-fearer.

This is entirely different to commenting favourable on the supposed-faithful adherence to the tenets of another religion that actively rejects the revelation of YHWH throughout the Old and New Testaments.

It's one thing to believe sincerely in one's own faith - even if it is wrong - it is entirely another to disregard or attack the Christian faith whilst still hoping to be accepted by it.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Presumably, Mudfrog, Jesus had at least the power of Elijah. Do you not think it is instructive how he met and related to people who were not Jewish?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was thinking of the occasion when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4: 21-24 to be exact.

as was I - and I referred to it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, we don't have examples of interfaith worship in the Gospels, but we do have Gentiles being 'rewarded' as it were for their faith ...

'Truly I say to you, I have not seen such faith in Israel ...' Matt: 8:5-13.
Oh Mr Gamaliel - look at the context and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. The centurion who displayed faith not seen in Israel, was, according to Luke, someone who loved Israel, built the synagogue and in all likelihood was a God-fearer.

This is entirely different to commenting favourable on the supposed-faithful adherence to the tenets of another religion that actively rejects the revelation of YHWH throughout the Old and New Testaments.

It's one thing to believe sincerely in one's own faith - even if it is wrong - it is entirely another to disregard or attack the Christian faith whilst still hoping to be accepted by it.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was thinking of the occasion when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4: 21-24 to be exact.
as was I - and I referred to it.

Excuse me, please explain how you refered to John 4:20 and 21 because your previous comment referred to something which is not in those verses.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Presumably, Mudfrog, Jesus had at least the power of Elijah. Do you not think it is instructive how he met and related to people who were not Jewish?

Indeed. He turned them towards the truth

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was thinking of the occasion when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4: 21-24 to be exact.
as was I - and I referred to it.
Excuse me, please explain how you refered to John 4:20 and 21 because your previous comment referred to something which is not in those verses.

Well not those 2 verses, but in part of that episode where Jesus told the woman about worshipping in spirit and in truth. Salvation is of the Jews - the Samaritans worship what they don't know, he said. It's verses 22 and 23

[ 14. December 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whoops ...

I didn't do that right ...

Let's try again ...

Yes, I know the Centurion was a God-fearer - a proselyte to the Jewish faith from a Gentile background so he's not quite the same thing as a 'righteous Gentile' but a Gentile who is becoming or had become Jewish ...

Cornelius seems to have been in the former category though.

Don't start lecturing me about using scripture to interpret scripture yadda yadda yadda until you realise that how you interpret scripture is based on your tradition's interpretation of scripture in the same way as everyone else's is.

Your interpretation is no more a 'pure' and unadulterated interpretation as anyone else's.

How about those in Romans 2 - who have, as it were, the 'law unto themselves'? They might not even be aware of the Jewish faith let alone the Christian one.

And who is saying anything about people who are sworn enemies of the gospel and so on? I'm not.

You're in binary land again.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops ...

I didn't do that right ...

Let's try again ...

Yes, I know the Centurion was a God-fearer - a proselyte to the Jewish faith from a Gentile background so he's not quite the same thing as a 'righteous Gentile' but a Gentile who is becoming or had become Jewish ...

Cornelius seems to have been in the former category though.

Don't start lecturing me about using scripture to interpret scripture yadda yadda yadda until you realise that how you interpret scripture is based on your tradition's interpretation of scripture in the same way as everyone else's is.

Your interpretation is no more a 'pure' and unadulterated interpretation as anyone else's.

How about those in Romans 2 - who have, as it were, the 'law unto themselves'? They might not even be aware of the Jewish faith let alone the Christian one.

And who is saying anything about people who are sworn enemies of the gospel and so on? I'm not.

You're in binary land again.

Romans 2 is about how people are judged, not how they are saved. People are judged according to their own standards if they don't accept God's. The problem is that we fail even our own standards too so there is no excuse.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?
I'd walk out. In fact, I've done that. It's a different situation because there is no immediate prospect of dialogue.

Well if you were in a service where a speaker started praying to Krishna or whoever would you also walk out? After all there's no immediate prospect of dialogue there either.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

well I'm sorry, I don't see that Jesus' gentle discussion with the Samaritan woman has anything to do with Elijah and the Baalites. And, according to John 4:21-23, Jesus is not into destroying the 'wrong' Samaritan religion on behalf of the almighty and all-powerful but is saying that even the 'correct' form of religious Judaism is wrong.

True religion is in spirit and truth, not in form, place and correctness.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't think there are 'faith' issues and a different category for everything else.

Hence I'd say racism was as much a 'faith' issue as any other belief. I also think that the type of 'faith' that most people have (and here I'm talking generally rather than particularly and exclusively religious) cannot be interrogated by logic.

Hence it doesn't much help to try to argue someone out of racism. Or any other faith.

And, I think the converse is also true: you cannot argue someone into an absurd, alogical (as it were) faith position using the methods of logic. Square peg, round hole.

I think there are some category errors in that argument. Bias is normal and what we refer to as racial prejudice is, these days, more likely to be an entrenched, rather than an unthinking, form of bias.

In general, the more entrenched an irrationality, the harder it is to use argument to enable some modification of the irrationality. The extreme examples in religion are generally associated with cults operating on the edges of, or within, mainstream belief.

Everyone has biases and blind spots about them. And everyone has the capacity to learn and move on. It's just that some folks are in deeper holes than others. Harder to reach. It's never wrong to try, though sometimes we may not have much hope of movement. Still, you can be surprised. People often think change is impossible until it happens. Now where have I heard that before?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think all religion is irrational and absurd. If you can prove it, then it isn't a belief.

There are different categories of knowledge. Some cannot be interrogated by logic (and science).

That doesn't make them right (nor wrong, of course).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Romans 2 is about how people are judged and about their own standards and so on. But it doesn't say what the outcome of this judgement will be when the thoughts and secrets of their hearts are revealed ...

We can speculate that Cornelius may have been an 'affiliate' or 'God-fearer' of some kind on the basis of Acts 10:22 - 'a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews.'

We have no idea how 'sound' he was or otherwise when he prayed and fasted but we do know that his prayer was heard and that his alms were 'remembered in the sight of God' - Acts 10:30.

Whether that means that his works, his acts, contributed to his subsequent salvation is, of course, rejected by those who would hold to a Protestant evangelical soteriology ... but I see no reason why we should baulk at that necessarily. The scriptures don't tell us how it 'worked' in that instance.

It seems unduly reductionist to me to become overly prescriptive on some of these issues.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I think that's stretching the argument from silence to read far more into the passage than is actually there.
You are having to read quite a lot into the passage yourself in order to get around the "go in peace".

The fact remains that Naaman was not smitten for taking this line

What line? He doesn't say that such an action is acceptable. He asks if he will be forgiven for taking part in pagan worship under duress. He gets no direct reply. What he does not do is assert that he should be forgiven for doing this or that it is not a sin.

quote:

quote:
There's no reason to suppose that he didn't also berate them for them for breaking the First. To assert that he didn't simply because Acts doesn't mention it is I'm afraid stretching the argument from silence.
Similarly, to assert that he did even though Acts doesn't mention it is an argument from silence!

I didn't assert that he did. You asserted "Paul didn't berate the Athenians for violating the First Commandment" and I have pointed out that the passage proves nothing of the sort.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I assume that your point is that even liberals draw the line somewhere.

Exactly.

quote:
But you are not comparing like with like. Our beliefs about God are in a different category from the way we treat other people. Racist attitudes lead to racist actions.

All kinds of beliefs lead to action. For example belief in false gods leads to worship of false gods.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think all religion is irrational and absurd. If you can prove it, then it isn't a belief.

That's why it's a faith. Abstract concepts don't have to be irrational, or absurd - internally consistent perhaps, but certainly not provable by the scientific method.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
He doesn't say that such an action is acceptable. He asks if he will be forgiven for taking part in pagan worship under duress. He gets no direct reply.

Naaman is told "go in peace" (not: "that's up to you"). Which suggests that even if his behaviour was a sin (in the sense of "falling short"), it is not behaviour that immediately requires Elisha to condemn him. Other issues were involved, and invariably are when the issue of interfaith worship, or dialogue, come up today. The context is important.

quote:
You asserted "Paul didn't berate the Athenians for violating the First Commandment" and I have pointed out that the passage proves nothing of the sort.

As Gamaliel has pointed out, Paul goes on to say that he will reveal to them the God they have been worshipping unawares. That seems hard to square with the idea that he'd also told them they'd broken the First Commandment, and supposing that he did is, as I pointed out, an argument from silence.

[ 14. December 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Confused]

This is all beginning to sound like the Donatist controversy. They were purists and took a hard line on those Christians who had toed the line and venerated the Emporer etc etc during times of persecution. So much so that they wouldn't allow them back into fellowship once the persecution had past ...

I think I'm right is saying that they wanted them to be re-baptised first ... whereas the orthodox line was that they should be readmitted even if they had apostasised under duress.

Whatever the case, the incident with Naaman isn't suggesting that it is right to worship false gods and so on. I don't think anyone here is suggesting such a thing. I'm not, nor is Eutychus.

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable engaging in interfaith worship. I've already said that. But I'd feel perfectly comfortable engaging in interfaith dialogue.

Equally, I can't see what the problem would be if I visited a temple and people were praying to Krishna, as long as I wasn't expected to pray to Krishna.

Would I therefore believe that it is legitimate for prayers to be offered to Krishna and to Christ in one and the same service? No, I wouldn't.

Would I sit in judgement on those who thought that it was ok? I might disapprove but I wouldn't condemn them. That's none of my business and it's a question of their own conscience.

I don't really see what the issue is unless it's a situation I'm faced with myself or in the context of groups/churches I might be involved with. At the moment, none of them are involved with interfaith worship as far as I know.

As for whether it's right for representatives of other faiths to be present at state occasions such as weddings and so on where there is a Christian service of worship - well, that's for the individuals participating to judge for themselves.

I'd be more than happy to attend a Hindu wedding or an Islamic wedding or any other kind of wedding if I were invited. Does that mean that I'd be worshipping false gods?

I don't see how that follows unless I actively engaged in the prayers/rituals and so on.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?
I'd walk out. In fact, I've done that. It's a different situation because there is no immediate prospect of dialogue.
Well if you were in a service where a speaker started praying to Krishna or whoever would you also walk out? After all there's no immediate prospect of dialogue there either.

Already explained that. The Person to whom the prayer is directed may be being perceived partially, or in error, by the person praying. The content of the prayer may be something to which I can say Amen.

A Hindu, or a Sikh, or a Muslim, or a Jew, is just as able to offer up prayers of thanksgiving for the life and service of someone who has died, or petition for peace and reconciliation, as I am. I do not presume that their prayers will not be heard by God, simply because they may be, in my terms, misdirected.

The common ground of departure from the prayer and the white supremacist preach is the invoking of the divine in support of an evil cause. I can't say Amen to such prayers, no matter the religious beliefs of the person concerned.

Now of course you may argue that there is evil intent endemic in certain religions and therefore one should not trust any utterance by anyone who favours such religions. "The Devil is not to be believed, even when he is speaking the truth." There is always that danger. But basically, I am a person of goodwill, happy to give credit and affirmation to loving words and deeds, whoever speaks or does them. Let God judge the rest.

[ 14. December 2013, 16:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Amen.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Dunno. Is one not somehow assenting to a religious practice by turning up?

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
He doesn't say that such an action is acceptable. He asks if he will be forgiven for taking part in pagan worship under duress. He gets no direct reply.
Naaman is told "go in peace" (not: "that's up to you"). Which suggests that even if his behaviour was a sin (in the sense of "falling short"), it is not behaviour that immediately requires Elisha to condemn him.

Firstly hos action at this point is to ask forgiveness rather than the act of worship itself. Secondly this is a rather thin foundation on which to justify interfaith services 'suggests' 'even if his behaviour' (i.e. asking forgiveness for possibly worshipping other gods in the future under duress)

quote:

quote:
You asserted "Paul didn't berate the Athenians for violating the First Commandment" and I have pointed out that the passage proves nothing of the sort.
As Gamaliel has pointed out, Paul goes on to say that he will reveal to them the God they have been worshipping unawares. That seems hard to square with the idea that he'd also told them they'd broken the First Commandment,

Except that 'THE UNKNOWN GOD' referred to was one of a number of gods. So there is no contradiction there.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
this is a rather thin foundation on which to justify interfaith services

I haven't been trying to, and if you read back you'll see I have my own reservations about them. What this passage adds from my perspective is the insight that some degree of tolerance to other faiths already existed in the OT, and that approaching interfaith issues calls for more to be brought into play than a simple tick box list based on the Ten Commandments.

quote:
Except that 'THE UNKNOWN GOD' referred to was one of a number of gods. So there is no contradiction there.

I would have thought there was with polytheism though. But I think you have yet to tell us exactly how you think interfaith worship breaks the First Commandment.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... if you were in a service where a speaker started praying to Krishna or whoever would you also walk out? After all there's no immediate prospect of dialogue there either.

Well, there's actually a lot of potential for quite an interesting dialogue, since Krishna is an in incarnation of Vishnu, second-person of a Hindu trinity. As I understand it, in theory, a Hindu could choose devotion to Jesus as a path, and it would be just as valid as devotion to Krishna. I don't assent to all Hindu ideas about life, the universe and everything, but despite the fact that Hinduism is often depicted as polytheistic, they know that God is One and they worship that One. If they choose to do so through Krishna, that's not offensive to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
All kinds of beliefs lead to action. For example belief in false gods leads to worship of false gods.

Not necessarily, as C.S. Lewis argues in The Last Battle, it is possible to worship a true God falsely and to worship a false God in a spirit of Truth and Love.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Dunno. Is one not somehow assenting to a religious practice by turning up?

Not necessarily, I'd have thought. The Phelps's attend various stuff but don't assent to much of it (though in some aspects their presence is assertion that to them 'gay marriage' is a thing even if they deny it as being 'real marriage'*).

In that context even staying away in someways is an assent of a kind. It definitely is potentially a denial of much more than the things you actually want to deny.

[And at that point you have at least a region of non-affirming 'ok' attendance, and that makes the acceptability of the more intermediary ones non trivial]

*sorry if I've skimmed to close to the dead horse it seemed the simplest example.

[ 14. December 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if white supremacist attitudes were expressed not simply in an interfaith dialogue but by a speaker at a service. How might you react?
I know exactly how I'd react - because it has happened!

A long time ago at our Church (Methodist) a Local Preacher included two racist comments in his sermon. I talked to him about it afterwards, and our Church complained to his supervisor.

It might help to clarify things a little if I ask, what exactly were the comments in question? And if I can ask Barnabas62 what were the comments that prompted him to walk out?

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
this is a rather thin foundation on which to justify interfaith services
I haven't been trying to, and if you read back you'll see I have my own reservations about them. What this passage adds from my perspective is the insight that some degree of tolerance to other faiths already existed in the OT, and that approaching interfaith issues calls for more to be brought into play than a simple tick box list based on the Ten Commandments.

I wouldn't disagree with showing some degree of tolerance but tolerance is not the same thing as approval and the point I'm making is that interfaith services (and nonjudgemental interfaith dialogue as well) indicate approval.

quote:

quote:
Except that 'THE UNKNOWN GOD' referred to was one of a number of gods. So there is no contradiction there.
I would have thought there was with polytheism though. But I think you have yet to tell us exactly how you think interfaith worship breaks the First Commandment.

Because interfaith services involves indicating approval.

[fixed code]

[ 14. December 2013, 18:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if I can ask Barnabas62 what were the comments that prompted him to walk out?

That's relatively easy. It was the invocation of certain OT scriptures in support of the white supremacist solution and separate development. There are scriptures which can be, and have been, used this way. It is an abuse of truth.

It's probably fair to say also that I didn't know what I was walking into; I went with a friend who was intrigued by this particular congregation. These days, I'd do more research! The incident happened about thirty years ago in the UK during a visit to that friend.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think you're missing the point Tommy1. Do you think that the prayers prayed by Muslims are directed at a different being to those prayed by Christians? What about Jews? Are prayers prayed by Catholics directed at someone different from those prayed by Protestants? What about Mormons? If anything their understanding of the nature of God is further from Christianity than that of Islam. What about Oneness Pentecostals? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarians? All anti-Trinitarian, so don't believe the same things about God. Have you carefully vetted those with whom you pray to make sure that they have an orthodox understanding of the trinity and don't hold to any heretical beliefs?

I really see no problem with acknowledging that Muslims and Christians both, for example, consider God to be merciful and compassionate, nor in together offering a prayer to God in thanks for his mercy and compassion. It's not something I'd go out of my way to organise it, but I don't see it as a violation of the first commandment.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if I can ask Barnabas62 what were the comments that prompted him to walk out?
That's relatively easy. It was the invocation of certain OT scriptures in support of the white supremacist solution and separate development. There are scriptures which can be, and have been, used this way. It is an abuse of truth.

So you walked out when you heard what you condidered to be an offensive false doctrine. The point therefore is you do not consider the worship of false gods to be offensive false doctrine.

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you're missing the point Tommy1. Do you think that the prayers prayed by Muslims are directed at a different being to those prayed by Christians? What about Jews? Are prayers prayed by Catholics directed at someone different from those prayed by Protestants? What about Mormons? If anything their understanding of the nature of God is further from Christianity than that of Islam. What about Oneness Pentecostals? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarians? All anti-Trinitarian, so don't believe the same things about God. Have you carefully vetted those with whom you pray to make sure that they have an orthodox understanding of the trinity and don't hold to any heretical beliefs?

I really see no problem with acknowledging that Muslims and Christians both, for example, consider God to be merciful and compassionate, nor in together offering a prayer to God in thanks for his mercy and compassion. It's not something I'd go out of my way to organise it, but I don't see it as a violation of the first commandment.

I wouldn't say any anti-Trinitarian religion worshiped the God of Christianity.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if I can ask Barnabas62 what were the comments that prompted him to walk out?
That's relatively easy. It was the invocation of certain OT scriptures in support of the white supremacist solution and separate development. There are scriptures which can be, and have been, used this way. It is an abuse of truth.
So you walked out when you heard what you condidered to be an offensive false doctrine. The point therefore is you do not consider the worship of false gods to be offensive false doctrine.

Do you remember that during the recent Egyptian revolution, Coptic Christians formed human shields so that Muslims could pray, and vice versa?

Do you feel it would have been better for both groups to have started shouting "you worship a false god!" at each other?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

So, Tommy1, do you vet the congregation on a Sunday morning to check for orthodox Trinitarian beliefs? Do you insist on a recitation of the Athanasian creed at every service just so you can weed out any Modalists, Subordinationists, Arians, Semi-Arians, Adoptionists, Servetists? If not, you've clearly been breaking the first commandment yourself. As have, incidentally, all Jews since Moses came down the mountain with the tablets. Which is a fairly bizarre position to take.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
So you walked out when you heard what you condidered to be an offensive false doctrine. The point therefore is you do not consider the worship of false gods to be offensive false doctrine.

The one does not follow from the other. Again, context makes a difference.

Being in a service in a church describing itself as Christian and hearing false doctrine from the pulpit, to which the church in question is giving tacit assent if it remains unchallenged, is one thing.

In a non-Christian or interfaith environment, there is no a priori expectation that the positions of the various participants will reflect "sound doctrine", anything but. We might respond to that in different ways, but it's not inconsistent in the way the church service example is.

quote:
I wouldn't say any anti-Trinitarian religion worshiped the God of Christianity.

Religions don't worship; people do. And I'm not sure who the "God of Christianity" might be. The extent to which people of other faiths are worshipping God to the best of their abilities is a tricky question. As is the question of whether all worship offered by self-identifying Christians is in fact in Spirit and in truth.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think all religion is irrational and absurd. If you can prove it, then it isn't a belief.
That's why it's a faith. Abstract concepts don't have to be irrational, or absurd - internally consistent perhaps, but certainly not provable by the scientific method.

I was just thinking about this. I think religion is absurd and irrational - but that is mostly absurd because it doesn't follow any kind of normal thought pattern and irrational because you can't use logic. It might be better described as arational, but I'm not sure that is a word.

In terms of the racist, I don't think you can actually get far using logic, because it is logical on its own terms. If you believe black people are born inferior to white, then Apartheid is a logic system of governance - as is slavery and the rest.

In fact, I believe, you need something else to beat this kind of logic - not more logic (which can be easily dismissed as being based on a series of fake assumptions), but.. something which offers some new way of thinking that cuts across the existing logic. The prophetic, as it were.

Apartheid failed essentially because it faced a moral force built on the prophetic. Logic suggests that the weak can never win against the strong. The prophetic insists that right will win in the end, no matter the odds.

I really believe that.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

If prayer is a real thing, what possible reason could there be for ignoring the prayers of people who happen not to call you by the prescribed name?

Who is this god who is a spelling pedant? And is he bothered that so many of us insist on using a Romano-greek-ised version of his name (Jesus) rather than the original street Aramaic name he was born with?

what a shallow puny god you believe in. "Our God is a Great Big God - but he's rather hot on bad grammar, so watch what you say.."

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Tommy1: The point therefore is you do not consider the worship of false gods to be offensive false doctrine.

I still don't get why I should consider the fact that people have other religious beliefs offensive.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

Say I do go to a service where someone preaches white-supremacy. And say that I do not, in fact walk out when they do.

I could be taking notes about what they're saying, to berate them about it later. I could be sitting in the middle of the pew, and worried about disturbing my neighbours by leaving. I could have a sore leg. I could be concerned about my friend - the one who recommended supremacy preacher - and want to know, precisely, what she is really hearing from this guy. I could be embarrassed at the idea of making a scene. Supremacy preacher could be holding my family hostage and blackmailing me to stay for the whole service.

What I'm saying is, there are many reasons why I might not walk out - some of them good, some of them pathetically bad - but very few situations in which you could conclude, from my not walking out, that I totally and utterly agreed with what was being said from the pulpit.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

If you go to interfaith worship, you know what you are going towards.

You are not necessarily saying you "approve" of all the beliefs of everyone there. As has been pointed out, you might not even approve the beliefs of the "Christian" next to you, if you knew them in detail! And certainly not of Jehovah's Witnesses and etc etc.

"Approving" is not the point of participating in such a service.

If it is a) a service for members of the three " Abrahamic" faiths, obviously, as had been said, there is a common heritage there--though different interpretations of it, specifically regarding Jesus. But surely those different interpretations needn't preclude a common gathering--prayers would focus on God, not so much on Jesus. All would be turning towards the God they have in common. As Evensong has said, in such gatherings, great care is taken to avoid offence.

If it is b), a service for members of all faiths including Hindu, First Nation, whatever, then this may be a bit more problematic. But again, it would be designed with the differences in mind. Careful not to cause offence.

So what would be the value, or the point, of it? Surely, in this secular age, it would be a gathering of those who want to turn outwards, towards something Else, something Beyond...who believe prayer has a purpose...who are affirming together their spiritual approach to life.....praying to a Divine entity, a great Creator....??

Focusing on what they have in common rather than what divides...

I have read some native American prayers to the Creator or Sky God or however this divinity is named, and the ones I read were moving, powerful, and could be prayed by any human being, anywhere.

As long as none of the prayers explicitly contradicted or insulted the beliefs of any particular faith, surely would simply attending such a gathering would not violate the First Commandment??

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
And if I can ask Barnabas62 what were the comments that prompted him to walk out?
That's relatively easy. It was the invocation of certain OT scriptures in support of the white supremacist solution and separate development. There are scriptures which can be, and have been, used this way. It is an abuse of truth.
So you walked out when you heard what you condidered to be an offensive false doctrine. The point therefore is you do not consider the worship of false gods to be offensive false doctrine.

I can see where that analysis comes from, but it doesn't reflect either my motivation at the time or the way I look at doctrine in general. I walked out because I was angry and wanted to get my friend out of there. What I was angry about was a perceived evil. A lie designed to persuade people that bad behaviour was good.

The relationship between belief, behaviour and sound doctrine is worth a thread on its own. I encourage you, for example, to re-read Matthew 23 and consider its challenges. I don't think Jesus teaches that purity of doctrinal belief automatically brings about good behaviour, nor does he teach that good behaviour is only to be found in people who believe in sound doctrine (Luke 11).

The thing that appears to have offended Jesus the most is abuse of religious authority in ignoring or exploiting those in poverty and ignorance.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
no prophet wrote
quote:
Interfaith dialogue takes some doing. You have to be comfortable with what you hold, you must be open to listening, and you mustn't be ready to focus on details. Rather, you must be prepared to focus on values, such as respect, family, behaving in accord with what you believe, kindness. It is not watered down, not everything into the pot. More like everyone being authentic to themselves and their faith, but listening to everyone else. In my experience First Nations and Hindus often have the easiest time of it for reasons of how faith is structured and practiced.
I have no problems with any of that. But the question was about interfaith worship, not dialogue, which most people seem to have interpreted it as. That's a different thing entirely.

No I don't think so. This minces words. If you think we can take any form of a Christian liturgy and expectation and force such a structure onto what is done jointly, it will be trouble. Rather, what Christians call worship will not do in these situations. Rather, it must be talking, and when there are prayers, they are also talking. or perhaps "worship" must be defined. In my experience everything about being other people of other faiths and religions involves dialogue. -- If it is just a show up together and do some community prayer thing, then perhaps you are right. But anything of consequence involves a lot more.

Re the repetitive statements in response to some posts about "this would be a violation of the first commandment". I suppose if you want and really enjoy needless conflict, you could say that, and simply not bother being other than bossy about it.

Let me give concrete examples from Cree traditions. I have little difficulty with the First Nations prayers to The Creator, and the symbology of the 4 cardinal directions, desire for peace and harmony, the use of sweet grass or sage smoke passed around as more or less incense, but you actually take some of it and wave it over yourself as it is passed. This is fairly common at civic and provincial gatherings.

I have also been to a sweat lodge. Prayer is what happens within. Some people sing in the high pitched First Nations manner, and there is a drum. 4 times the door is openned and steam is let out, and 4 times more glowing red hot rocks are placed within. Water is sprinkled on the water from a whisk made variously of willow or other short branches. The elder who is running it asks people to be respectful, and to pray for what they need to pray for, and to support each other in any difficulties that arise during the ceremony. It is very hot, there is water to drink between the 4 rounds. I experienced visions in the darkness. It lasted probably 1½ to 2 hours, I am not certain.

Conceptually, at the start they talked of being in the womb of the Creator, and God was certainly conflated with the Creator for all of us who attended. It had a mystical flavour. The worship, which is what it was for those who decided to stop being lay anthropologists, seemed a lot more physically difficult (very hot) than anything else I've experienced. Not sure how it violates anything.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Let's unpack the First Commandment a bit. What does it say?

'You shall have no other Gods before me.'

Now, if someone who went to an interfaith service thought to themselves, 'Right, I'm going to put Such and Such a Deity before the one I believe in, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...' then obviously that's going to violate the First Commandment.

Would it violate it, though, if they were to pray to God the Holy Trinity in that context irrespective of how others were praying or to whom others were praying?

It's not a situation I'd be likely to find myself in, though, nor is it one where I'd want to point the finger at anyone else.

As for 'non-judgemental dialogue' ... well, I would posit that it's probably well nigh impossible to do that from any perspective ... insofar as all those who have consciously adopted a particular faith position are going to have reasons for that which may imply that other faith positions are not for them or not valid at all or whatever else.

I think 'judgemental' and 'non-judgemental' aren't the right terms to use here ... but in any interfaith dialogue I think we should respect robust positions. I would by no means expect a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or the adherent of any other religion to compromise themselves or their beliefs in any dialogue with me ... unless they happened to be in the process of shifting their ground and changing between one tradition/faith and another.

So, for instance, I've met Buddhists who are extremely critical of those Christians who have tried to merge or meld Buddhism and Christianity ... 'They are not comparing like with like,' they told me. 'It's like comparing apples and sausages. If they want to study Buddhism, fine, if they want to learn things from Buddhism, fine ... but we'd much rather they explored the depths of their own spiritual tradition than attempt a mix and match approach which does violence to both ...

Now that, I can understand ...

As for dialogue with adherents of the other Abrahamic faiths - Judaism and Islam - well, there is more in common but I would never, for instance, compromise a belief in the Trinity and the Deity of Christ in dialogue with either Jews or Muslims - nor would I expect them to expect me to.

Clearly, of course, Christians have more in common with Jews than with Muslims - but there is common ground to be found.

I'm not prepared to speculate one way or another as to whether the deity that Muslims worship and YHWH, the God of the Jews and Christians is a different 'being' ... who knows?

Whatever position we adopt it's a faith position and we can't stick it under a microscope and demonstrate it.

I'm with C S Lewis in the view that truths can be found in all religions but are ultimately most fully expressed in the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

How that all works out in practice and to what extent others may or may not share in the reflected light and glory of that isn't for me to say. That's God's prerogative, not mine.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
If it is b), a service for members of all faiths including Hindu, First Nation, whatever, then this may be a bit more problematic. But again, it would be designed with the differences in mind. Careful not to cause offence.

Indeed. I think there's two possible ways to construct such a service. The first is to express all prayers and liturgy as blandly as possible so that everybody present can find an interpretation that fits their own tradition. The second is to say that people are taking it in turns to pray or use liturgy from their own traditions and while each tradition does so everyone else is spectating or using it as a springboard for prayers in their own traditions.
Problems for Christians and other monotheists would only come when people are required to express themselves through prayers that, say, presume the existence of gods other than the one god. (I don't know under what circumstances other religious traditions would have problems.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Putting aside the theological objections, I think the main problem with interfaith worship would be that in the effort not to offend anyone the actual worship would be quite bland. There'd be an attempt to add 'colour', of course, but this might just look like exoticism (or do I mean exoticisation?). In effect, you'd have the same problems as in ecumenical worship, but magnified.

[ 14. December 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed. It'd be a mush and a mess.

Perhaps that's why it would 'work' better - if 'work' it does - in the context of a state occasion/a royal wedding or Remembrance service or something.

Aside from the misgivings and theological objections, I'd imagine that any gathering for prayer/worship by people of different faiths is going to feel awkward and not do justice to each or any.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What's wrong with small steps towards reconciliation? Not of beliefs, but as a means towards peace?

The fear of syncretism and loss of true belief strikes me as a lack of confidence in the measure of faith we have.

What, really, is there to be afraid of in trying to build bridges, close gaps, increase mutual understanding? It strikes me as a lot better than circling the wagons.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed. It'd be a mush and a mess.

Perhaps that's why it would 'work' better - if 'work' it does - in the context of a state occasion/a royal wedding or Remembrance service or something.

Aside from the misgivings and theological objections, I'd imagine that any gathering for prayer/worship by people of different faiths is going to feel awkward and not do justice to each or any.

Likewise I can't see it working if our approach comes from the god side, it might be possible to fudge but it would be odd and more or less destroy the items. And in most cases it's not really breaking the golden rule, great commission etc... if Sunday service at St Mary's demands you play by Christian rules (and no doubt similar for Pastafarianism, etc...).

(though I can almost begin to think of cases where it's arguable, AIUI a hindu could quite happily want to worship Jesus if there's nothing else near, in which case what should the vicar do?, the early church met in the Jewish temple)

When there's trigger that crosses the divide (like the state occasions, disasters, sickness, chaplaincy) then I think it is potentially possible to be able to say lots of things in common. Then the golden rule aspect is a lot stronger, and even the great commission starts to support either action. But yet there is so much that is distinct also.

(and if we're talking about interfaith worship by feeding the poor/etc..., then I think that's got to be a contender for potentially being antichrist-ian to reject absolutely. But how can you do anything like that without prayer and then you're back to the problem, and even if you can avoid that you still have the issue of names)

[ 14. December 2013, 22:57: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Dunno. Is one not somehow assenting to a religious practice by turning up?

No, I don't think so. For example, if you watched the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, you would have seen representatives of various non-Christian faiths, and a collection of princes and potentates from Muslim countries. These people all stood and sat out of politeness at the appropriate moments, but did not sing Christian hymns, and I wouldn't expect them to. I don't think anyone imagines that, for example, Lord Sacks or the Sultan of Brunei were proclaiming the truth of Christianity by being present.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
... a hindu could quite happily want to worship Jesus if there's nothing else near, in which case what should the vicar do?, the early church met in the Jewish temple)

Erm, as far as I remember, 'the early church' were Jews and I think you are actually referring to the Apostles and those first converts who may have lived and worked there.

Why should they not have worshipped in their own Temple?

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What's wrong with small steps towards reconciliation? Not of beliefs, but as a means towards peace?

The fear of syncretism and loss of true belief strikes me as a lack of confidence in the measure of faith we have.

In my 'rebound' attempt at following Christianity after a sustained period of spiritual emptiness, I see God expressed more in the values and virtues of Christ and His followers, than I do in all the doctrines and laws that have ever been written in His name. Indeed, while our attempts at fully expressing and understanding God's law in human terms necessarily fall short, as evidenced by the contradictions throughout our interpretations, when we unite ourselves with Christ's presence, the observance of God's laws will by nature flow from that - and only in that unity, as much as we can approximate it through the diligent dedication of the soul. A spiritually empty observance of literal laws, without the blessing of Christ and the spiritual insight of the Holy Spirit, is not serving God's will, it is serving our own vanity, as the Pharisees sought to follow laws strictly, but with no love in their hearts.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair point about the Temple, Mudfrog.

What would you say, though, about the issue of representatives of other faiths attending a royal wedding or a Remembrance Day service?

Does that in some way compromise their particular faith positions or ours?

You see, I don't particularly have a problem with that. Neither would I have a problem sitting in on someone else's worship service - whether it be in a mosque a temple or whatever else - unless it was clearly some kind of wierd Satan worshipping cult of some kind.

That's not the same as interfaith service - or is it?

I find it hard to draw the line as to why I think it might be acceptable in the context of a civic or state occasion service and why I'd feel uncomfortable about it if it happened at my local parish church or at a non-conformist chapel somewhere.

I don't believe in syncretism and there's a parish church I know in rural mid-Wales where the vicar has all sorts of Hindu and Buddhist and other religious iconography around his church alongside the traditional Christian material. That doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.

But it's all down to context, I'd suggest.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thank you hugorune. Like you, I guess, I'm reflecting on this thread and have some further thoughts about personal responsibility in worship. More later, after worship!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair point about the Temple, Mudfrog.

What would you say, though, about the issue of representatives of other faiths attending a royal wedding or a Remembrance Day service?

Does that in some way compromise their particular faith positions or ours?

You see, I don't particularly have a problem with that. Neither would I have a problem sitting in on someone else's worship service - whether it be in a mosque a temple or whatever else - unless it was clearly some kind of wierd Satan worshipping cult of some kind.

That's not the same as interfaith service - or is it?

I find it hard to draw the line as to why I think it might be acceptable in the context of a civic or state occasion service and why I'd feel uncomfortable about it if it happened at my local parish church or at a non-conformist chapel somewhere.

I don't believe in syncretism and there's a parish church I know in rural mid-Wales where the vicar has all sorts of Hindu and Buddhist and other religious iconography around his church alongside the traditional Christian material. That doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.

But it's all down to context, I'd suggest.

People from other faith groups - similarly, those with no faith - are merely guests. They are observers rather than active participants. A Royal wedding, for example, is a Christian sacrament and a service of worship. The non-Christians are there to witness what's going on even if they cannot/will not participate in the service.

It would be wrong to expect them to and they should be treated courteously.

If it were an interfaith occasion then that's fine but it seems to be that only Christians seem to want it.

I remember the 9/11 memorial service when Romans 8 was read but the reader ommitted 'through Jesus Christ our Lord' from the reading. grrrrrrr

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, I agree with all of that, Mudfrog.

Which is why I would make a distinction between the kinds of occasion we are talking about here - royal weddings, memorial services and so on - and, say, some kind of interfaith worship service which someone has concocted simply because they think it's a good idea, shows tolerance or because they believe that all religions are the same.

Which is what I think the OP is getting at.

I was simply interested in where we draw the line, as it seems to me that it's all down to context and intention.

In terms of 'having no other gods before me' goes ... then how do we measure that? Surely that's a matter of 'intention' too - to use a more Catholic expression.

If I went along to a Hindu service and sang their equivalent of a Matt Redman chorus - a 'Krishna is my boyfriend' song, say - 'Hallelujah I love Krishna, it's so cool to worship Krishna ...' or what-have-you then clearly I'm violating the first commandment.

But who does that? I don't know anyone who does.

What I do know is that I often unwittingly set 'other gods' before YHWH in my attitudes, my selfishness, my neglectfulness, greed and sin.

I do it all the time. I do it in conscious ways and in unconscious ways.

Surely I ought to be more bothered about that than what others do or don't get up to and do or don't say in interfaith services ... wherever these might be.

How many of these things are there, for goodness sake?

Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but I've never come across any ... apart from the kind of royal wedding/memorial service things that we've mentioned and they're surely covered by what Mudfrog has described ... they are events to which adherents of other faiths are simply guests.

So what's the problem? Where are these interfaith services that we should be so worried about?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
... a hindu could quite happily want to worship Jesus if there's nothing else near, in which case what should the vicar do?, the early church met in the Jewish temple)

Erm, as far as I remember, 'the early church' were Jews and I think you are actually referring to the Apostles and those first converts who may have lived and worked there.

Why should they not have worshipped in their own Temple?

Not sure...you tell me.
They were two examples of where it was hard not to justify on the one hand, "Why should they not" indeed.
But yet there is the other hand...
This is post Pentecost, (we also have Titus?). And the apostles may well have seen the continuity...but from the rest of the jews they were distinctly praising in an (apparent) breach of C1/2 in their temple. Why should they have to allow their Temple to be profaned like that?
And if you have an answer how does this apply to the first Mormon's in church's too?
Further from the apostles perspective if they were operating under the rules suggested in this thread then they were affirming the position as is.

quote:

This week's memorial service for Nelson Mandela included prayers said by representatives of Jewish,Muslim.Christian faith and one other which I did not recognise.
-----
Yes those would both be serious violations of the First Commandment

Something has to give, it doesn't mean we can have some kind of Tashlan (thank god). But we have a clear except clause.

quote:

If it were an interfaith occasion then that's fine but it seems to be that only Christians seem to want it.

Not to sure about that, surely the mere fact that other things want 'in' on ones christian's have hosted (which suggests at least some will quite willingly take).
And we tend not to let the others host ones we want 'in' on (so we can't really see if they'll give as well as take).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... if you were in a service where a speaker started praying to Krishna or whoever would you also walk out? After all there's no immediate prospect of dialogue there either.
Well, there's actually a lot of potential for quite an interesting dialogue, since Krishna is an in incarnation of Vishnu, second-person of a Hindu trinity. As I understand it, in theory, a Hindu could choose devotion to Jesus as a path, and it would be just as valid as devotion to Krishna. I don't assent to all Hindu ideas about life, the universe and everything, but despite the fact that Hinduism is often depicted as polytheistic, they know that God is One and they worship that One.

This made me think of the Rev. Inderjit Bhogal, a Sikh who became a Christian and a minister, and later served as a President of the Methodist Conference. He became a Christian as a result of attending a church as a boy in Dudley, as there were no Sikh temples when he first arrived. Interestingly, although his brother and sisters also attended they were upset when he decided to become a Christian. They had a way of benefiting from Christian worship in a way that didn't negate their being Sikhs, which is fascinating in itself.

Rev. Bhogal has written about his Christian faith in 'A Table for All' (short version available online), but comments reported elsewhere suggest that he's reconciled his two religious systems rather than rejecting one to accept the other. I don't know if he's ever tried to blend Sikhism and Christianity in one worship service. I suppose it wouldn't serve much purpose.

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=1099-notes-methodist

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I did reflect quite a lot about this. Rather like Gamaliel said, whenever we come before the Lord in worship with others present, are we really all that squeaky clean re Commandments 1 and 2? Where does our personal responsibility lie? What is of most importance?

I think we all get the principle that things should be done in an orderly and honouring way (1 Cor 14), prefaced by the reminder that we are a body (1 Cor 12) with different gifts to bring, and that all body life should demonstrate agape love (1 Cor 13). I guess that is common to all of us who are Christians. Yet we disagree about what represents good order, how are gifts distributed and who is free to participate. The central guideline, that body life should be agape-like in all respects, seems to get lost somewhere. Much which we call worship within our faith communities is compromised, catering for often quite profound disagreements about what is right or appropriate. Is there anything else to guide us? Anything deeper?

Well, I was first of all reminded of Jesus in the sermon on the mount saying that if we come to make our offering to God and there we discover that someone present has something against us, our first responsibility is to seek to be reconciled before offering our gift. Jesus implies that this is reflexive as well in the preceding verses with his comments on the relationship between anger and insults, and murder. So that if we are the ones who have something against another, then forgiveness and reconciliation are not optional extras. And I guess most of us know in practice the impact of estrangement in relationships on our ability to enter into worship. There is a shadow over us.

All this is however preliminary to the real heart issue and for that I am reminded of one of the best known of Old Testament scriptures. Micah 6:8 reminds us that God requires us to act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. What I had personally overlooked is the context, which is offerings in worship. Micah 6:6 asks the question "With what shall I come before the Lord?" and then looks at possible sacrificial offerings.

In the infrequent circumstances of interfaith worship which I have seen, the themes have been memorial thanksgiving, mourning mass loss (that happened over 9/11 for example), petitions for peace. Normally times when the thanksgiving or the loss or the need transcended community, cultural and religious boundarie. There was a common impact at work. That had provoked a common need, to "come before the Lord" however He was conceived, in some recognition of a transcendent event. Shared thankgiving, shared pain. A kind of solidarity. We may disagree about a lot of things, but perhaps we can agree on the need for some corporate solidarity? Those are the sorts of concerns at work.

So on a personal level, how do we come before the Lord justly, demonstrate mercy, and show humility before God? Particularly in circumstances which have an impact on different communities?

It does not seem to me that we do that by taking offence over our differences, which are real enough in all conscience. Certainly, for Christians, there is value in acknowledging that everyone who is there, however flawed and heretical we may perceive them to be, is first of all made in the image of God as are we. We believe we share that with all human kind.

If we seek, not just to honour that image, but to grow and be more conformed to its likeness, become more Christlike, then in these sorts of circumstances, some magnanimity would not go amiss. Regardless of how awkward it might feel. I feel it is good-hearted to show some generosity of Spirit. Maybe that may spill over into some more permanent possibilities of healing of our differences. Agape does not insist on its own way.

Offered on an open hand.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Some of the first people to recognise and worship Jesus were astrologers (zoroastrians?) not Jews. Welcoming those of other faiths is therefore part of the earlist act of christian worship.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but they went back by a 'different way' ...

[Biased]

Seriously, I've always admired the wonderful Orthodox Christmas hymn:

Your Nativity, O Christ our God,
Has shone to the world the Light of wisdom!
For by it, those who worshipped the stars,
Were taught by a Star to adore You,
The Sun of Righteousness,
And to know You, the Orient from on High.
O Lord, glory to You!

The hymn tells us that the very object of the Magi's pagan worship 'oriented' them to the true object of worship - the Sun of Righteousness who is Christ, Very God of Very God.

It's this general revelation thing, the 'common grace' that Calvinists might speak of.

I do find myself wondering whether this is a similar thing to Paul's exposition of 'to an Unknown God'.

Any attempt to reach out to 'the other', however misdirected or misguided it might be, is at least an attempt to reach out to something beyond ourselves.

That doesn't justify pagan worship or other religions. But it does suggest that God is conscious of any genuine desire that there might be to reach out for him.

And, of course, he 'gives more grace'.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Any attempt to reach out to 'the other', however misdirected or misguided it might be, is at least an attempt to reach out to something beyond ourselves.

That doesn't justify pagan worship or other religions. But it does suggest that God is conscious of any genuine desire that there might be to reach out for him.

And, of course, he 'gives more grace'.

That's the sort of magnanimity I was thinking about. Seems better than getting out a doctrinal measuring stick.

Never thought about the Wise Men that way before. That's good too. Incarnational theology can be very creative. I guess we'd expect that.

Thanks, Gama and goperry. Appreciated.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I have never actually participated in interfaith worship as such.Christians have their own ways of understanding God and what some people might see as the strange concept of the Holy Trinity.
It would be one thing to refuse to participate in non -Christian worship,if the purpose of this was specifically to deny the truth of Christianity.We have many stories of Christian martyrs like St Lucy accepting death rather than acknowledging the divinity of the Roman Emperor.
If however the purpose is to attempt to pray together with our fellow human beings,to attempt to show respect to the insights which their faith has given them,then I see nothing wrong.
We derive strength from our immersion within our own culture (and cult !),but the stronger we are,the easier it can be to move beyond our comfort zone and learn about other cultures (and cults !)In that way we begin to understand that we are all basically the same. We try to avoid treating others as idolaters and followers of false religions.If we treat them with respect they will maybe also treat us with respect.
Pope Francis has recently posed the question 'Is it better to be a 'zealous proselytiser' or an'attractive witness' ?
Francis of Assisi recommended that Christians should preach the Gospel always,using words where necessary.
It is by the quality of our lives that we show to others the truths of the message of Jesus Christ.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Dunno. Is one not somehow assenting to a religious practice by turning up?

Doesn't work the other way, does it? We don't assume that everyone who turns up for a Wedding, Christening or Funeral is Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb. So how does being present when a Hindu prays to Krishna make one a card-carrying Krishna worshipper? Is their ju-ju stronger than our ju-ju?

On the one occasion I was invited to a Hindu wedding I can fairly say that I did not assent to the prayers because I did not understand a word of them. But I am fairly certain that I would have done nothing to persuade the benighted infidel there present that Jesus Is The Answer by springing to my feet and rebuking the power of Moloch every time the Hindu priest invoked the salient deities that attend a Hindu marriage.

As always there is a via media between gross discourtesy to one's hosts or colleagues and flagrantly discarding one's principles.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Thinking about this, it strikes me that Yahweh-only monotheism was a comparatively late development in Israelite theology and the emphasis on not worshiping other gods was important in a context where worshiping other gods was taken for granted. There is an amusing bit in the book of Jeremiah where Jeremiah rebukes a bunch of people for worshiping the Queen of Heaven, which will cause Yahweh to deliver the Kingdom of Judah into the hand of the Babylonians to which they respond: "If we all worshiped the Queen of Heaven we wouldn't be in this mess!". There you go, Anglo-Catholicism avant la lettre!

This is quite different to an interfaith service which will most likely be attended by committed members of a given religion who have a bee in their bonnet about dialogue with another religion. So when the Imam stands up and prays to Allah that people of different faiths and creeds may come together and work for the abolition of world poverty the Vicar in the neighbouring stall will mentally offer that same prayer to the Holy, Undivided and Consubstantial Trinity. There may be problems with this approach but it's not really the same sort of thing as an Israelite worshipping Baal.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0