|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Pluralism
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As far as I can tell (from the canons, section C15) the Church of England doesn't impose this kind of conformity.
As far as I can tell, it does. From your link:
quote:
C 15 Of the Declaration of Assent
1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:
PREFACE
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
Declaration of Assent
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
There's no room for Ganesh in this.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes IngoB, that's the way it looks to me. Which I guess makes it a matter for his bishop.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
I think you might find he does not have a matey and is not really a proper Anglican priest, there is a lot of them out in the parishs.
There was one up north (UK) who preached on witches being OK people.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm not an Anglican so now I'm completely confused. How can a priest in Anglican Orders not be responsible to someone in the hierarchy? In nonco land you get loads of loose cannons (many of whom I've "shot" in my mind) but I thought the hierarchical nature of Anglicanism meant that all ministers have to be "plugged in" somewhere.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
He has a membership in one church. His spiritual quest may be unrelated to that membership, or may have been born of it. I think sometimes God will lead us to places that we might not go if we stayed within the boundaries in order to allow us to learn something that is for our own spiritual good.
We have no idea what is needed for this man's spiritual good. That's part of his intimate relationship with God.
sabine
If his spiritual quest is leading him away from Jesus and towards Ganesh then I think he needs to do a U-turn pronto.
We believe that Jesus is God's ultimate revelation of himself to humanity. If you have that, then what do you need Ganesh for?
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
I think you might find he does not have a matey and is not really a proper Anglican priest, there is a lot of them out in the parishs.
For unfathomable reasons you appear to be referring to Anglican bishops as "matey"? How ... quaint. The article linked to in the OP talks about one "Rev. Hart, who renewed his orders for priesthood under the Bishop of Ely, Cambridgeshire, last month." That would presumably refer to Bishop Dr Anthony Russel. I have no idea what is supposed to be meant by "renewing his orders for priesthood" though...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
If it is the same David Hart, certainly not impressed by matey of Ely`s gift of discernment.
Anything for a quiet life.
[ 29. August 2006, 07:50: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
As a teenager, as part of being prepared for confirmation, I was taken to worship at a Hindu temple: the Vedic Society. I can remember sitting in rows facing the front and, while gazing around the building I noticed a Roman Catholic style picture of Jesus, a la Sacred Heart, amongst a huge array of other pictures of other Gods. These picture formed a sort of frieze around the circumference of the building.
At the time I can remember feeling a little bemused by it. Firstly, because - at the time - I couldn't understand what Jesus was doing in a Hindu temple; secondly because I couldn't undersatnd why these people could apparently worship cartoon animals and Jesus without realising the 'difference'; and thirdly, because the Jesus that they had taken on wasn't one that was part of my own Christian tradition.
[humourous aside] While we were there the time came for the congregation to go forward for a sort of Holy Communion type blessing. I think It involved the women having dots put on their foreheads but the main thing was having a grain or two of uncoooked rice and some sweet yellow liquid placed on the palm of your hand. This was then eaten, no, slurped from your hand. It tasted quite nice as I remember.
Anyway my younger brother was in front of me in the queue and I can only assume that he'd not been watching the congregants properly because when he was given the rice and juice on his hand he promptly slapped it into the middle of his forehead! It was hilarious! Even the Brahmin couldn't control his mirth![/humourous aside]
What's my point? My point is this: it's a good memory; I enjoyed the experience. But that doesn't mean that I think that Hinduism has got it right about Jesus. I think that the Hindu approach to other faiths is no better than spiritual kleptomania. Basically I think that Rev'd What's-his-name has bought into that way of seeing things. Jesus seems to be little more that just another 'face' in the pantheon of hindu deities and 'gods' decorating the walls of his mind. This, to me, is unacceptable because Jesus is the One True God, not just another option is the spiritual sweet-shop. The man has fallen into the ancient sin of Israel; synctretism, which nothing less than spiritual whoredom.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Any chance of those with book on Anglican little matey`s checking how many David Harts out there please
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
David Hart gave good pastoral care to my late mother-in-law who lived in his parish and attended his church after her husband died. I sat in his study and thanked him for this, and also had a discussion with him about theology. He had written a book called 'Freeing the Faith' and was a founder of a Cambridge institute for theology, and in close contact with Don Cupitt. I remember he said he thought DC wrote too many books, always moving on and leaving behind too much ammunition for his critics.
I mentioned hate, early on in this thread, not actually saying anyone was being hateful, but that I could smell it. The things people were saying were mocking and scathing and included the opinion that he should be 'deposed.' It was difficult to square this with my memories of the man. We all know, as well, how good newpapers are at giving us the wrong end of the stick, and that we should not jump to conclusions on the basis of a press cutting. However, I'm sorry that I contributed to the raising of the temperature on this thread.
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this. It's one thing to disapprove of inter-faith worship, but why would you want to stop someone else doing it? If he finds it helpful to acknowledge Ganesh and be publicly seen to do so in some context or other, why would you not want to find out his reasons? Why would you prefer to condemn him and have him stopped or punished first?
I read what Welease Wodewick wrote about inter-faith activity where he or she lives and feel quite encouraged. I don't want to stop them. Does anyone? I'm sure people will say it's different for an Anglican vicar, but in what way, precisely? If inter-faith exploration is important for the Church, who is to lead it?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Any chance of those with book on Anglican little matey`s checking how many David Harts out there please
Spring, please stop referring to bishops as 'matey', I find that it detracts from what you're actually saying. I think it's at least possible that you've got something to add to the debate but it keeps getting subsumed by the silly language that you insist on using. Just start calling them bishops and then make your point. Please.
[ 29. August 2006, 08:25: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this. It's one thing to disapprove of inter-faith worship, but why would you want to stop someone else doing it? If he finds it helpful to acknowledge Ganesh and be publicly seen to do so in some context or other, why would you not want to find out his reasons? Why would you prefer to condemn him and have him stopped or punished first?
These are fair questions, hatless. So here's a personal statement. I disagree with him about inter-faith worship, but would be interested in the reasoning behind his behaviour. The opinion that his actions are contrary to the commitments he made during ordination seems to be well founded, but discipline is a matter for someone else. None of this amounts in my mind to condemnation. It looks as though he has something to answer for and someone to answer to. That something may not be entirely clear and that someone sure isn't me. As you say, it would help to find out his reasons. But only because his act was public - or at least publicised - so is open to comment.
Long experience has taught me not to read too much into either press photographs or press coverage of events. I suppose at this stage I'm more puzzled than anything else. From your own accounts, this is clearly a thoughtful and compassionate man.
[ 29. August 2006, 08:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.
Why did Hosea feel so strongly about it? Why did the apostle John warn against it as a parting exhortation? Why was Solomon's reign destroyed by it? Why did Israel get taken in by it? Why does the whole Judeo-Christian canon of scripture roundly disapprove of it? Why doesn't God like it? Why? Why? Why?
You already know the answer hatless. You just don't like what you're hearing.
[ 29. August 2006, 08:32: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
On the other hand, pace Demas, I see nothing wrong with assimilating other beliefs into our own metanarrative as long as we are mindful that that is what we're doing and don't claim anything else.
I may have come across as more absolutist than I intended - I don't really have any quarrel with your post.
I am wary, though, because much of the use by western liberal Christians of religious imagery (mostly from Buddhism and Hinduism, almost never from Islam) has been shallow and somewhat exploitative. Especially the use of indigenous religions - First Nations and Australian Aborginal myths for example.
It's like those posters showing the golden rule contained within every religion. To a certain extent it is - but the posters end up giving the misleading impression that all religions are the same, at some Platonic, Western level.
"We know what your religion says better than you do" is often the subtext - which is of course, pure Modernism and probably had its highpoint in the mid 20C like the rest of Modernism.
It also has the potential to diminish the message of Jesus, which is often presented as a tension with opposing views. If everyone believes that true morality is the golden rule, then what of the constant criticism in the NT of purity morality? That true morality consists of keeping ourselves pure and undefiled by the sinners around us is a constant re-occuring meme in society, and should be resisted - especially when it tries to justify itself as being What God/Allah/YHWH wants.
So I do not inherently condemn assimilating other narratives into our own, but I am wary, both for the sake of our own narrative and also out of respect for those who follow different traditions.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earthling
Shipmate
# 4698
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.
Why did Hosea feel so strongly about it? Why did the apostle John warn against it as a parting exhortation? Why was Solomon's reign destroyed by it? Why did Israel get taken in by it? Why does the whole Judeo-Christian canon of scripture roundly disapprove of it? Why doesn't God like it? Why? Why? Why?
You already know the answer hatless. You just don't like what you're hearing.
I'm not sure I do know the answer to your "why" questions, m.t-tomb (apologies for my ignorance) could you try to answer them for me?
I'm not sure why the early Judean God was seen as jealous; to me, the obvious answer would seem to be that the priests presented him as such in order to keep power over their followers, who might otherwise have gone to different religions/cults/priests. My (very scant) knowledge of the OT indicates that the priests and prophets commonally threatened people with the end of the world, gnashing of teeth, terrible torments etc if they went to worship other gods.
Is our God really like this? Would he send plagues and war to people who worship, e.g. Ganesh?
In our world, it doesn't seem to be true that people who worship other gods suffer war or calamity any more or any less than anyone who worships Jehovah, or "the one true God".
And if it was true that our God was jealous and would inflict terrible torments on people who did not choose to worship him in the way correctly prescribed by his chosen priests... why would this God be worthy of my worship?
--------------------
Art thou in the Darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will fill thee more, but stand still and act not, and wait in patience till Light arises out of Darkness to lead thee. James Nayler, 1659
Posts: 105 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Just to share some googeling (note: there's also a David B. Hart, an Orthodox theologian):
From the Sea of Faith network UK comes this bibliography for Reverend Dr David Ananda Hart:
- Faith in Doubt: Non-realism and Christian Belief. Mowbrays, 1993. 0 264 67327 1. Reviewed by Lloyd Geering.
- One Faith? Mowbrays, 1995. 0 264 67367 0. Preface by Don Cupitt.
- Linking up: Radical Christianity and Sexuality. Arthur James, 1997. Foreword by Bishop John Spong.
- Multi-faith Britain. O Books, 2002. 1-903816-08-4. Reviewed by Paul Overend.
To this we can now add his new book "Trading Faith". The blurb says "Dr David A. Hart is an Anglican priest living and working in South India. He is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar (USA) and secretary for the World Congress of Faiths." To this we can add "He has also co-edited Time and Tide: Sea of Faith Beyond the Millennium (O Books 2001), and has contributed chapters to The Study of Spirituality (SPCK 1986), Marginality and Dissent (Macmillan 1997) and God and Reality: Essays in Christian Non-Realism, with a Preface by Archbishop Rowan Williams (Mowbray 1997)." (from here).
In the review of "Surfing on the Sea of Faith" we find: "For the purpose of his discussion he uses a tripartite classification of non-realist categories (which he ascribes to me): it is possible to be (1) both philosophically and theologically non-realist,<...> Leaves puts Hart in the first category. Hart is seen as a prime mover in the UK network’s ‘push to move beyond Cupitt’, whose project he has described as ‘too cerebral’, lacking in ‘actual activity’ and communitarian expression, and too Christian-based."
Here is his European Introduction To Sun Myung Moon. If you wonder why the website is called "True Parents", we read here: quote:
This web site is dedicated to Heavenly Father (God) and True Parents (Reverend and Mrs. Moon). Adam and Eve should have been the True Parents of humanity. <...> Heavenly Father worked with fallen man to make a foundation to send a Second Adam, Jesus. <...> Since, Jesus could not fulfil his entire mission, Heavenly Father had to rebuild the foundation for True Parents, by sending the Third Adam, Sun Myung Moon. Rev. Moon fulfilled the mission of True Parents that Adam and Jesus had failed to fulfil. By uniting with Rev. and Mrs. Moon humanity can fulfil their purpose of creation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven both spiritually and physically.
Unfortunately, the above praise of Moon is the only online text by Rev Hart I was able to track down...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unfortunately, the above praise of Moon is the only online text by Rev Hart I was able to track down...
Of course, the above praise of Moon was not by Rev Hart at all. But not to worry, it all contributes to undermining Hart's credibility.
quote:
There's no room for Ganesh in [canon C15].
My reading is that at the time the vows are taken, there is a requirement for priests to believe in "the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds". There's also a promise in public prayer and administration of the sacraments to use only forms of service allowed by Canon or authorized (by the bishop).
The preface to the affirmation specifically does not go further (and this is a very carefully worded document) than to ask for affirmation of loyalty to the Church's inheritance of faith as inspiration and guidance under God.
If Hart's bishop authorised the event from the OP, it looks entirely within the letter, and who knows perhaps also the spirit, of canon law.
I'm not really interested in defending syncretism, though, if that's what this is. But in terms of religious pluralism, my views are no doubt seen by some to be as unorthodox, heretical or whatever as David Hart's. Accepting me as a member of the Church is for some probably religious pluralism.
What gives me hope for the Church of England is that it doesn't by Church Law require conformity of it's priests, only loyalty to an inheritance of faith as inspiration and guidance. It's open-ended. However practically unlikely, radical change is specifically not ruled out if it comes about through the change in convictions of it's duly authorised priesthood.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Of course, the above praise of Moon was not by Rev Hart at all. But not to worry, it all contributes to undermining Hart's credibility.
Hmm? I was referring to his European Introduction To Sun Myung Moon, as posted above! The quote was just to illustrate why I consider it particularly unfortunate that he supports Moon. I did not say that the quoted text was his. I guess that it was not a brilliant way of arranging texts though, sorry about that.
As for C15, what about "in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon." What's the Canon for his public prayer to Ganesh then?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for C15, what about "in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon." What's the Canon for his public prayer to Ganesh then?
I was reading "authorized" and "allowed by canon" as separate objects in that sentence, which on reflection might not be the case. What I'm fairly sure about, though, is that if a bishop is OK with what a priest is doing, it is duly authorized because (I guess) some canon gives bishops that kind of authority.
[ 29. August 2006, 12:40: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No Dave ... that is most definitely NOT the case. Having been an Anglican priest I can assure that all clergy are bound by the canons ... and that includes the bishops.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
From Canon B 4:
3. The Ordinary may approve forms of service for use in any cathedral or church or elsewhere in the diocese on occasion for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocation or archbishops under this Canon, being forms of service which in the opinion of the Ordinary in both words and order are reverent and seemly and are neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I really do believe there is only one spiritual power in the universe (so the theory that "other gods" are really demonic powers doesn't fly)
This seems to me to be the big question (and some of the heat may be because people are assuming that everyone else shares their own answer to it).
If anyone believes that there is a real objectively-existing spiritual entity corresponding to the image of Ganesh, and that Rev Hart believes that, then worshipping that entity would seem to be the big no-no, breaching the first commandment.
At the other extreme, to anyone who believes that there is only one spiritual power, and that everyone knows this full well, the worst objection to using a statue of Ganesh seems to be along the lines of "that's not the way we normally do it". In which case those who are throwing up their hands in horror are possibly idolizing "the way we normally do it".
If there is no spiritual entity Ganesh, but Rev Hart thinks there is or gives the impression that there may be, then the activity doesn't seem very helpful to his Christian faith or the Christian faith of others. But much the same could be said about Catholics with statues of Mary...
Conversely, if there is a real "god" Ganesh but Rev Hart fully believes that there isn't and what is subjectively going on in his head is all to the glory of God, then his good intent is not in question, or his soul at risk, but his bishop might be advised to warn him that the activity is potentially risky.
Perhaps if everyone here could follow Timothy's example in making clear which of these situations they're responding to, we might get past the easy dismissals into the interesting issues ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Leo
quote:
NOT an 'idol' Hindu images are known as 'murtis' and are seen as visual aids.
Incorrect. When the priest performs the prana pratishtha ceremony, the murti is imbued with the spirit of the deity. So, in many ways this parallels to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The objection of the Orthodox Catholic Christian to this is NOT the doctrine of the murti itself but what the murti represents. We are not all gathered around guessing what God is like (as in that cliched elephant) ... we are Christians who by no means can worship that which is not the Trinity.
quote:
Hindus are not polytheists. They worship one God, Brahman.
Incorrect ... because it is simplistic. True, there are some Hindus who deny divine status to the deities but rather insist of these being attributes of Brahman. Most Hindus however, regard these theophanic manifestations as divine in their own right. Moreover, even if that were not true burning incense before a manifestation of a non-personalist monist entity is certainly excluded by the Christian revelation of God as Trinity.
Any Christian who thinks that Hart's actions are OK know nothing of Christian history let alone the necessity of staying within the revelation entrusted to us. Someone here no doubt will soon claim that the golden calf was a legitimate manifestation of YHWH.
I really do begin to think now that some who claim to bear the name of Christ here really do belong to a completely different religion than I do.
I agree with your two corrections re- murtis and monotheism - I was trying to keep it simple because people on this thread don't seem to know much about Hinduism and I didn't want to over-complicate - however, as regards the latter, it is only ill-educated Hindus who regard different gods as independent and they are not unlike those catholics who pray to different saints rather than asking the saints for their prayers.
[ 29. August 2006, 13:26: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Perhaps a little information about the symbolism of Ganesh might be in order(taken from a worksheet I did for Year 9 RE):
Statues and images are very important in Hinduism. They often symbolise aspects of God's nature
Hindus pray to Ganesha to help them overcome obstacles. He is large and clumsy. Hindus say that this reflects the fact that inner beauty and perfection have little to do with outward appearance.
His elephant head shows great intelligence, symbolizing the need to use one's brain in new enterprises.
A snare or noose is held in one hand. This means that material possessions and attachments are a trap. In another hand a weapon will prod the believer into the right moral path.
Another hand holds a dish of sweets (modala), as a reminder of how sweet the inner self is. The fourth hand is open in a sign of blessing.
At his feet is a mouse. The mouse symbolises the obstacles to be overcome. It also reminds people that all creatures are important, whatever their size.
Ganesha has an important role to play in Hindu scriptures. He is believed to have written down the world’s longest poem, the Mahahharata. His broken tusk was used to write down the poem, as dictated to him by a wise man. The story of the poem is about a war between two branches of a family
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dosey
Shipmate
# 10259
|
Posted
quote:
What's my point? My point is this: it's a good memory; I enjoyed the experience. But that doesn't mean that I think that Hinduism has got it right about Jesus. I think that the Hindu approach to other faiths is no better than spiritual kleptomania. Basically I think that Rev'd What's-his-name has bought into that way of seeing things. Jesus seems to be little more that just another 'face' in the pantheon of hindu deities and 'gods' decorating the walls of his mind. This, to me, is unacceptable because Jesus is the One True God, not just another option is the spiritual sweet-shop. The man has fallen into the ancient sin of Israel; synctretism, which nothing less than spiritual whoredom. [/QB]
As F.G. has pointed out all of the Gods in Hinduism are a manifistation Brahman (this includes people like Buddha, Jesus, Allah, etc).
So it really isn't Kleptomania, what it is the philosphy that if you can limit what something is difined as than it becomes finite which as all of us know god isn't.
To expand on Leo, Ganesha is a god where all different sects of Hinduism meet, there are 330 million gods in Hinduism.
The fact remains that none of you guys have provided satisfactory answers on why a person shouldn't partake in inter-faith worship.
Want to take about idols, well what about the cross a visual aid no doubt. But no one in thier right mind would ever mistreat a cross, why? Becuase it is seem as a symbol of god, god is present in that Cross. That's the same in Hinduism.
Posts: 72 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
While I sympathise with the good natured intentions of Revd Hart, I can't help but get the feeling that those defending him in this thread are getting confused between supporting nice guys with good intentions and the nature of Christian faith.
I think as IngoB and Father Greogory have already pointed out the necessary articles of faith that Reverends and Bishops must acknowledge, and have also pointed out that holding a ceremony involving Ganesh and perhaps making an offering to said Deity, whilst interesting and certainly thought provoking, and possibly good for inter-faith relations in his neighbourhood, is not exactly in keeping with the tenets of the Christian faith.
I do feel there other ways that Revd Hart could propagate good inter-faith relations while still remaining within the strictures of the faith he was baptised into.
Otherwise it would seem that Revd Hart is moving beyond the Christian faith and into something else.
Analogies are never perfect, but perhaps it would be akin to a cricket-coach suddenly deciding to mix in a bit of soccer in his lessons. What would the members of the cricket club think of that? They came along to learn and celebrate cricket, not soccer. They may also like soccer and have nothing agaist said sport, but that wasn't what they came for.
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So I do not inherently condemn assimilating other narratives into our own, but I am wary, both for the sake of our own narrative and also out of respect for those who follow different traditions.
I'd condemn religious syncretism more strongly, but on similar grounds. My own observation of syncretism here in La-La Land is that a lot of times people are treating the world's religions as a buffet, picking and choosing whatever attracts them, and leaving the rest. This grossly distorts the things they choose. You can't lift some sayings from Jesus, an image of Ganesha or the use of peyote out of Christianity, Hinduism or Navajo tradition without losing some extremely important things from each religion.
Religions do change over time, and one of the ways they change is by adopting beliefs and practices from other religions. But I'd be extremely wary of trying to do this on an individual basis, because I think it'd just be doing the buffet thing. And I'd be just as wary of doing in in a group, come to think of it; our local whack-jobs are syncretists.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dosey:
The fact remains that none of you guys have provided satisfactory answers on why a person shouldn't partake in inter-faith worship.
Well, I think a lot of answers have been provided - like it runs contrary to commandments 1, 2 and possibly 3, it is not in keeping with Catholic, Orthodox or Reformed Traditions, it is inherently confusing. You are of course free to find all of those answers unsatisfactory in your own terms. I'm not clear what your terms are.
The other point - not entirely agreed - is that the Anglican priest who did this may have been acting in good conscience but there is pretty impressive evidence that he was not acting in accordance with his ordination commitments. I think Dave Marshall has indicated that there may well be some arguments against that, but there are grounds for believing that David Hart is in a different position to either you or me - unless you are an Anglican priest.
To clarify my own position, I am happy to participate in inter-faith dialogue - in fact I've done that - but I think inter-faith worship is confusing. Even if we use the language "God" it is clear to me that we are making our offering to radically different understandings and perceptions of "God". So I prefer for now to obey the 1st and 2nd commandment and hold to the traditional anti-syncretistic views of my own Reformed tradition. I don't insist that you do the same, of course. Nor does it mean that I diss the worship offerings of other faith communities. But "tolerance" does not mean "identification with".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I think what people are missing out here is that Hart is a priest in South India. Christianity there is very much a minority religion, and Christians and Muslims do their very best to get along with their neighbours. It is not at all shocking, or terrible, in the context of South India, but I can certainly understand why those who do not live in a multicultural society might find it upsetting.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteCanada:
I think what people are missing out here is that Hart is a priest in South India. Christianity there is very much a minority religion, and Christians and Muslims do their very best to get along with their neighbours. It is not at all shocking, or terrible, in the context of South India, but I can certainly understand why those who do not live in a multicultural society might find it upsetting.
What, you mean not like like Corinth? Or Ephesus? Or perhaps Rome? Or, say Philippi? What about Sodom? Or perhaps Egypt?
[ 29. August 2006, 15:54: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I live in a multi-cultural environment and find it very upsetting. I'm fairly sure that my non-Christian friends in the same environment would also find it upsetting--they respect faithfulness to one's chosen religion, whether they themselves believe in it or not.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Demas, I agree with you completely--in fact, you said what I was trying to say rather better than I did.
That "all religions are one" modernist attitude does seem to come down to "all religions are the same as mine (apart from some unimportant details)." Of course, those details may not seem unimportant to the people who believe in them.
George Santayana said something like "To try to have a religion that shall be no particular religion is no less futile than to try to speak without speaking any particular language."
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
See if I were criticizing Rev. Hart's behavior I would use a different reason than those I've seen here: that verse about avoiding the appearance of evil.
I do agree that someone could get mixed up between deities doing what he is doing. I appreciate that this might well help him communicate with those he works with (by showing open mindedness) and I ratherh suspect he's secure and sure of which God he is worshipping. (Certainly I'd be equally comfortable bowing before a statue of Ganesh and one of Mary, but that's just me.) Still, if a pastor and teacher does things that seem wrong to many then perhaps he shouldn't be doing it even if it isn't.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
It's with some trepidation that I join this thread...
(Sorry for being late; I was at Greenbelt)
Anyway, this is an issue quite close to my heart, as I've spent quite a lot of time in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu. I've visited shantivanam, Bede Griffiths' ashram near Trichy, and have visited a few of the major hindu temples. Now there are no images of Ganesh (or any hindu deities for that matter) at Shantivanam, but the worship uses certain ceremonies and bits of symbolism from hinduism, and there are regular readings from hindu scripture during the office.
(Shantivanam is of course a catholic (camaldolese) monastry and I've seen camaldolese bigwigs from Rome actively participating)
What I've found on my trips there is that while I always gain a deeper understanding of hinduism (and become more comfortable with some hindu rituals), but my christian faith and my knowledge of christ are always deepend by an incomparably greater ammount.
Now I would encourage everyone to tread as carefully and as slowly as possible in this area. I would say that anyone who is interested should make sure they hear about other faiths from the actual source, not from a christian synctretised version, and you should move at least as slowly as the holy spirit is leading you, but I believe that I have felt the power of the holy spirit very strongly in hindu temples, and have deepened my understanding of the gospels through worship in these temples. This may not be the experience that everyone would have, but it is the experience I have had.
The assumption people are making that this is some half-understood grabbing of hindu symbolism seems somewhat prejudiced to me. It seems that David Hart has been thinking in this area for some considerable time, and probably has very carefully thought through what he's doing. I've never thought that much about Ganesh (he doesn't fit very well into shantivanam's rather advaitan christianity) so I don't know what a christian would do with Ganesh, but I'd be sure David Hart could explain this. If we can get his explanation (which would be facinating) then feel free to diss it if you don't agree, but don't assume it doesn't exist.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
I've been to the Hindu Temple in Neasden, North-West London. I can't remember which branch of Hinduism it practices, but in any case it has statues of Ganesh, Vishnu and other Hindu deities.
The building is very beautiful, crafted in India and was then shipped over here in the late 90's. It really looks like a slice of India in London, and I'd recommend anyone in London or the vicinity to check it out.
Having said that, I would have been more than a little surprised if an Anglican priest had been in there as master of ceremonies, presenting some kind of offering to Ganesh and alluding to a sense of equality/interchangeability between the Judeo-Christian God and that/those of the Hindus.
No matter what Revd Hart's explanation is, and even given the cultural context of southern India, I hardly think he could justify what he did within the boundaries of being a practicing Christian and a Reverend of the Anglican Church. I think that's the key thing here.
[ 29. August 2006, 21:31: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If there is no spiritual entity Ganesh, but Rev Hart thinks there is or gives the impression that there may be, then the activity doesn't seem very helpful to his Christian faith or the Christian faith of others. But much the same could be said about Catholics with statues of Mary...
Sorry, could you run that one by me again? Which branch of Christian faith does not believe that there is a spiritual entity Blessed Virgin Mary? There may be differences concerning how Christians deal with the BVM, but the position that she either did not exist at all, or that her spirit/soul died with her body (that her life ceased entirely and irrevocably), is at best a fringe position within Christianity (although I would simply say: non-Christian). To compare Catholic veneration of Mary with the worship of Ganesh is furthermore doubly mistaken: Not only does it ignore all the usual stuff about veneration not being worship, and that "praying" to Mary is from the Old English usage and means asking her to intercede with God, etc. In addition, Ganesh claims to be a god - at least in the sense of being an existing aspect of the Hindu over-god. Christians, including Catholics, do not claim that of Mary. So worshipping a statue of Ganesh should be compared to worshipping Christ either directly in a consecrated host or indirectly via a crucifix. Which one of these two is comparable I do not know, because I do not know how Hindus actually think of that Ganesh statue. Either way, a Christian simply shouldn't do it!
And all that jazz about India being multi-cultural can simply get stuffed! Whatever has that got to do with anything?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
I don`t know if this fits into the discussion from Psalm 24
3Who may ascend the hill of the LORD?
Who may stand in his holy place?
4He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false.
5He will receive blessing from the LORD
and vindication from God his Saviour.
6Such is the generation of those who seek him,
who seek your face, O God of Jacob
Also the Neasden Temple has had a least of one matey of Willesden visit for multi-faith shin-dig.
What is David Harts history, or is that a secret.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.
This, and Timothy's question about underlying beliefs, seem pretty basic to me. I can only just about find room for one spiritual reality in my world view, so if Ganesh is anything it must be some part of the one spiritual reality I know by another name.
I just can't see that there are competing Gods, and I can't therefore get any team spirit up for my side.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I just can't see that there are competing Gods, and I can't therefore get any team spirit up for my side.
But as I said to you before, if Christianity is not the One True Religion then it does seem to leave Christ with little to do and the crucixion as lacking much point.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
.... if Christianity is not the One True Religion....
And here we find the crux of the matter.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
See if I were criticizing Rev. Hart's behavior I would use a different reason than those I've seen here: that verse about avoiding the appearance of evil.
There's that. But I would have a different reason yet.
In offering worship to a deity of some other faith, I would either see that deity as real, and mean by the worship what other believers in that deity meant by it, or I would not.
If I saw the deity as real, then any worship I offered it would be idolatry. If I did not see the deity as real, then my actions would be play-acting, and deeply disrespectful to those who do in fact believe in the god I was pretending to worship.
That's why I'll have nothing to do with, for example, faux Native American rituals as done by Boy Scouts. If these rituals are not sins against God, they are sins against neighbor. I can't figure out how what the Rev. Hart is doing is not either one or the other.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, if the Hindus whose temple that is know that he does not believe in Ganeesh, but don't take exception to his actions then maybe he's safe there but I rather agree.
For most hindus there would be no offense taken. In the hindu understanding, there is only one God, Braman, who is worshipped by some as Vishnu, by some as Shiva, by some as Christ etc. However just as it would be normal these days for a vishnuite to do puja when they went to a shiva temple, hindus would actually be a bit confused by christians visiting a temple and not doing puja.
Ganesh seems to straddle the vishnu/shiva divide so I guess it may be particularly unsuprising for a christian to worship ganesh.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Posted by m.t-tomb: quote:
If we can get his explanation (which would be facinating) then feel free to diss it if you don't agree, but don't assume it doesn't exist.
I'm not assuming an explanation doesn't exist. However, I'm confident enough in my own understanding of the Christian faith to know that his explanation will not convince me. As I've said, Mr. Hart is committing spiritual adultery. If I committed adultery against my wife I'm sure no amount of 'explanation' would suffice. Sometimes the answer is 'no, you have no excuse' this appears to be one such occasion.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
I think you might find he does not have a matey and is not really a proper Anglican priest, there is a lot of them out in the parishs.
There was one up north (UK) who preached on witches being OK people.
All the witches I've known (not Satanists but Wiccans) are okay people. They're are just not Christians.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
m.t-tomb comarision to adultry summed problem for me. If we are part of the Bride of Christ there can be no little (or big) nibble on the side.
It took a while to get used to seeing houses in India with Christian and Hindi symbols of worship on outside. They do seem to like hedging their bets.
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.
[ 30. August 2006, 06:56: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eclectic as I am, I admit I did have a bit of a negative, knee-jerk reaction about a *priest* openly offering incense to the statue of another god in his front yard.
However, I'm feeling somewhat better now. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Or at least a little less hypocritical.
The article in the OP is short and doesn't dig into too many details. But it seems that the priest has been like this since he was a kid, he thinks that all deities are representations of one God and/or ways of reaching out to God, and he is involved with the World Parliament of Religions. I don't think he is trying to worship other gods, per se. I think he is simply openly and honestly being who he is.
That may be against many official rules and beliefs, and may trigger all sorts of problems. But at least he has the courage of his convictions. And while his approach may anger or drive off some people, it might also interest other people in God.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
All the witches I've known (not Satanists but Wiccans) are okay people. They're are just not Christians.
Amen. I know one Pagan in particular who is actively a force for Good in the lives of many people--including me.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
Goldenkey, I can't really agree that Revd Hart has the 'courage of his convictions' on this. If he does, then why doesn't he renounce his position as Revd? Like you say, perhaps he will interest some unbelievers or Hindus etc with this position, but he'll also put out as many if not more existing Christians and maybe put off some people who may be looking at Christianity in India, as something offering more 'certainty' say, than Hinduism, but then might be put off by Revd Hart's 'pick n' mix' show?
[ 30. August 2006, 09:48: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
