|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Pluralism
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
er, Russ - quote:
If he uses an image of the fictional character Ganesh to focus his mind on God the Father for whom no visual image is enything like adequate, that's not worship of Ganesh. He thinks he's found a way of expressing his worship of God which fits in with the culture of the people around him.
I think you may have missed that bit further up. Rev. Hart is a philosophical and theological non-realist. What is most likely is that he thinks neither Ganesh nor God the Father have any meaning in themselves, except insofar as they may be useful fictions for ethical purposes. At least as reported by another Sea of Faith writer.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Are you talking of how statues, etc. are venerated, etc. in Britain? If so I’d agree with you but if you look how statues are venerated in other parts of Europe or Latin America or here in India then I’m not sure there is that much difference.
Indeed. I once saw a video of Hindus installing Lord Rama into a cradle and rocking it to celebrate his birthday. It immediately reminded me of some very extreme anglo-catholic practices after midnight mass where a bambino/baby jesus doll is carried by a priest wearing a humeral veil and placing i in a crib, incensing it etc.
Mind you, the people on this thread who are opposed to syncretism are most likely to come from the protestant end of the spectrum and would equally offended by catholic ceremonies.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Mind you, the people on this thread who are opposed to syncretism are most likely to come from the protestant end of the spectrum and would equally offended by catholic ceremonies.
Check this out. The general opposition of the Catholic and Orthodox churches to syncretism has been pretty well represented on this thread. On your second point, a personal statement. I'm a protestant who is very wary of syncretism but I'm not in the least offended by catholic ceremonies.
--------------------
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
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
How much unpacking does the word "worship" really need?
More than you've given it by reaching for the dictionary...
I disagree. I think it's plenty unpacked already.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[...] like you and I and everyone else in the west he believes that Ganesh has no more existence than Mickey Mouse.
How do you know this? The fact is, you don't, no one does.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If he uses an image of the fictional character Ganesh to focus his mind on God the Father for whom no visual image is enything like adequate, that's not worship of Ganesh.
I imagine there must have been a few Hebrews who thought they were worshipping Adonai by venerating Baal or Asherah or the golden calf, yet God never once excused them. I have yet to read a single line of scripture where God says, "Thou shalt not worship other gods, unless you mean to worship Me through statues which fit into the culture of the people around you."
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
He thinks he's found a way of expressing his worship of God which fits in with the culture of the people around him.
And that's fine for him as a private individual, although it's not orthodox Christianity, which asks its adherents *not* to fit into the culture of the people around them. (Rom. 12:1 comes to mind.)
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think you need to insist that God is against idol-worship; I imagine that everyone posting on this thread fully accepts that.
Again, I disagree. I think there's posters on this thread who don't accept that, so I am setting out my presupposition clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's at issue here is the other part of your chain of reasoning - the part where you seem to assume that certain activities performed in front of a statue can have only one possible meaning in the mind of the person performing them.
I'm not a mind-reader, neither is anyone else. I have no way of knowing what's going on in Hart's mind when he lights a candle to Ganesh. I can only go by his actions and their surface representation.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Mind you, the people on this thread who are opposed to syncretism are most likely to come from the protestant end of the spectrum and would equally offended by catholic ceremonies.
Yes, I'm Reformed, but I haven't yet seen an RC ceremony that offended me. I save my offense for a few of their doctrines. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 01. September 2006, 17:38: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
. . . and there is a school of thought that syncretism is nothing new in the realm of Christendom from the old saw about the Sumerian legend of the flood onwards to perhaps this.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
WW, you raise a critical question, and one I think needs to be asked by every believer.
From the web site:
quote:
Was the story of Christ merely a composite creation composed of a conflation of every other mythological character of antiquity (was there ever really an historical Jesus, or was he simply a creation of the forgers of the church)?
While I disagree with the conclusions reached by the web site's author, IMNSVHO every believer ought to ask himself who Jesus was. To unquestioningly accept answers handed down from pulpits or web pages or from anyone else is to leave a keystone of faith unused and moss-covered.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
I haven't yet seen an RC ceremony that offended me.
Why exactly is it that lighting incense before statues of Ganesh falls indisputably within the category of idol-worship, when you neither know nor care what is going in the minds of those involved ?
How are you so sure that lighting candles before statues of Mary is obviously something totally different ?
I can see an argument that neither should offend you at all. Conversely, I can see an argument along the lines that both are undesirable because however pure the intentions of those involved it may lead others into error.
But the logic of your position so far escapes me...
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Russ
The suggestion of protestant offence came from leo in the first place. I'm not sure about KenWritez but here's my view.
1. I'm not offended by Hindus performing an act of worship in front of a statue of Ganesh. Why should I doubt their sincerity?
2. I'm not offended by Catholics lighting candles before a statue of Mary. Why should I doubt their sincerity?
3. I'm not offended by Rev Hart lighting a candle in front of a statue of Ganesh. Why should I doubt his sincerity?
It is not my practice to do any of these things. My concern about Rev Hart's behaviour is that it is a confusing (and possibly disobedient) thing for a priest in Anglican orders to do. I wouldn't do it for reasons already explained. Syncretism bothers me. I don't understand why it doesn't bother him. He hasn't explained, so far as I'm aware.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Syncretism bothers me. I don't understand why it doesn't bother him.
I was trying to figure out why, as it seems like you have probably already explained yourself earlier. Looking over the thread again, I found two relevant quotes from you:
quote:
There is little doubt that the tradition is anti-syncretistic, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox or Reformist.
and
quote:
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.
What confuses me is the stain that the word "syncretism" has inherited. The head of the Religious Studies Department at Penn State taught my class on the New Testament, and he was an avid athiest who believed all religion was untrue. One of his favorite axes was syncretism, and how it demonstrated the falsity of Christianity ("It's just borrowed from other religions!").
And Christianity itself is partly built on syncretism, it seems. We all celebrate Christmas on December 25th and Easter near the fertile spring equinox. The very Traditions that you speak of, Barnabas, have incorporated pagan rituals and ceremony dates for centuries.
But what if there is a Truth out there that everybody can see? What if "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"? What if paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam--what if they all represent parts of this Truth that is clearly seen?
Yes, I know that worshipping idols is Biblically condemned, and I understand the reaction to such an act. I would hope that Rev. Hart would realize that reaction, and even if he believes in what he is doing, that he would be sensitive to how it comes across and would be willing to be careful, especially in his position.
I think we misunderstand syncretism, though. It isn't the borrowing of false things to make our true and unblemished religion seem 'cool'. It can be as simple as incorporating new aspects of the One Truth from new and other cultures, and beginning to understand a little more of the Great Wonder of our God.
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
professor kirke
I think your post is helpful - it is certainly making me think. I doubt whether I've ever really harmonised the "something borrowed" features of the Tradition with my nonco "stripping back to NT essentials" inheritence. I'm off to ponder and will get back.
I can confirm that you haven't misrepresented me. Syncretism does bother me - but I'm not altogether clear why.
--------------------
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
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
WW, you raise a critical question, and one I think needs to be asked by every believer.
From the web site:
quote:
Was the story of Christ merely a composite creation composed of a conflation of every other mythological character of antiquity (was there ever really an historical Jesus, or was he simply a creation of the forgers of the church)?
While I disagree with the conclusions reached by the web site's author, IMNSVHO every believer ought to ask himself who Jesus was. To unquestioningly accept answers handed down from pulpits or web pages or from anyone else is to leave a keystone of faith unused and moss-covered.
Although I think it is probably best for another thread [which may well have been done before], rather than hugely diverting this one, I wonder and would like to ask folks here whether belief in the Historical Jesus is necessary for them personally or for the Church as a whole.
If we could go back in time in H G Wells times machine and see what happened there and then and found that it didn't fit with the Goispel story would that destroy people's faith.
I won't start this thread at the moment in case it has been done to death in the past but I will happily start it off if people think it could be either interesting or useful.
[/tangent]
I'd like to join Barnabas in thanking Professor Kirke for his post, too. I agree with him and KenWritez that questioning where we are and what we believe is a lifelong process.
[Is that a fair paraphrase, I hope so.]
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Why exactly is it that lighting incense before statues of Ganesh falls indisputably within the category of idol-worship, when you neither know nor care what is going in the minds of those involved ?
Barnabas answered as I would've, only better. Hindus lighting candles to Ganesh and Catholics lighting candles to Mary don't bother me because each group is acting appropriately within their faith.
Hart's actions in lighting candles to Ganesh bother me because he's acting inappropriately as a Christian priest. If he were just David Hart--layman, then it would be a matter between him, his conscience and God. But he is a priest, he represents Adonai, as a result he is answerable to a higher and stricter calling than a layman. He is doing something clearly, frequently and unequivocally forbidden in Christian scripture and as a priest he is encouraging his flock to do likewise. As I recall, Jesus had some strong words about people who led others astray.
Adonai is not some amorphous "life force," He is a specific entity, He is our God and in the person of Jesus He is our Savior. He makes concrete, specific demands upon us as His children, just as earthly fathers do their children--the spiritual equivalent of "Clean up your room, eat your vegetables, stop hitting your sister."
Christianity has a politically incorrect claim of exclusivity. Adonai commands us as Christians in Exodus 20:3-5, (3) "You shall have no other gods before me. (4) "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. (5) "You shall not bow down to them or worship them...."
This is no room in the verses above, none whatsoever, for David Hart as a Christian, much less a Christian priest, to offer worship or veneration to gods of other religions, regardless if actual spiritual entities exist behind those other gods' names or not.
(To answer "What about people who've never heard the Gospel?", I point them to Romans 2:12-16, and to the fact Adonai is perfectly just as well as perfectly merciful, so their situation is in His hands, an infinitely safer, better place than mine.)
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
What Ken said.
Worship ought only to be offered to the Holy Trinity. Ganesh is not, AFAICS, the Holy Trinity nor a member thereof nor is a statue of Ganesh an representation of the Holy Trinity. Ergo, Christians ought not to worship Ganesh. I cannot see, really, that Christians can legitimately offer dulia to Ganesh. Dulia is offered to those creatures who, we believe, can intercede with the Holy Trinity. As, AFAICS, Ganesh most likely does not exist offering dulia to Ganesh is a species of idolatry. Ergo, no veneration of Ganesh.
My wife possesses one of Fr. Hart's books which argues for inter-faith worship based on a non-realist position. From Fr. Hart's point of view worshipping Ganesh is acceptable as neither he nor the Holy Trinity actually exist. Personally I think that this is a ridiculous position to take.
I think that not all religious belief is morally acceptable, goodness knows, I have been fairly brutal about some aspects of Christianity on these boards. Some religious beliefs are, quite frankly, despicable. Others are merely wrong. In any event one has some kind of obligation to the truth. If one does not believe in any kind of God, one has an obligation, I think, not to worship said entities. If one believes in some kind of deity that rules out beliefs in other kind of deities. A Hindu may, from his or her POV, worship Christ as an aspect of Brahma but that rather precludes him or her worshipping Christ as a member of the Holy Trinity. I think that non-Christian beliefs may have admirable aspects that Christians can learn from. I'm not convinced that all non-Christians will go to hell. But I can't for the life of me see that Christians believe the same thing or worship the same God as non-Christians. Fr. Hart's position seems to be that everything that can be bracketed under the position of 'spirituality' is a good thing. I don't think so. I imagine that he would dissent strongly from, say, Numpty's arguments on this thread. If Numpty can be wrong he can be wrong. In this instance my money is on Numpty.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
professor kirke
This previous post in this thread is a reasonable summary of my understanding. The key para is probably not the one you quoted, but this one.
quote:
The really serious issue is syncretism. I'm not sure whether this is legendary, but I remember hearing some stuff about the early church (prior to the Synod of Whitby) that they were quite happy to arrange to meet together (after "missioning" in different places) in ancient, Druidic, places of worship. They would simply put up a cross in the place and worship there as Christians. I suppose another trite example is the star on top of the Christmas tree. The key idea appears to be "redeem, but there is no need to destroy". Both of these examples show that folks have drawn the line in different places but there is some sort of a line to be drawn.
One of the "old boys" in my nonco chapel has a good take on Christmas Day. "So Jesus has two birthdays - we remember the official one but it probably wasn't the real one. What difference does it really make? The essence is Incarnation - the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The real problem is that Christmas is increasingly divorced from Xmas. The issue is not the date - it's the materialism".
I would probably differ with Orthodox and Catholics over some of the "imperial" aspects of the faith which emerged from 4th century on - but not at all about the inspired reflections on the nature of God (Trinity), the nature of Christ (fully God and fully man), the Incarnation. Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox traditions have a lot of common ground.
I also want to associate myself with KenWritez' and Callan's posts. In essence, Callan has spelled out my discomfort with Rev Hart's actions, in particular, here.
quote:
Worship ought only to be offered to the Holy Trinity. Ganesh is not, AFAICS, the Holy Trinity nor a member thereof nor is a statue of Ganesh an representation of the Holy Trinity. Ergo, Christians ought not to worship Ganesh. I cannot see, really, that Christians can legitimately offer dulia to Ganesh. Dulia is offered to those creatures who, we believe, can intercede with the Holy Trinity. As, AFAICS, Ganesh most likely does not exist offering dulia to Ganesh is a species of idolatry. Ergo, no veneration of Ganesh.
My wife possesses one of Fr. Hart's books which argues for inter-faith worship based on a non-realist position. From Fr. Hart's point of view worshipping Ganesh is acceptable as neither he nor the Holy Trinity actually exist. Personally I think that this is a ridiculous position to take.
I can't top that for precision re syncretistic worship. Of course if you do not have trinitarian belief or some sense of corporate unity with the church through the ages, then all bets are off. But if you do, then there appear to be, as KenWritez also indicates, aspects of Christian belief which are exclusive and, of necessity, preclude syncretistic worship.
There is more I could say, but that will do for openers. And, I repeat, none of this gives any of us any excuse for uncharitable acts or attitudes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Barnabas,
As you have rested a lot of your argument on the capable shoulders of Callan's previous post, please let my responses to the following quotes serve as a response to you as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Worship ought only to be offered to the Holy Trinity.
If we are building an argument from scripture, we've already run into our first problem, as the 'Holy Trinity' is already a problematic pointer-phrase that, though it holds truth in most Christian traditions, often represents different meanings to different people. In other words, I can agree with your assertion without necessarily disagreeing with Rev. Hart.
And I'm not sure that these:
quote:
If one believes in some kind of deity that rules out beliefs in other kind of deities.
quote:
A Hindu may, from his or her POV, worship Christ as an aspect of Brahma but that rather precludes him or her worshipping Christ as a member of the Holy Trinity.
are necessarily true assumptions.
quote:
But I can't for the life of me see that Christians believe the same thing or worship the same God as non-Christians.
I sometimes consider the idea that none of us are really worshipping the 'right' God, and that we're all pretty far off in our own conceptions of him/her/it/etc. If the One Truth is "clear," as Paul suggests, it's possible that many of us have gotten at least a few things right though.
Digory
[ 05. September 2006, 03:33: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
professor kirke
First, a comment on your final para. I don't think the root of anti-syncretism is a desire to be exclusive or even a desire to be right. It is probably founded in a particular understanding of truth. Acceptance in principle of degrees of personal (or even corporate) ignorance is not the same as the relativising of truth. The relativising of truth is, I believe, an untruth.
My other comments are largely personal and a good jumping off point is this quote from your post.
quote:
If we are building an argument from scripture, we've already run into our first problem, as the 'Holy Trinity' is already a problematic pointer-phrase that, though it holds truth in most Christian traditions, often represents different meanings to different people. In other words, I can agree with your assertion without necessarily disagreeing with Rev. Hart.
As is well known, it is possible to build from scripture a picture of a non-Trinitarian God. However, the church did not do that. The central doctrines of the Christian faith are the considered reflections of a community on the person and nature of God. Are these reflections authoritative? And, if so, are they of necessity, exclusive? Well, they are for me and they guide my considerations on issues like this one. I'm very much a Nicene lamb. Based on personal conviction and the loud bleatings of many other sheep, I reckon it to be a safe fold within which to graze.
Also, I'm not sola scriptura, which is an atypical nonco view. I've cracked the old joke before, but it is true. I believe in tradition, scripture, reason and experience. I'm not always sure what I believe about them, but I believe in them. My evangelical roots mean that I place a high value on scripture and the reformed tradition. Arising out of these convictions, and reflections on them, I have concluded as I've written on this particular matter. It is in the end, I suppose, both a personal judgement and a siding with the traditional view. I don't always do that on issues, but in this case, I do. Folks are free to take other views. A true unity of understanding does not require an absolute uniformity of opinion.
[ 05. September 2006, 06:38: 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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Why exactly is it that lighting incense before statues of Ganesh falls indisputably within the category of idol-worship, when you neither know nor care what is going in the minds of those involved? How are you so sure that lighting candles before statues of Mary is obviously something totally different?
Russ, you can meet God in heaven in the Person of Jesus Christ. You can look into His Middle Eastern face and shake His hand. And then you can ask Him how His mother is doing these days, and if you are lucky He will introduce you to His mum - a Jewish woman. And she will mention that she liked the candles, and that she did indeed intercede with her Son for you. And then you can chat to some of the groupies trailing her, like St Augustine. And then you can ask Jesus whether He also enjoyed being worshipped as an elephant with one tusk by Rev. Hart. And Jesus will say "WTF? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ", Mary will slap you, and St Augustine will ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) and hand you his "City of God" with the words "Tolle, lege!"
Ganesh is no human being in heaven, like the saints, worthy of dulia. Ganesh is not that most excellent human being Mary, Queen Mother, worthy of hyperdulia. Ganesh is not God incarnate, Jesus Christ, worthy of latria. Ganesh is a statue of an elephant with one tusk. The only possible excuse one can have for worshipping that, or worshipping God through that, or whatever, is if one doesn't know Holy Scripture. You cannot pray to an elephant statue, because a statue neither is God, nor can it validly represent God, as the Jews insist. You cannot pray inspired by an elephant statue, because it neither represents God incarnate, nor anyone in the communion of saints, as the Christians will further clarify. You cannot meet Ganesh in heaven, hence venerating or worshipping him or through him is idolatry - for a Jew or Christian.
--------------------
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
quote:
from IngoB
And then you can ask Jesus whether He also enjoyed being worshipped as an elephant with one tusk by Rev. Hart. And Jesus will say "WTF? ", Mary will slap you, and St Augustine will and hand you his "City of God" with the words "Tolle, lege!"
(Thinks "Hitchhikers Guide", dons Gag Halfrunt disguise)
"Und zo tell me, Zaphod ... zo zorry, IngoB ... zees profound characterizations? Do zey perhaps remind you of zumwon? Zumwon zignicant in your early life, shall ve zay .....?"
Seriously(!), IngoB, while I always appreciate your rhetorical vigour, wasn't that just a little OTT?
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And then you can ask Jesus whether He also enjoyed being worshipped as an elephant with one tusk by Rev. Hart. And Jesus will say "WTF? ", Mary will slap you, and St Augustine will and hand you his "City of God" with the words "Tolle, lege!"
Interesting. The Jesus I believe in would shrug and laugh it off with the answer "Well, he's doing what he thinks is right. It's the thought that counts".
Interesting how people's perceptions of - and beliefs in - our Lord can differ so, isn't it? I simply can't see God as the sort of Father who, when presented with a crappy, useless Christmas present by his young child proceeds to beat the child for not getting him something good...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As is well known, it is possible to build from scripture a picture of a non-Trinitarian God. However, the church did not do that. The central doctrines of the Christian faith are the considered reflections of a community on the person and nature of God. Are these reflections authoritative? And, if so, are they of necessity, exclusive? Well, they are for me and they guide my considerations on issues like this one. I'm very much a Nicene lamb. Based on personal conviction and the loud bleatings of many other sheep, I reckon it to be a safe fold within which to graze.
This is where it all breaks down for me. The desire to be safe, which at least you acknowledge. The central doctrines of the Christian faith are a backward-looking perspective on history. They have no necessary connection with truth.
Antagonism towards a reported practice that is being assumed to be equivalent to Christian worship looks to me all about bleating. If this outrage were permissable, it would mean that Christianity as exclusive truth would be incorrect. You would have to acknowledge your beliefs have no absolute foundation.
Adopting any view because enough other people through history have also taken the same view seems to me a bizarre, if not uncommon, approach. But safe??? This is myth, story, rumour, superstition, none of which can be shown to be fact.
There is no safe in this life. But the safer option is to refuse to credit any individual, community, or generation with knowledge of truth that cannot be verified. These attempts at scapegoating David Hart for daring to step outside your safety zone are one of the ugly faces of Christianity.
Time to let go of this crucifying tendency, I think.
[ 05. September 2006, 10:35: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Adopting any view because enough other people through history have also taken the same view seems to me a bizarre, if not uncommon, approach. But safe??? This is myth, story, rumour, superstition, none of which can be shown to be fact.
I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity merely rests on the authority of the Church. I think it can be argued that if one accepts the witness of scripture as authoritative then Trinitarian doctrine makes better sense of scripture than, say, Arianism or Docetism. You don't accept the authority of Scripture. That's your call. But Fr. Hart assured the Bishop he did when he was ordained.
quote:
There is no safe in this life. But the safer option is to refuse to credit any individual, community, or generation with knowledge of truth that cannot be verified. These attempts at scapegoating David Hart for daring to step outside your safety zone are one of the ugly faces of Christianity.
Time to let go of this crucifying tendency, I think.
Oh puh-lease. Who on this thread has called for Fr. Hart to be crucified? The argument is that if one holds a certain set of beliefs, this precludes a certain set of practices. No-one is saying that no-one ever should be allowed to worship Ganesh. What people are actually saying is that one cannot hold the beliefs that one is obliged to profess when ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England and also worship Ganesh.
I doubt very much if any reputable Hindu organisation would appoint me to any kind of religious teaching ministry given that I believe that their religion is largely untrue and wouldn't worship in a Hindu temple if my life depended on it. That isn't the crucifying face of Hinduism. That's the best thing both for Hinduism and for me as an individual.
In the same way I am not, at any time soon, going to be given a job at MacDonalds or adopted as a parliamentary candidate in the Conservative interest or made press officer for the Campaign to Bring Back Hanging. In all three instances my beliefs are in direct variance with the beliefs of the organisations concerned. That isn't bigotry, it's logic. If you believe certain things then, by definition, you cannot also believe other things. If I hold that the moon is made of green cheese I cannot simultaneously hold that the moon is not made of green cheese. If I believe that George W. Bush is the best thing since sliced custard I cannot also hold that George W. Bush is a scoundrel and a rogue. The only safety zone here is the law of non-contradiction.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The argument is that if one holds a certain set of beliefs, this precludes a certain set of practices. No-one is saying that no-one ever should be allowed to worship Ganesh. What people are actually saying is that one cannot hold the beliefs that one is obliged to profess when ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England and also worship Ganesh.
Two thoughts.
First, why are you and others assuming that David Hart is worshipping Ganesh. Russ I think it was who gave the best explanation of this back up the thread. The connection between the 'worship' you offer your deity, who I assume you believe to be the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is in a totally different category of expression to whatever 'worship' you are accusing Hart of.
Second, the canons of the Church of England do not require a priest to switch off his brain at ordination. As I've already referenced, they indicate only that a priest must affirm that he or she will be loyal to the historic faith of the Church as inspiration and guide. It seems that for David Hart this has led to a non-realist understanding of God, which in turn has led him to view adoption of a Hindu practice in a Hindu culture as consistent with that faith.
Until we have evidence that he was disobeying his bishop, this talk of breaking priestly vows is an unfounded slur on Hart and a distortion of both what the Church of England is and what it requires of its priests.
[ 05. September 2006, 12:09: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Time to let go of this crucifying tendency, I think.
You are free to let go if you want to. I'm hanging on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS Dave
But I don't crucify Rev Hart by disagreeing with him. I'm just not in the business of denying my own convictions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The Jesus I believe in would shrug and laugh it off with the answer "Well, he's doing what he thinks is right. It's the thought that counts".
Not quite how I'd put it, but basically yes.
God sees into our hearts. Is it not obvious that He will not be totally displeased if we do something off-the-wall for good motive ? Can anyone really think that slapping others down for the sake of conformity with the way we usually do things is what God wants ?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You cannot pray inspired by an elephant statue, because it neither represents God incarnate, nor anyone in the communion of saints, as the Christians will further clarify.
Certainly the elephant statue does not represent God incarnate or any saint.
But I don't see why that should necessarily prevent it from inspiring prayer to God the Father, who created all things - light, elephants, mothers, flesh and blood, wood and iron, plaster and paint, the whole works.
Seems to me that people can be inspired by the strangest things - mysterious ways and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I sometimes consider the idea that none of us are really worshipping the 'right' God, and that we're all pretty far off in our own conceptions of him/her/it/etc. If the One Truth is "clear," as Paul suggests, it's possible that many of us have gotten at least a few things right though.
The idea that no-one's concept of God is entirely adequate strikes me as being obviously true.
And I think you're also right to counterbalance that with an assertion that the ideas we inherit from those who have gone before us in the Christian faith are unlikely to be entirely inaccurate.
So here's all us inadequate humans, worshipping God as we conceive Him to be, but yet knowing that He is somehow different from that (and different in the direction of being more worthy).
With that as a picture, how is any of us to judge that someone else is worshipping some entity other than God ? Sometimes it may be obvious from someone's language and ethics that they're a long way off the right path. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Worship being an interior state and not an external action, the proposition that someone is using a particular symbol to aid them in worship of the true God seems to me one of those propositions that it's almost impossible to refute.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Rev. Hart is a philosophical and theological non-realist. What is most likely is that he thinks neither Ganesh nor God the Father have any meaning in themselves, except insofar as they may be useful fictions for ethical purposes.
I suspect that "useful fictions" is an over-simplification of the non-realist position, which seems to me an attempt to take seriously the limitations of our thought about God.
Gotta go,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
First, why are you and others assuming that David Hart is worshipping Ganesh. Russ I think it was who gave the best explanation of this back up the thread. The connection between the 'worship' you offer your deity, who I assume you believe to be the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is in a totally different category of expression to whatever 'worship' you are accusing Hart of.
Er, because according to the article in the OP Fr. Hart is "consecrating an idol of Ganesh". Consecrating something seems pretty much like worship to me. Consecrating an idol seems pretty much like idolatry which, by and large, the tradition has not viewed with unmixed favour.
quote:
Second, the canons of the Church of England do not require a priest to switch off his brain at ordination. As I've already referenced, they indicate only that a priest must affirm that he or she will be loyal to the historic faith of the Church as inspiration and guide. It seems that for David Hart this has led to a non-realist understanding of God, which in turn has led him to view adoption of a Hindu practice in a Hindu culture as consistent with that faith.
For one thing it is not necessary to switch one's brain off to have reservations about Fr. Hart's actions. Fr. Hart's position appears to be that no religion is true therefore we should follow all of them, a position which makes your average snake handling 7-day creationist look like Freddie Ayer. For another I am actually familiar with the undertakings that clergy are obliged to give at their ordination, to wit the fact that they are obliged to hold - not regard wistfully as an inspiration and guide - the faith revealed in scripture, set forth in the Catholic Creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness. Said faith tends to have a bit of a downer on idolatry and rather inclines to the view that God exists. Neither of which appear to be Fr. Hart's position.
quote:
Until we have evidence that he was disobeying his bishop, this talk of breaking priestly vows is an unfounded slur on Hart and a distortion of both what the Church of England is and what it requires of its priests.
With the greatest respect, Dave, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Bishop of Southwark (egad, it would be Southwark!) is not generally regarded as being infallible or the sole fount of Christian doctrine. It is not a matter of disobedience to his Bishop - although I would very much hope that he discourages clergy from such behaviour - but of his adherence to the faith which he professed at ordination. I dare say that the Bishop has not issued a general letter to his clergy asking them to refrain from consecrating idols. In much the same way, I imagine, that he has never explicitly forbade his clergy from turning the Church Hall into a strip bar and go-go joint. Nonetheless it is generally understood that such behaviour is inappropriate. An analogous situation applies in this instance.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Consecrating an idol seems pretty much like idolatry
I'm guessing that would depend on how you define idol. I wonder how exactly it's possible to make a credible distinction between, say, bread, wine, buildings, or anything else that would be acceptable consecratable material, and the wood and paint that comprises a figure of Ganesh.
quote:
Fr. Hart's position appears to be that no religion is true therefore we should follow all of them
No religion is true? I'd have thought that was a given. I don't doubt there is truth, but I'm certain no religion has a monopoly on it.
I must have missed the quote where David Hart exhorted us to follow all religions. If he's done that then clearly he's off his trolley - but I don't see he's done anything of the sort.
quote:
It is not a matter of disobedience to his Bishop - although I would very much hope that he discourages clergy from such behaviour - but of his adherence to the faith which he professed at ordination.
For those of you who see faith in God as an essentially static target, circumscribed for all time by traditional interpretations of the Christian story, I can see this is the position you'd like the Church to take.
Reassuringly, the canons of the Church of England seem to take a different view.
[ 05. September 2006, 15:58: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is it not obvious that He will not be totally displeased if we do something off-the-wall for good motive ?
Then you can't condemn Pres. Bush for invading Iraq because he did that "off-the-wall thing" for a good motive, according to him.
Politics aside, scripture contradicts your point. In 2 Sam 6, Uzzah touched the ark of the Lord when the oxen pulling the cart it sat on stumbled. God killed Uzzah instantly. "(7) The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God."
God can be a real hardcase sometimes. Look through the OT and see how seriously God takes holiness. Look in the NT and see how seriously Jesus takes faithfulness. Given all this, does He seem the sort to smile indulgently at His believers worshipping another god?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Can anyone really think that slapping others down for the sake of conformity with the way we usually do things is what God wants ?
You're assuming I'm slapping him down only because he's doing something Out of the Ordinary. Not true. The only conformity I'm talking about is conformity to scripture, something commanded by God and Jesus for all believers--no one is excused or given a wink and a nod.
Sometimes I get discouraged in this debate because it feels to me like you, Russ, and some of the other defenders of Mr. Hart are trying to turn this into a "Bad rulebook Jesus fundies vs. Shining, stalwart, CareBear for God--David Hart."
Mr. Hart could easily be a better, more faithful Christian than I am, minus his syncretism and views on the non-reality of God. I'll be glad to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he visits the sick and imprisoned, clothes the naked and feeds the hungry of India. I don't measure up to that. He gets the gold star. I get... I dunno, zinc or something. Maybe not even that. "Welcome to eternity, KenWritez. Here's your dungball."
I'm not trying to slap him down, I'm slapping down his actions. There is a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I don't see why that should necessarily prevent it from inspiring prayer to God the Father, who created all things - light, elephants, mothers, flesh and blood, wood and iron, plaster and paint, the whole works.
If Hart sees a statue of Ganesh and thinks, "Lovely statue, it helps me understand God's character better, I'll go pray to God for my ill neighbor," that's fine. But that's not what's happening, according to the story and photo caption. Hart is consecrating an idol to Ganesh. Big, big difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
With that as a picture, how is any of us to judge that someone else is worshipping some entity other than God ?
Because he's performing the actions of a believer in Ganesh? By your logic, how was Jesus able to judge the hearts of the merchants and moneylenders in the Temple when He drove them out with a whip?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Sometimes it may be obvious from someone's language and ethics that they're a long way off the right path. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
And this is where we disagree. To some of us, it very much seems the case here that Hart is a long way off the right path. (And I haven't begun to thresh out his "non-realist" POV! )
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Worship being an interior state and not an external action,
Again, scripture doesn't agree with you. What do you say to the many, many examples where the external actions of those who worshipped alien gods resulted in God's unhappy intervention?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
the proposition that someone is using a particular symbol to aid them in worship of the true God seems to me one of those propositions that it's almost impossible to refute.
No, this case is quite easy to refute, actually. If you say, "Marvin the Martian isn't poor, desperate and hungry," but I see him break into a house, throw open the fridge and gorge himself on the food and drink inside, then I can refute your claim about him.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[...] the non-realist position, which seems to me an attempt to take seriously the limitations of our thought about God.
If Mr. Hart believes God does not exist, then again, he's got no business as a Christian priest, a role which calls for him to uphold the tenets of Christian faith and practice. "God doesn't exist" hasn't been made canon yet, has it?
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Then you can't condemn Pres. Bush for invading Iraq because he did that "off-the-wall thing" for a good motive, according to him.
If you're God, no.
quote:
Politics aside, scripture contradicts your point. In 2 Sam 6, Uzzah touched the ark of the Lord when the oxen pulling the cart it sat on stumbled. God killed Uzzah instantly. "(7) The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God."
God can be a real hardcase sometimes.
Certainly, and you make a good point. But if you look at a list of all of the reasons God has killed humans, at least of those times recorded in Scripture, you get a long list including:
- looking back at the city (disobedience) in Genesis 19
- picking up sticks on the Sabbath in Numbers 15
- stealing and lying in Joshua 7
- having a family member who stole or lied, also in Joshua 7
- not believing a prophet in 2 Kings 7
- for teasing a prophet in 2 Kings 2
- for lying in Acts 5
- for talking or asking of the wrong God in 2 Kings 1 and 2 Chronicles 22
Obviously, something has changed to prevent all of this God-prompted killing? Or, if it is still happening, it surely isn't a widely-held or publically recognized belief of the Church, is it? So what's different?
quote:
Given all this, does He seem the sort to smile indulgently at His believers worshipping another god?
No, but that assumes that anyone is worshipping "another god," which, as has been argued here, somewhat supposes that another god exists apart from YHWH. If, on the other hand, you believe there is no God but YHWH, then any reverence you offer to God, you may in fact believe you are offering to The God. In which case, when you arrive before this God's presence, you could conceive of him accepting all of this person's worship as an attempt to bring him honor and glory, rather than exclaiming "WTF," rolling his eyes and smacking the person across the face whilst sending them to Hell*.
*With the "sending them to Hell" equivalent to being asked to read "City of God," of course.
quote:
The only conformity I'm talking about is conformity to scripture, something commanded by God and Jesus for all believers--no one is excused or given a wink and a nod.
So anyone who gets it just the slightest bit wrong gets the same fate, regardless of the offense? Nothing but absolute conformity to scripture is worthy of pardon? I am sure you don't believe that, but then, I'd say any alternative explanation is practically a "wink and a nod" from God as he forgives and removes our inaccuracies.
quote:
Sometimes I get discouraged in this debate because it feels to me like you, Russ, and some of the other defenders of Mr. Hart are trying to turn this into a "Bad rulebook Jesus fundies vs. Shining, stalwart, CareBear for God--David Hart."
I assure you, I've never felt like this at all. And I don't want to align myself with any opinion on this thread or anywhere else that suggests that because you are uncomfortable with Hart's actions, you hate him or you are intolerant and unloving. I do understand your reactions, for the most part. I just disagree with them. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
If Mr. Hart believes God does not exist, then again, he's got no business as a Christian priest, a role which calls for him to uphold the tenets of Christian faith and practice. "God doesn't exist" hasn't been made canon yet, has it?
I agree that if he doesn't believe God exists, he shouldn't be a Christian priest, at least not in a God-believing church of Anglicanism. I admit that I don't know much about Mr. Hart, and I honestly have no vested interest in defending his specific actions as much as I am trying to think through what they mean and imply, and what they could have meant or implied had it been someone else doing something similar, etc.
However, your final sentence illustrates some of my feelings about canon in general. That your question makes sense at all is what unsettles me the most--that there is a possibility that "God doesn't exist" could be made canon. That serves as a very real demonstration of how we are all necessarily wrong, or perhaps INCOMPLETE is a better word, in our concept of who God is and how God works.
And to me, that's a very hopeful thought.
-Digory
(Apologies for my ingobian post. )
[ 05. September 2006, 18:05: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Seriously(!), IngoB, while I always appreciate your rhetorical vigour, wasn't that just a little OTT?
Well, yes, it was. For rhetorical effect I placed this exchange in heaven, where of course it could never occur - a saint would never ask such an inane question. This could only happen in purgatory, if at all (if Jesus, Mary, and St Augustine ever visited purgatory...).
I think I finally get what the problem is now, thanks to my post here. Many protestants indeed have lost the sacramental view of the world, a crucial element of Christianity (and indeed of all religion). Their actions do not signify any spiritual reality for them per se anymore. It all boils down to what they "mean" by their actions, what their "intention" behind any symbol is. Spiritual reality is reduced merely to what happens in their minds, nothing can act spiritually ex opere operato (from the work done) anymore.
It's heartening to see that the "sacramental instinct" is still alive and well in some Protestants - like for KenWritez, even though he may not think of it in these terms. But it seems quite clear to me now that no common judgement can be found about Rev. Hart's actions between those who think that an action can create its own spiritual reality, and those who would assign all spiritual reality only to the intention of the performing agent.
--------------------
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
|
|
R.D. Olivaw
Shipmate
# 9990
|
Posted
While reading the article I was reminded of The Sublime Mystery chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita
When devoted men sacrifice
to other dieties with faith,
they sacrifice to me Arjuna
how ever aberrant the rites.
Perhaps the priest in question is on the road to Hinduism and Jesus will become (as he is to some Hindus) just another avatar. I was struck by the comment, "But it soon turned into a quest to learn more about this extraordinary God" This God? As opposed to that God? Not even this representation of God but...this God? I don't remember Yahweh saying, well they might worship baal but it was really meant for me.
--------------------
We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness -Thich Nhat Hanh
Posts: 496 | From: I'm a leaf on the wind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think I finally get what the problem is now, thanks to my post here. Many protestants indeed have lost the sacramental view of the world, a crucial element of Christianity (and indeed of all religion). Their actions do not signify any spiritual reality for them per se anymore. It all boils down to what they "mean" by their actions, what their "intention" behind any symbol is. Spiritual reality is reduced merely to what happens in their minds, nothing can act spiritually ex opere operato (from the work done) anymore.
Yes, there is a something in that. But I think the common ground amongst those protestants who have commented unfavourably about Rev Hart is precisely that his actions are believed (with varying degrees of force) to be
- wrong for a priest in orders
- wrong in our understanding of worship
I think you are mixing up the relationship between actions and intentions. Actions are not just symbolic of intentions - they have real consequences. But intentions certainly have some impact on the correct, the just way of approaching wrong actions. I presume that Jesus' censure on judgmentalism and his emphasis on the significance of intentions (Matt 5-7) remain as central to you as they do to me.
I may be using language wrongly here but the very real importance I give to respect for human beings is greatly strengthened and affirmed by my understanding that we are all made in the image of God. That may not be a sacramental approach in the terms you use, but it is an affirmation that for me, there is a sacredness in human life - however flawed and wrong-headed it may appear to me to be. The emotions which Rev Hart's actions arouse in me are, primarily, confusion and sadness. Not anger. I don't really "do" anger very well.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you are mixing up the relationship between actions and intentions. Actions are not just symbolic of intentions - they have real consequences. But intentions certainly have some impact on the correct, the just way of approaching wrong actions. I presume that Jesus' censure on judgmentalism and his emphasis on the significance of intentions (Matt 5-7) remain as central to you as they do to me.
I'm not mixing up anything. Rev. Hart's actions are idolatry per se. That is so irrespective of his intentions, as long as he's indeed consecrating Ganesh. The action in and by itself represents idolatry, and hence it is gravely sinful. That's the "sacramental point of view". His intentions and the circumstances however count towards his culpability. If Rev. Hart were a Hindu who had never heard of the gospel, then he would not be culpable at all of the idolatry. The same would be true if Rev. Hart was insane. If he was forced at gunpoint to worship Ganesh, it would probably count as venial sin. But since he is well-educated in the faith, a Christian leader with some influence, sane, and under no duress whatever - this will count as mortal sin, as far as humans can reckon such matters. The consequences of his actions play also a role. If he had done this locked away in a room, then he would have been culpable merely of the idolatry. As it is, he presumably has at least implicitly agreed that his action would be published in a newspaper, if not encouraged it. So he adds grave scandal as a sin he's culpable of. And most likely a case can be made that he has broken his oath to the bishop in the process. Again, he can hardly be considered ignorant of this, so he's likely culpable of grave perjury as well.
In Matthew 5:22,28 our Lord does not establish the principle that an evil act can become good if the intention is good. Far from it! Rather, Jesus extends the class of wrong acts to include even the thought of a wrong act. If we apply this to our case, then Rev. Hart would have been in some trouble already for just thinking about worshipping Ganesh somehow. Perhaps Rev. Hart should also contemplate Matthew 6:1,5-6; 7:6,13-15,21-23,26-27. And he should worry that Matthew 5:13 addresses him...
--------------------
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:
In Matthew 5:22,28 our Lord does not establish the principle that an evil act can become good if the intention is good. Far from it! Rather, Jesus extends the class of wrong acts to include even the thought of a wrong act. If we apply this to our case, then Rev. Hart would have been in some trouble already for just thinking about worshipping Ganesh somehow. Perhaps Rev. Hart should also contemplate Matthew 6:1,5-6; 7:6,13-15,21-23,26-27. And he should worry that Matthew 5:13 addresses him...
I'm fairly sure this would not be something David Hart would be too worried about, and nor am I. But more interestingly, neither as far as there is such a thing is the constitution of the Church of England.
The C of E provides a home for sacramentalists and literalists, realists and non-realists, but it is not defined by any of them. It has a higher calling, one that is probably impossible to publicly consider because of exactly the problem that keeps reasserting itself on this thread.
Each perspective, each tradition wants to promote their view of religion. The result is that rather than the Church being the embodiment of a set of shared values and a core focus on God, it's become simply an arena for politics. Each faction battles to gain the upper hand so they can claim ownership.
People here and elsewhere claiming the Church is this or the Church is that in their own faith image are the ones who are distorting and misrepresenting the Church as an institution. You can say, and I'd probably agree, that this makes the institution less than Christian, or not sufficiently Christian, or inadequate in some other way for your faith-representing purposes. But I'd also say that makes it more, potentially much more, capable of being the means by which faith in God is celebrated and explored in the broadest sense of the Christian tradition.
It's those who seek to remake the Church of England in their own image that are the damaging idolators - their idol is the certainty that they are right - not individuals like David Hart.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rev. Hart's actions are idolatry per se. That is so irrespective of his intentions, as long as he's indeed consecrating Ganesh. The action in and by itself represents idolatry, and hence it is gravely sinful. That's the "sacramental point of view". His intentions and the circumstances however count towards his culpability.
You may be right that this is where some of the differences of view are coming from.
If I've got this right you're suggesting that certain acts are intrinsically "acts of worship" or "acts of consecration" regardless of whether there is any intention in the mind of the actor to worship or to consecrate.
Implying that one could conceivably worship or consecrate by accident.
[Just how exactly, when walking down the street, should I avoid accidentally worshipping Baal, or consecrating a convenient rock as a shrine to Isis out of sheer absent-mindedness ? Never mind... ]
The quote you link to also mentions signs/symbols, and I guess your answer to the above is tied up with the idea that the meaning that you assign to a sign/symbol is somehow an objective meaning that is valid for all thinking beings in all times and all places.
So that, for example, if one aboriginal Australian puts two fingers in the air, he has thereby (objectively, in "spiritual reality")insulted his companion, whether or not such a sign means anything to either of them. And you believe this because in your culture that gesture means "up yours", and you think that such a meaning is somehow part of the fabric of the universe ?
Is it not clear that this is a philosophical error ? One which is exposed as such by cultural pluralism ? Which is why a multi-cultural environment is a challenge for religions, which use signs and symbols to convey something of the ineffable God ?
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
I was thinking of Jesus promised blessing, for example, for those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness". Is that not about the intentions which motivate our actions? We seek first the kingdom. Unlikely as it may seem to either you or me, Rev Hart may actually be trying to do that. But I agree about "unsavoury salt" warnings.
I think you are arguing that from your perspective, and because of his actions, Rev Ward is guilty absolutely of the absolute offence of idolatry. His actions condemn him absolutely. No need for hearing or explanation (apart possibly for mitigation). Obvious. A bit like the absolute offence of being "over the limit" while driving. He's "over the limit". Is that your position? On consideration, it isn't mine. I believe mens rea is a decent standard for these things. The Lord looks upon the heart.
--------------------
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 Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Given all this, does He seem the sort to smile indulgently at His believers worshipping another god?
No, but that assumes that anyone is worshipping "another god," which, as has been argued here, somewhat supposes that another god exists apart from YHWH.
I'm having trouble with this line of argument, Prof K. If there is "another god", then we appear to have a cut and dried case of idolatry. If there isn't, then what? Why did YHWH get so riled up about Asherah Poles and sacrifices to Baal? Why not just shrug and say "there isn't another god, so that's OK"? Yes, the OT condemns a lot of things, and yes, a typical modern understanding of idolatry would have quite a different focus, but surely this suggests that the reality or otherwise of the "other god" isn't all that important?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Why did YHWH get so riled up about Asherah Poles and sacrifices to Baal? Why not just shrug and say "there isn't another god, so that's OK"? Yes, the OT condemns a lot of things, and yes, a typical modern understanding of idolatry would have quite a different focus, but surely this suggests that the reality or otherwise of the "other god" isn't all that important?
The reality of other gods is irrelevant as it is a matter of objective, unchangeable truth. There either are other gods or there aren't. The traditional Christian understanding is that there aren't, and that idolatry is praying to or worshipping a god as if it exists when it in fact does not. This seems to be IngoB and Callan's problem, as well--that Ganesh doesn't exist in reality is what makes this idolatry different from the veneration of Mary, etc.
My point relies, to IngoB's dismay, upon intention and meaning. If you bow before Ganesh and worship him as an alternative God, then that would be idolatry from a Christian perspective. However, I'm supposing that it is at least possible for one to consecrate Ganesh as a spiritual manifestation of YWHW's glory in one way or another, depending fully upon YHWH as the One God, and yet incorporating another culture's worship of this God into your own act of worship. Whether or not this is Hart's specific intention, I have no idea.
I would like to respond to you, IngoB, but I await your response to Russ first.
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So that, for example, if one aboriginal Australian puts two fingers in the air, he has thereby (objectively, in "spiritual reality")insulted his companion, whether or not such a sign means anything to either of them. And you believe this because in your culture that gesture means "up yours", and you think that such a meaning is somehow part of the fabric of the universe ?
Is it not clear that this is a philosophical error ? One which is exposed as such by cultural pluralism ? Which is why a multi-cultural environment is a challenge for religions, which use signs and symbols to convey something of the ineffable God ?
First, let's be clear about the actual intentions of Rev. Hart: He's not merely accidentally replicating some Hindu (or Christian?) ritual to consecrate Ganesh, neither is he merely accidentally standing close to a statue of Ganesh. His action is to intentionally consecrate Ganesh. He's also not an actor on a stage playing the consecration of Ganesh. Although he may himself be a "non-realist" concerning worship, he's performing actions in circumstances and surroundings which are aimed at the worship of Ganesh. So again, his action remains a consecration of Ganesh also according to the environemnt.
Second, let's be clear why certain "symbolic actions" (including words) can function "ex opere operato" (from the work done). This is of course not so because they are some magical way of manipulating the (spiritual) world. Rather it is so because of God, who Personally realizes these symbols. Baptism for example "works" per se, because God realizes its promises unfailingly upon encountering its symbols. The situation is rather similar to making a hand signal to some other person, wherupon that person will switch on electricity. If that other person watching out for the signal were unfailing in his duties, as God is unfailing in His promises, then we could declare that hand signal to "ex opere operato" switch on electricity.
What we are discussing here is merely whether Rev. Hart's intentional act of consecrating Ganesh in its appropriate environment can avoid being idolatry merely because Rev. Hart does probably not think the same thoughts as a Hindu believer doing the same actions, or for that matter as a Christian priest consecrating the host. It's this secondary level of intentionality we are talking about, not the primary level of acting towards the consecration of Ganesh at all (which Rev. Hart clearly does intend).
The hand signal analogy given above makes clear that this secondary level cannot excuse Rev. Hart. For if the other person is watching out for the hand signal we've agreed upon, and I make that hand signal without actually intending to have the electricity on, then nevertheless holding any bare cables I will get zapped. For my hand signal works "ex opere operato" thanks to the personal attention of my partner. Similarly it is now with God and idolatry. Since this is not a sacrament, but rather a sin, the question of culpability comes into play. But Rev. Hart has no excuses there either. So he will get "zapped".
In terms of your analogy then, if both Aborigines have just been visiting an English colony, and have been taught that raising two fingers in such a manner means "up yours" - then if one Aborigine does make this sign to the other in a context which does suggest the insult (rather than say a parody of the colonials) it is going to cause grave offense, even if the person raising the fingers did so without the insulting intention.
Finally, I wish to point that the biblical story of the golden calf precisely applies. For the Israelites did not create the golden calf for some other God, but for their "gods". They were going to worship whoever was leading them out of Egypt (their Divine benefactor) through that golden calf representation they invented (since Moses was taking his time). 'And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.' (Exodus 32:4-5, RSV).
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A bit like the absolute offence of being "over the limit" while driving. He's "over the limit". Is that your position?
Let's rather compare to other offenses against the Decalogue, say murdering someone. If you put a gun to some innocent person's head and pull the trigger, is that a sinful act per se or not? Yes, if the murderer didn't know what they were doing (a child playing with the gun, an insane person), they would not be culpable at all. Yes, circumstances could reduce culpability, like if the murder was in a drunken rage. But the act stands as sinful no matter what. And if the perpetrator commits it in "cold blood" and on purpose, then he's fully culpable. It does not matter then if the murderer is convinced of doing a good thing with this murder. For example, the murderer could be a racist who thinks he's doing good by "eliminating vermin", i.e., that innocent person. That "secondary intention" does not excuse the "primary intention" of doing evil, as specified by the Decalogue. The graces of God are real, but so are His demands. There are "non-negotiables", and as Jew or Christian you just don't muck around with other gods. EOD. Says God. Loud and clear. He's pretty much yelling at the top of His lungs, isn't He...
--------------------
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
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
I'm not at all sure that we should get too hung up on the word "consecrate" as this piece was written by a journalist, not by David Hart AND, what is more, a journalist writing in an Indian newspaper and writing in Indian English. As anyone knows who has spent any time here Indian English differs from English English just as, say, American or Australian English differs from English English. "Two nations divided by a common language" and all that. Sadly we don't have David Hart's own words on what he was doing or why so I think we need to treat the wording with some caution.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The hand signal analogy given above makes clear that this secondary level cannot excuse Rev. Hart. For if the other person is watching out for the hand signal we've agreed upon, and I make that hand signal without actually intending to have the electricity on, then nevertheless holding any bare cables I will get zapped. For my hand signal works "ex opere operato" thanks to the personal attention of my partner. Similarly it is now with God and idolatry.
The problem with your analogy, as with most human-to-God analogies, is misaccounting for the nature of God. A hand signal between two humans is a great way to achieve a purpose that cannot otherwise be achieved, like getting the electricity turned on when the other person is out of ear-shot.
God, however, does not have these limitations. God will never need a symbol to make up for the inability to discern someone's intentions. If the person responsible for switching on the electricity did know my intention, and knew that I didn't intend to make the electricity come on, and yet that person turned it on anyway, why is this a good quality?
quote:
In terms of your analogy then, if both Aborigines have just been visiting an English colony, and have been taught that raising two fingers in such a manner means "up yours" - then if one Aborigine does make this sign to the other in a context which does suggest the insult (rather than say a parody of the colonials) it is going to cause grave offense, even if the person raising the fingers did so without the insulting intention.
Again, offense will only be caused if the offended person does not understand the intention behind the symbol. If he does understand, then of course he will not be offended, because he'll realize the person intended to only reference an 'inside-joke' or some other, non-offensive intention.
quote:
It does not matter then if the murderer is convinced of doing a good thing with this murder. For example, the murderer could be a racist who thinks he's doing good by "eliminating vermin", i.e., that innocent person. That "secondary intention" does not excuse the "primary intention" of doing evil, as specified by the Decalogue.
Murder, and other variations, limp analogically because their consequences are clearly seen. Pulling the trigger kills the man. You may think killing him was a good thing, but you have not disputed that you actually killed him. That you did is demonstrably true. Incorporating cultural spirituality into your own worship of the One True God, YHWH, is not demonstrably evil or wrong. It is a matter of opinion and interpretation, and a whole lot of trust.
quote:
EOD. Says God. Loud and clear. He's pretty much yelling at the top of His lungs, isn't He...
No, that's you yelling. Though if there is some confusion there, it may explain a lot of our disagreement.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
The problem with your analogy, as with most human-to-God analogies, is misaccounting for the nature of God. A hand signal between two humans is a great way to achieve a purpose that cannot otherwise be achieved, like getting the electricity turned on when the other person is out of ear-shot.
God does not need symbols. People do. And people need symbols with fixed meanings to allow communication to happen reliably. Like the very words you read now, which only "work" because we have a basic agreement on their meaning. The Jewish / Christian God is not some entity that stands apart from human concerns, He's been involved in human affairs to the point of becoming human. He's our Father, not some entity beyond any human communciation or act. His promises have been given in terms of human words and actions - like the grace he provides in the ritual of baptism. His requests have been given in terms of human words and actions - like commanding the Eucharist to us as memory of Him. And His interdictions also come in terms of human words and actions - like not to worship idols.
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Again, offense will only be caused if the offended person does not understand the intention behind the symbol. If he does understand, then of course he will not be offended, because he'll realize the person intended to only reference an 'inside-joke' or some other, non-offensive intention.
If somebody kept giving you the finger, claiming that it is a sign of their affection, you would soon tell them to cut it out. Signs work only as true signs, with a shared agreement on both sides as to what they signify. God has most clearly indicated that He wishes no worship to other gods. God has most clearly indicated that He does not wish to be worshipped through some idol like the golden calf. If you tell somebody to stop giving you the finger, and they ignore you, would you conclude that they truly show their affection by it - as they claim?
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Murder, and other variations, limp analogically because their consequences are clearly seen.
Murder was not an analogy at all. It's simply another example of an activity most severely interdicted by the Decalogue. If you called your dad a dickhead to his face, would the violation of the commandment to honour your parents be hard to see? You don't have to slay your dad to make sure that he gets the message.
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Incorporating cultural spirituality into your own worship of the One True God, YHWH, is not demonstrably evil or wrong. It is a matter of opinion and interpretation, and a whole lot of trust.
Nonsense. There's zilch wiggle room here. The bible speaks against worshipping other gods time and again, including at the incident of the golden calf precisely against worshipping the God of Israel through some idol. Tradition - both Jewish and Christian - clearly and severely affirms the interdiction. Many Christian martyrs went to their deaths for avoiding this mortal sin. You simply void the clear sense of the bible and of the entire tradition for thousands of years.
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
No, that's you yelling.
'And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation."' (Exodus 32:7-10, RSV)
One of a plethora of similar verses, with not a single verse supporting any compromise on the issue whatever. Such an inconvenient text, the bible, isn't it? Maybe you should just trash it. Who needs it, given that you know God's will so much better in your heart...
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Although I think it is probably best for another thread [which may well have been done before], rather than hugely diverting this one, I wonder and would like to ask folks here whether belief in the Historical Jesus is necessary for them personally or for the Church as a whole.
If we could go back in time in H G Wells times machine and see what happened there and then and found that it didn't fit with the Goispel story would that destroy people's faith.
I won't start this thread at the moment in case it has been done to death in the past but I will happily start it off if people think it could be either interesting or useful.
WW, I'd be interested in such a thread.
--------------------
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 KenWritez:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
the proposition that someone is using a particular symbol to aid them in worship of the true God seems to me one of those propositions that it's almost impossible to refute.
No, this case is quite easy to refute, actually. If you say, "Marvin the Martian isn't poor, desperate and hungry," but I see him break into a house, throw open the fridge and gorge himself on the food and drink inside, then I can refute your claim about him.
I can think of several other possibilities:
--M is doing it for fun.
--He is a thief.
--He lost his key, and is breaking into his own house.
--He's house-sitting, lost his key, and is breaking in.
--He has Prader-Willi syndrome.
--He's drunk, stoned, etc.
--He's mentally ill.
--You stumbled onto a movie shoot.
Etc.
You don't have enough data to know what's going on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
We can all "relax" in the knowledge that ultimately God will judge Rev Ward's actions, as he will judge ours. To Him it is all clear. And, personally, I'm not looking for "wiggle room" for Rev Ward. For the time being, here on earth, just let any processes of ecclesiastical justice continue.
Without knowing ecclesiastical law in detail, I would hope that any such processes would consider intentions, reckless behaviour, negligence. All of these are dimensions of "mens rea" which factor in, incidentally, to human judgments about whether an act is murder. All of them seem to me to factor in when considering a suspected act of idolatry by a priest. What was he intending to do? Does his behaviour show a reckless disregard of his responsibilities as an Anglican priest in orders. Did he neglect his duties of obedience to his bishop in particular and the church in general? Fair questions, I reckon, based on the photograph and report.
But as for all of us, we do well to be cautious in judging, precisely because we are specifically and authoritatively instructed to act in that way. In the fourfold gospel. And, as I've said before, we are none of us directly responsible for any judging in this case.
IngoB, you are not being cautious in your expressed opinions. You see no need to be so and you have explained why. Should I ever be in court, however, I would prefer my jurors to think like professor kirke. Listening, weighing, considering, holding guilt or innocence open until they have heard all the facts relating to the matter. You have seen enough already. If you were to be a juror on a matter like this, holding your opinions, a defence lawyer could challenge you for cause. You could not "hear" the case because your mind is made up already. I know we are only expressing opinions here, but I've found it to be a good idea to avoid rushing to judgment even in discussion forums. You can get into bad habits that way.
I've said several times that I wouldn't imitate Rev Ward, thinking such behaviour to be idolatrous. Although I have no right to it, I think I would find an explanation helpful. This is a man who hatless has commended for his pastoral care and thoughtfulness. I haven't forgotten that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
The reality of other gods is irrelevant as it is a matter of objective, unchangeable truth. There either are other gods or there aren't. The traditional Christian understanding is that there aren't, and that idolatry is praying to or worshipping a god as if it exists when it in fact does not. This seems to be IngoB and Callan's problem, as well--that Ganesh doesn't exist in reality is what makes this idolatry different from the veneration of Mary, etc.
My point relies, to IngoB's dismay, upon intention and meaning. If you bow before Ganesh and worship him as an alternative God, then that would be idolatry from a Christian perspective. However, I'm supposing that it is at least possible for one to consecrate Ganesh as a spiritual manifestation of YWHW's glory in one way or another, depending fully upon YHWH as the One God, and yet incorporating another culture's worship of this God into your own act of worship.
I think that this is different from inculturation. For me the question is are all forms of worship adequate forms of worship of the Holy Trinity, to which I think the answer must be no. In ecclesiantics a few months ago we had a discussion of the charming people holding a Requiem Mass for the Episcopal Church. Now there was a general consensus on that thread that this wasn't an adequate use of the Mass because the point of the Requiem Mass is to give comfort to those who mourn and to pray for the souls of the departed, not for conservatives to vent their spleen about liberals. I think that this falls under a similar heading to be honest. (Doubtless, Fr. Hart is a nicer person than the embittered traditionalists in question, but that is hardly the point.) I don't think that Ganesh is an iteration of the Holy Trinity or the persons thereof and consecrating one of his statues, using a Hindu rite, isn't AFAICS an adequate form of worship of the Holy Trinity.
The fact that Fr. Hart's intentions are probably well meant does not really alter this. The embittered traditionalists in eccles were zealous for Christ's Church, which I take to be a good thing, but their zeal led them astray. Similarly, whilst it is a good thing to respect Hindus and their culture it is not a good thing, IMNSHO, for a Christian to demonstrate such respect by venerating one of their deities. I'm pretty sure that it is possible to incorporate Hindu practices into Christian liturgy if they are Christianised, as it were. Things like incense and reverent posture in worship, for example, predate Christianity by millenia. But I think that all worship is, in some sense, symbolic and not all symbols are adequate representations. A statue of Ganesh seems to me to be one such inadequate symbol.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Callan
Your AFAICS and IMNSNO are the same as mine and constitute a sound basis for quesioning Rev Hart's actions. I realise my sole issue with IngoB on this is the seeming confidence with which he condemns. To confirm that I'd be happy to see you on a hypothetical jury, should ever I be in such need ..
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Barnabas62, we are talking about an Anglican priest, a specialist in "interfaith" activities with many years of experience, a published author on theological issues, etc. Let's hope that either the newspaper report was a canard or that Rev. Hart had a major brain fart. In both cases, we should see him provide a public statement quickly, either refuting the stroy clearly or asking for forgiveness for his ill-considered act, respectively. Well, where is that statement? Do you seriously believe one is forthcoming in the foreseeable future?
I have no idea why you, or hatless for that matter, consider it relevant that Rev. Hart has provided thoughtful pastoral care to someone. Are you saying that this immunizes him against sinning mortally somehow? Or that a doomed sinner can't ever be nice to anybody, so that Rev. Hart can't be one because he was nice to someone? How weird.
By the way, would you consider a priest who is theologically non-realist as an apostate by default? If not, why not? If yes, why worry overly about whether this incident is a further related mortal sin or not?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
