|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Pluralism
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
"Officially recognised" to what end?
As something like having a commitment to God and to truth, having had their system of faith audited by the authority appointed for the purpose (nominally anyway) by the government of the day. A bit like the Charity Commissioners, perhaps.
You misunderstand me - I see what would be measured by the state, but what be the point of measuring it? What is the point of "auditing" faith?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Latria can be paid "through" any depiction of a Person of the Holy Trinity in an "incarnation" that God has actually chosen. That is primarily Jesus Christ, but it will do for the Holy Spirit as dove (as per Christ's baptism, when the Holy Spirit was perceived in this form) and I guess the burning bush will be OK, too.
That seems pretty much like you're saying that any symbol for God (Father, Son, Spirit or three-in-one) that is recognisably part of your cultural tradition is OK, but use in worship of a symbol for God from outside that tradition is sinful.
And that the essence of idolatry is therefore use of non-traditional symbols in worship.
Am I misreading you ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That seems pretty much like you're saying that any symbol for God (Father, Son, Spirit or three-in-one) that is recognisably part of your cultural tradition is OK, but use in worship of a symbol for God from outside that tradition is sinful. And that the essence of idolatry is therefore use of non-traditional symbols in worship. Am I misreading you ?
The key words in your query are "your cultural tradition". These word I reject outright. Replace them with "the actual manifestations of the Holy Trinity that occured in history" and we are in agreement. You may find it scandalous that this means that Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition are normative. But that's just the way it is. God made his covenants with Israel and then with all the world in Christ. To call these happenings in some Middle Eastern backwater a long time ago "my cultural tradition" is rhetorics. It's nothing less than God's primary interaction with the world and all of humanity.
The culture and the people that could have claimed to "own" these events are long gone, and they did reject the most important part of these events - Christ - anyway. All others ever since had to align their own culture with this, which has generally meant abandoning large chunks of the old for something entirely new. That our ancestors did most of this for us is just the fortune of our birth. Others are not so lucky. Hence Christianity has been and must be a fundamentally missionary religion. It's our duty to bring the fullness of Truth about God which we have already received to all people of the world lacking it. It's their duty to receive it joyfully and adopt their ways accordingly.
--------------------
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 humblebum:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If on the other hand the job was to decide whether written submissions from faith groups were, say, decent and honest, whether their advertising matched their practice, or whether their constitutions met requirements for charitable status, I believe both civil servants and on occasion the judiciary do it all the time.
I guess. Just can't see them making decisions about anything more complicated than charitable status, though. Specifically, I just can't see them making any sort of theological decisions.
With a new body, new expertise would have to be brought in. I'm often surprised by the number of people with apparently no church connection who have degrees in theology. I guess I'm imagining church people doing the business of interpreting a new ChurchOfEngland constitution, because I'd see this as very much a church development activity.
And I'm not thinking this kind of exercise would be easy or uncomplicated. Any change on this scale for which there's no existing model is always going to be fraught with difficulty. But if it was worth doing, say because the status quo was no longer an option, those difficulties would have to be worked through.
quote:
And without any theological decision making power, I see no meaningful reason at all to call this government agency "the Church of England".
It wasn't in fact the agency, central council, whatever it was called, that I was thinking would continue to be called the Church of England, but all the faith groups that met the criteria (and wanted to be part of it). The ChurchOfEngland itself would continue to be the churches on the ground, but with a greater diversity of local churches able to have 'Part of the Church of England' or whatever on their noticeboards and advertising.
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I see what would be measured by the state, but what be the point of measuring it? What is the point of "auditing" faith?
I'd see this not in terms of "auditing" faith itself but of the willingness (and ability I guess) of faith groups to describe their faith in a rational and transparent way.
If the church on the corner claimed to be part of the ChurchOfEngland, anyone who was interested could go to the ChurchOfEngland website and read about their beliefs from an informed, credible source independent of the church or denomination, and see how it compares with any other group who were also part of the ChurchOfEngland.
If we're going to have a national Church, let's structure it in such a way that new expressions of faith, perhaps with unconventional ways of thinking and talking about God, can emerge within that Church without being stifled by reactionary tendencies in traditional Christianity.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
And I'm not thinking this kind of exercise would be easy or uncomplicated. Any change on this scale for which there's no existing model is always going to be fraught with difficulty. But if it was worth doing, say because the status quo was no longer an option, those difficulties would have to be worked through.
No they wouldn't, Dave. The perfectly reasonable alternative would be to scrap the idea of an established national church altogether, the way most of the rest of the world has done.
There's no reason that the country should have to work through the difficulties of such a bizarre scheme if there's nobody actually interested in calling themselves part of the Church of England who isn't part of it already.
Really. I've never known anyone (except yourself, obviously) to express an interest in such a thing.
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
The perfectly reasonable alternative would be to scrap the idea of an established national church altogether, the way most of the rest of the world has done.
As far as I can make out, disestablishment would not be simple process. I'd not be surprised if what I'm thinking of would be no more difficult. And as a means of raising awareness of the fact that there are infinitely more ways of thinking and talking about God than the traditional Christian ones, I'd have thought a non-partisan God-interested observer would see this as an opportunity rather something to oppose.
quote:
I've never known anyone (except yourself, obviously) to express an interest in such a thing.
I've not heard anyone else expressing interest in this kind of thing either. But then I've not seen the possibility raised anywhere at all. I wonder what would happen if it was.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
as a means of raising awareness of the fact that there are infinitely more ways of thinking and talking about God than the traditional Christian ones, I'd have thought a non-partisan God-interested observer would see this as an opportunity rather something to oppose.
You mean all those atheists, agnostics, polytheists, deists, (non-Chalcedonian or non-Nicene) Christians, pluralists, non-realists, realists, surrealists, quasi-hindus and all other non-CofE persons are incapable of working this out without a government list of approved ways of god-bothering?
[ 12. September 2006, 15:37: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As far as I can make out, disestablishment would not be simple process. I'd not be surprised if what I'm thinking of would be no more difficult.
Do you really think that it would be no more difficult to put together a system that no-one but yourself can see any value in (and which you yourself concede is 'bizarre'), than it would be to go through a process that a great deal of countries have been through already, to implement a situation that is already in place everywhere except the UK?
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
You mean all those atheists, agnostics, polytheists, deists, (non-Chalcedonian or non-Nicene) Christians, pluralists, non-realists, realists, surrealists, quasi-hindus and all other non-CofE persons are incapable of working this out without a government list of approved ways of god-bothering?
I'm sure we do, but all in our own individual ways. While the tiny minority of you attached to traditional Christianities sit in government and officiate at state occasions as if yours was the national religion. It doesn't seem quite right.
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Do you really think that it would be no more difficult to put together a system that no-one but yourself can see any value in (and which you yourself concede is 'bizarre'), than it would be to go through a process that a great deal of countries have been through already, to implement a situation that is already in place everywhere except the UK?
I haven't conceded that what I'm thinking of is bizarre at all. And yes, I doubt if it would be more difficult. If you're going to change a system, might as well put some effort into considering what the new should look like, what would be most useful, before ditching the old.
It's change itself that people tend to react most against, not necessarily what the new happens to look like.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm sure we do, but all in our own individual ways. While the tiny minority of you attached to traditional Christianities sit in government and officiate at state occasions as if yours was the national religion. It doesn't seem quite right.
Of course it doesn't, which is why I've spent quite a lot of my time on the Ship with the sig "Disestablish Now".
What you seem to be suggesting is getting rid of a theologically untenable (and historically divisive) political arrangement and replacing it with a section inside ODPM which seems to serve no function.
[smacks forehead in realisation]
Oh, I see, it's something for John Prescott to do. Right. I get it now.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Another interesting thread falls foul of the entropic influence of Dave's 'this is how the church should be-ism'. Sorry Dave but why does every thread have to be about how rubbish real Christianity is?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I've not heard anyone else expressing interest in this kind of thing either. But then I've not seen the possibility raised anywhere at all. I wonder what would happen if it was.
Well, now you know. Whatever the reaction of the real world would be like, it's sure to be a lot less friendly than what you get on SoF. If your idea doesn't fly here, then it won't fly anywhere. The verdict is in, your idea is an ostrich.
--------------------
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:
Well, now you know. Whatever the reaction of the real world would be like, it's sure to be a lot less friendly than what you get on SoF. If your idea doesn't fly here, then it won't fly anywhere.
Hah. You think the tiny reaction on this thread is representative of anything? (quite apart from the numpty-head stuff - I don't what that is).
The fact that some people here jump to condemn even the sketchy ideas I've posted makes it seem all the more worthwhile to talk about this kind of thing. I don't think any of us know what the Church of England will look like a few years down the road. But sitting around tight-lipped waiting for change to roll over us doesn't seen a very creative or faithful line to take.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
No, much better to just sit at a computer screen posting screeds of disconnected and contradictory jibberish for the consumption of the other fantasists, sorry shipmates (myself included), to laugh at. That'll show 'em, Dave, that'll show 'em. By the way, you're not crusading are you?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
No, much better to just sit at a computer screen posting screeds of disconnected and contradictory jibberish for the consumption of the other fantasists, sorry shipmates (myself included), to laugh at. That'll show 'em, Dave, that'll show 'em. By the way, you're not crusading are you?
Dave Marshall and m.t-tomb - if you want to get personal with each other do so in Hell. We don't like name mangling of the "numpty-head" variety either.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The fact that some people here jump to condemn even the sketchy ideas I've posted makes it seem all the more worthwhile to talk about this kind of thing. I don't think any of us know what the Church of England will look like a few years down the road. But sitting around tight-lipped waiting for change to roll over us doesn't seen a very creative or faithful line to take.
Dave, nobody's condemning your ideas here. (Certainly not compared to the kind of reception I've seen you getting on previous Hell threads). There is an important difference between saying:
"How dare you suggest such a thing, you heretic?"
and
"Nah, why on earth would anyone be interested in doing such a thing, when there are much more workable and equally fair and impartial alternatives?"
And I say this as someone who is not himself a member of the existing Church of England, so I have no vested interest in preserving the status quo - like Dyfrig, I believe it should disestablish.
[Any chance anyone still has anything to say about David Hart and his inter-faith ideas?]
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
"Nah, why on earth would anyone be interested in doing such a thing, when there are much more workable and equally fair and impartial alternatives?"
Only if they could see the possibility that the end result would be more by some measure than either the status quo or full disestablishment.
What I'm thinking of is disestablisment really, but retaining the national ChurchOfEngland concept for something new. Perhaps that's getting confused with my assumption that with any kind of disestablishment the Church is going to split. I can't imagine some factions seeing any value in retaining a single identify if it's not the national church. So there might be the Affirming Catholic Church in England, the Evangelical Anglican Church, and so on, each "in communion" with whatever international group matched their theology.
But who gets what in terms of buildings and other assets? What becomes of the parish system? It seems you and dyfrig want to go the full privatisation route. I can't help thinking that would be like John Major's privatisation of the national rail network, an ideological imposition that was not in fact a desirable long-term solution.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I can't imagine some factions seeing any value in retaining a single identify if it's not the national church.
I would prefer the Anglican church to retain a single identity despite not being the national church.
I have no idea how many other Anglicans feel like that - I would hope the majority. I doubt that it matters to many anglicans attending church that it is the national church - so I assume they belong through conviction, not for any advantage being a member of a national church might have.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But who gets what in terms of buildings and other assets? What becomes of the parish system? It seems you and dyfrig want to go the full privatisation route. I can't help thinking that would be like John Major's privatisation of the national rail network, an ideological imposition that was not in fact a desirable long-term solution.
I don't really get your analogy. I simply think the Church of England should go the same route that the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales went (I gather that the Church of Scotland is a bit more subtle - perhaps others can advise): they continue to exist as a Christian denomination like any other, continuing to own whatever property they want to own, but enjoying no legal status or privelege over any other religion or Christian denomination.
And I sincerely doubt that it's establishment which holds the Church of England together currently. I think that the factions you refer to would be no more or less likely to leave than if they lived in Ireland, America, Australia, or wherever else. It's loyalty to the Anglican project that seems to keep them together, rather than being part of the national church. (Except maybe for some middle of the road types who aren't really bothered about getting themselves into a 'faction').
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What I'm thinking of is disestablisment really, but retaining the national ChurchOfEngland concept for something new.
Yeee-eee, but-
What. Would. Be. The. Point?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christianity has been and must be a fundamentally missionary religion. It's our duty to bring the fullness of Truth about God which we have already received to all people of the world lacking it. It's their duty to receive it joyfully and adopt their ways accordingly.
Ah yes, the missionary position... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Is that double-entendre sufficient to make the point that there's a distinction to be made between spreading the gospel and spreading our own cultural ways of relating to that gospel ?
quote:
It's nothing less than God's primary interaction with the world and all of humanity.
I tend to agree that anyone who doesn't see the life and resurrection of Jesus as being in some sense primary has probably strayed outside the bounds of Christian thought.
But your brand of unreflective cultural imperialism seems to go beyond primacy to deny any activity of God outside the historic Christian tradition, or any merely accidental human elements within it.
I see nothing wrong with according to Hindu holy men, for example, the same respect due to a Christian saint.
quote:
You may find it scandalous that this means that Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition are normative. But that's just the way it is.
No - the early church clearly decided that Jewish religious tradition (circumcision, dietary laws etc) should not be considered normative. A commitment to Christ - and not to the culture that he lived in - is enough.
quote:
others ever since had to align their own culture with this, which has generally meant abandoning large chunks of the old
Abandon that which is incompatible with the gospel (customs such as burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre) - yes. Abandon cultural elements which are simply different from the way we in the Christian-influenced west do things (customs such as mode of dress) - no.
Seems to me that by not making this distinction between the essence of Christianity and the cultural trappings, you treat the victims of your missionary endeavour as you would not wish to be treated...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
I sincerely doubt that it's establishment which holds the Church of England together currently. I think that the factions you refer to would be no more or less likely to leave than if they lived in Ireland, America, Australia, or wherever else. It's loyalty to the Anglican project that seems to keep them together, rather than being part of the national church. (Except maybe for some middle of the road types who aren't really bothered about getting themselves into a 'faction').
You may be right about loyalty to the Anglican project. Although I think there is a fault-line between catholic and 'pure gospel' loyalties that looks to me irreconcilable.
I am of course one of the middle of the road types. Maybe that's why I'd be sad to lose the faction-free underpinning of a ChurchOfEngland that in institutional terms is finally answerable to all of the people, rather than only the overtly recognisable traditional Christian ones.
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What. Would. Be. The. Point?
Something to do with faith in God being broader than the overt religion that gets expressed through 'church-going'? Something about an unarticulated faith that still seems to show up in polls as large percentages of the population, suggesting 'God' is important and therefore should have some representation in government?
In a strictly secular government, how would this dimension be reflected in national policy-making? I don't see the US separation of church and state being a model that has worked especially well.
I think in some hard-to-define way the Church of England still just about manages to do something like this. Whatever 'this' is, I hope it's not lost by default because no-one realises it existed until it's gone.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Abandon that which is incompatible with the gospel (customs such as burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre) - yes. Abandon cultural elements which are simply different from the way we in the Christian-influenced west do things (customs such as mode of dress) - no.
Seems to me that by not making this distinction between the essence of Christianity and the cultural trappings, you treat the victims of your missionary endeavour as you would not wish to be treated...
I don't think, though, that consecrating idols can really be considered a cultural trapping. It's rather closer to the burning widows end of the spectrum than the liturgy in Indian languages wearing vestments of an Indian style end.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
I think that if now-Ananda-formerly-David-Hart has decided that he is a Hindu, then that puts a somewhat different spin on things.
He says he is a Hindu - ok. He's entitled to his ideas and opinions on faith same as anyone. Fine.
However, I would presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is something in the...things they make you sign...to preclude you continuing as an Anglican priest when you have converted to another religion.
So, on the cultural or not point, I would say that consecrating idols falls more along the lines of burning widows than traditional dress, so I'm with Callan.
While of course accepting that some aspects of culture (such as dress) are not inherently sinful and are down to personal preference, and we shouldn't fight about those cos it would be silly,
if, as Rev. Hart believes, "all religions are cultural constructs" then this completely flies in the face of traditional Christianity. (as well as a couple of other major religions)
They, after all, tend to insist that they are the One True Way, regardless of culture.
It seems like Orwellian doublethink to me. 'Yes, I believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but God, in a literal sense, does not exist.'
If you believe that, then why follow any religion?
I guess that's the point. He doesn't believe in anything, so follows everything?
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't think, though, that consecrating idols can really be considered a cultural trapping. It's rather closer to the burning widows end of the spectrum than the liturgy in Indian languages wearing vestments of an Indian style end.
It's a spectrum ? I hope you don't mean that there's no clear boundary to the sin of idolatry, but that somewhere along the way it just sort of fades out into harmless acceptance of foreign customs ?
Seems to me that as soon as you use the word "idol" you're making the assumption that what's going on is something unChristian. (Which in the light of Rev Hart's apparent new claim to have converted to Hinduism, may be a correct assumption in this particular case).
But what I 'm trying to get at is what actually has to be going on in order for that description of "idol" to be an accurate one rather than a word used as an expression of cultural prejudice ?
If one Christian congregation has a painting of an elephant on the wall of the sanctuary, presumably you'd consider that a cultural trapping, like Indian-style vestments ?
Conversely, if another congregation include in their liturgy words like "most holy Ganesh, forgive us our sins against you" addressed to a statue, that might be considered beyond the pale ?
So what I'm asking is where you draw the line. Because drawing that line defines what is and is not idolatry (which I think we all agree is bad) and what is merely culture.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Russ, thanks to the unreflective cultural imperialism of St Boniface:
quote:
In Saxony, Boniface encountered a tribe worshipping a Norse deity in the form of a huge oak tree. Boniface walked up to the tree, removed his shirt, took up an axe, and without a word he hacked down the six foot wide wooden god. Boniface stood on the trunk, and asked, "How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he." The crowd's reaction was mixed, but some conversions were begun.
I do not have to worship oak trees anymore, as was the German custom of old. Lucky me! But St Boniface was not beyond using a bit of inculturation:
quote:
One tradition about Saint Boniface says that he used the customs of the locals to help convert them. There was a game in which they threw sticks called kegels at smaller sticks called heides. Boniface bought religion to the game, having the heides represent demons, and knocking them down showing purity of spirit.
(Both quotes from here.)
You are essentially asking why St Boniface hacked down the German oak, but used German stick games. From my perspective it's a really odd question to ask. I think you've lost all sense of hierarchy in worship. It's all on the same level for you, so if one can change one thing to accomodate people, one can change everything else as well...
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
It's a spectrum ? I hope you don't mean that there's no clear boundary to the sin of idolatry, but that somewhere along the way it just sort of fades out into harmless acceptance of foreign customs ?
I meant that there was a spectrum between desirable inculturation and undesirable. I hold to the old fashioned Christian prejudice that one should not worship anything other than the Trinity, but broadly speaking I think that Fr. Hart is more innocently employed venerating Ganesh than he is barbequing the next of kin at a funeral. I think that both are bad, but I have some sense of proportion.
quote:
Seems to me that as soon as you use the word "idol" you're making the assumption that what's going on is something unChristian. (Which in the light of Rev Hart's apparent new claim to have converted to Hinduism, may be a correct assumption in this particular case).
As the editors of 'The Hindu' appear to think that 'idol' is the appropriate term I don't think it's use is particularly loaded. My assumption that the act is unChristian derives from the fact that a statue of Ganesh represents Ganesh and not the Trinity and the belief that the only thing that Christians can legitimately worship is the Trinity.
quote:
But what I 'm trying to get at is what actually has to be going on in order for that description of "idol" to be an accurate one rather than a word used as an expression of cultural prejudice ?
If one Christian congregation has a painting of an elephant on the wall of the sanctuary, presumably you'd consider that a cultural trapping, like Indian-style vestments ?
Perobably. My own view is that decoration inside the sanctuary ought to be reserved for sacred objects. A crucifix would be fine. A secular picture less so. But I would not assume that the intent was idolatrous and I can think of instances where it might be appropriate e.g. a picture of Noah's Ark.
quote:
Conversely, if another congregation include in their liturgy words like "most holy Ganesh, forgive us our sins against you" addressed to a statue, that might be considered beyond the pale?
Yes. Not the Holy Trinity ergo Bad and Wrong.
quote:
So what I'm asking is where you draw the line. Because drawing that line defines what is and is not idolatry (which I think we all agree is bad) and what is merely culture.
I draw the line at worship, which is confined to the Holy Trinity, and veneration which is confined to the Saints. Anything not in one of those categories ought not to be worshipped or venerated.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As the editors of 'The Hindu' appear to think that 'idol' is the appropriate term I don't think it's use is particularly loaded.
I too have heard Hindus use the word 'idols' when explaining things to school parties which i have taken to mandirs.
I think they use the word as it is easily understood - but the proper word, 'murti' does not have the same connotation as 'idol'. It's a means of worship, not an object of worship.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Yes, but it is a means of worshipping something that is not the Holy Trinity. Worshipping Ganesh is idolatry whether or not one believes that a statue is a representation of him or actually is him.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
That depends how you define 'Holy Trinity' The hindu Tinity is Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, call me an old square, but I was thinking more along the lines of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and Their Insubstantial Friend the Holy Ghost. You know, revealed in Scripture, set forth in the Catholic Creeds, Historic Formularies of the C of E etcetera, etcetera.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ah yes, but which scripture (bhagavad gita?), whose creed (no beef), and what formulation of the CofE (enter Mr Marshall)?
[ 14. September 2006, 21:16: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Cor, I've scored a formulation... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
[ 14. September 2006, 23:27: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
This is quite interesting; the Pope's recent speech mentions that the rationality of God as logos militates against idolotry.
What intested me was this comment: quote:
Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria -- the Septuagint -- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: It is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of Revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
I think that there is something in this: God is the reason that idolotry is incompatible with God. There is no other higher reason (logos) for the rejection of idolotry than the self-revelation of divine reason in Jesus Christ. The Pope's Recent Speech
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ah yes, but which scripture (bhagavad gita?), whose creed (no beef), and what formulation of the CofE (enter Mr Marshall)?
I would have thought it fairly uncontraversial that Christians should stick with the scripture and creeds which are normative for Christians. (Not sure to what extent formulation of churches comes into it).
People who are followers of the Hindu faith may prefer to do otherwise.
To return to the (imperfect) metaphor used earlier in the thread: if my wife has asked me not to dress her up in clothes and makeup that make her look like a completely different woman when I make love to her, then the fact that other men choose to make love to women who do not look like my wife does not make it okay for me to do something she has asked me not to do.
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
(Incidentally, sorry for not replying to your last post, Dave. There are aspects of what you said that could be discussed further, but I wanted to let the thread get back to its original subject of discussion - for which thanks are due to Russ and Callan).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
Sorry for the triple post, but I've just worked out where the formulations of the CofE come into it. (Such an obvious mistake on my part, I couldn't not correct it...)
CofE priests ought to stick to whichever of the formulations they promised to stick to (rather than the formulations that Dave thinks they ought to stick to).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
I would have thought it fairly uncontraversial that Christians should stick with the scripture and creeds which are normative for Christians.
Quite - I was being a little sarcastic - given that we had two trinities to choose from.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
CofE priests ought to stick to whichever of the formulations they promised to stick to (rather than the formulations that Dave thinks they ought to stick to).
I only got involved here because people were making incorrect assumptions about the promises CofE priests make, as stated in Canon Law. It wasn't about what I happen think.
In the light of the new information that's emerged since this thread started, I imagine David Hart would be hard pressed to, for example, preside at a communion service. I guess technically if he doesn't take any Church of England services, he could continue being a priest. But I'd have thought conversion to Hinduism was a step too far.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
My apologies for misrepresenting you then, Dave - I was merely responding to mdijon's (apparently sarcastic) previous post.
[And I've just apologised with 3 successive posts in a row - I'm turning into a doormat ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ]
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
My assumption that the act is unChristian derives from the fact that a statue of Ganesh represents Ganesh and not the Trinity and the belief that the only thing that Christians can legitimately worship is the Trinity...
...I draw the line at worship, which is confined to the Holy Trinity, and veneration which is confined to the Saints. Anything not in one of those categories ought not to be worshipped or venerated.
I agree that the Trinity is the only proper object of worship, but worship in that sense is an interior attitude not an exterior act.
I cannot tell when I see a Catholic kneeling before a statue of Mary whether or not worship of Mary is going on, because worship is something interior to that person. I understand it to be charitable to give that person the benefit of the doubt rather than taking a Boniface-like axe to the statue.
Perhaps to you a statue of Ganesh represents a fictional rival deity. And there may be many Hindus to whom it represents a benevolent spirit that they believe does exist.
But I cannot rule out the possibility that some Christian is so certain in the non-existence of Ganesh that they can see such a statue and have it mean to them something about the one true God whose strength is symbolized by the strength of elephants.
I too would feel uncomfortable with symbols that have a non-Christian meaning for me being placed too close to the altar. I can see the attraction of iconoclasm. But that's to do with my personality and the protestant aspects of the culture in which I grew up; and I have to allow for others being different, having a different way of relating to God.
I can see that you can make a "weaker brethren" argument that those of us who are convinced that Ganesh does not exist should avoid doing anything to encourage those who think that he/she/it does. But I'd want to apply the same argument to avoiding anything that might encourage the superstitious amongst the Catholic flock...
What I won't have is the argument that it's OK for us in our culture to make symbols and use them in worship of God but it's evil if other cultures do it. Because such an argument is not Christianity, it's "not invented here" conservatism.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
